Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Paradox : Back to the old philosophy ?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Europa Universalis IV 82619 EUIV: Bug Reports 1254 EUIV: Suggestions 19354 EUIV: Technical Support 6862 EUIV: FAQ & Strategy Guides 241 EUIV: AAR's, Let's Plays, and Fan Fiction EU IV: Alternate History Short Story Contest Contr 29
Show only dev responses
Magean said:
So, EU4 has been announced and Paradox said (Strategy Informer interview) that they'll focus more on historical material. Thus, EU4 will feature thousands of historical events and monarchs...

How does the Old Guard feel ? Do you think the sandbox era is coming to an end ?
Click to expand...
Given that the "sandbox era", as you so quaintly name it, is considerable MORE "historical" in every way that matters than the deterministic event system that preceded it in EU2, no, I do not read that into Paradox' announcements at all.

This is the interpretation of "historical" as meaning: Give it a historical setup at start and let, to the best approximation given the level of abstraction, historical factors affect gameplay afterwards.

I read it as "even more context-sensitive random events that mimic events from our recorded history" and "more complex context-sensitive event chains" and "more context-sensitive country-specific flavour events". I read it as "more historical ways of handling country relations". There are many ways to read it, but there's no way I can read it that suggests ending the "sandbox era".

Which strongly suggests that one can read just about everything one wants into the statement, depending on what one considers to be historical. :)
 
It's not the end of the sandbox era by far. The events will be heavily context senstive so the odds are you won't see all of them in one game if you play a country. They are more there to add extra flavour than railraoding.
 
King said:
It's not the end of the sandbox era by far. The events will be heavily context senstive so the odds are you won't see all of them in one game if you play a country. They are more there to add extra flavour than railraoding.
Click to expand...
This is perfect. I remember going from AGCEEP (EU2 mod) to EU3. The game suddenly felt very flat and uniform. I fully understood the move away from historical determinism, since a lot of the mods (AGCEEP especially) had gone overboard on railroaded events. However it did go to far since a lot of flavor disappeared in the process. So I'm very happy about seeing the return of historical events (when context allows). Ohh... and if you want help researching and coding events, I'm more than willing to lend a hand. ;)
 
I played EU2 and Vic1 and enjoyed both games. However in both of these games inevitably a moment would come where I would grow very tired of the silly way in which events and scenario-defined "enemy/friend" lists defined how a campaign would evolve.

A world where you totally dismembered Austria, yet in 1520 they suddenly inherit Bohemia out of the blue and in 1540 or so Hungary, just made no sense to me any more. Neither did Vic1's (and the VIP mod's) way of driving the 19th century forward... if you prevented the formation of Germany then those spots in Africa where the Germans colonized (Namibia, Tanzania, Cameroon) would remain uncolonized forever. LOL.

So I actually don't like this announcement. EU3 was sandbox because when they developed it the time (technology+experience) was ripe for it - EU3 campaigns make a hundred times more "sense" than any EU2 campaign. I don't understand the reason for making a step back. CK2 had Wikipedia links for rulers who represented real characters, that was enough to satisfy any "historic" curiosity I might have, within the game. I don't need "flavor" events that feel like history lessons (HoI3 battle events - welcome to WW2 history class??), I can look stuff up on Wikipedia or elsewhere just fine if it interests me.
 
I take as an attempt to balance gameplay, I remember when EU3 was released and every country felt the same, through patches and DLCs the full sandbox approach was toned down or complemented with additional content, and it was for the better

Suspension of disbelief is important even in a grand strategy game, it is no fun to play "England" or "France" and feel the only difference is red or blue provinces
 
Pablius said:
I take as an attempt to balance gameplay, I remember when EU3 was released and every country felt the same, through patches and DLCs the full sandbox approach was toned down or complemented with additional content, and it was for the better

Suspension of disbelief is important even in a grand strategy game, it is no fun to play "England" or "France" and feel the only difference is red or blue provinces
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree. EUII really evoked the feeling of that period, dated graphics and all. I could never quite get in to EUIII despite all the money I threw at it (that usually works doesn't it?) but CK2 was spot on. Historical context and immersion is everything.
 
As a member of the Old-ish Guard, I cannot say I remember those days of EUII fondly (don't get me wrong, I loved EUII); there was just something wrong when you'd spend decades as Bavaria pounding away at Austria, just about to annex Wien... when suddenly this impotent OPM suddenly inherits a Burgundy that managed to blob up most of France. I can recall dropping the F-bomb more than once because of those things. EUIII (and now MEIOU) is exactly what I wanted from EUII all along. If I wanted to re-inact history I'd read a history book and use funny voices for the different characters.
 
Without unique events countries will most likely be bland, as the game mechanics has to work for the whole world, so it's rather generic. Therefore, I think that it's ok if flavour is added via events, especially if they are context-sensitive. I wouldn't like to get back to the days when events dictated gameplay, though. I think that Sanbox vs Historical and Deterministic vs Non-deterministic debates will never end, because whatever decision the devs make, it will always be controversial to many people, as the community is divided on the issue. There is also no one right answer here, as it's the matter of preference. My own choice would be a plausible sandbox game, i.e. a game that never unfolds the same way, but gives plausible results, as Bavarian WC is not sth that I enjoy and I like to be challenged right to the very end.
 
Last edited:
Eu2 is for me one of the best games ever made, perhaps the best, I just couldn't bring myself to like subsequent Paradox games the same way I loved Eu2. The map is beautiful and there's nothing wrong with the graphics despite all the years that have passed. The events kept the unfolding of history somewhat in check, and it really did feel as if you partook in the grand unfolding of history. I never did get that feeling from the other games I've tried to play a bit, like someone said, basically the difference between France and England is the colours. Hard to blame Paradox for catering to larger markets, but if this is something of a return to their roots this is one fan who'll happily return as a buyer of their games. I miss the old Paradox, I really do.
 
PatMaster said:
Eu2 is for me one of the best games ever made, perhaps the best, I just couldn't bring myself to like subsequent Paradox games the same way I loved Eu2. The map is beautiful and there's nothing wrong with the graphics despite all the years that have passed. The events kept the unfolding of history somewhat in check, and it really did feel as if you partook in the grand unfolding of history. I never did get that feeling from the other games I've tried to play a bit, like someone said, basically the difference between France and England is the colours. Hard to blame Paradox for catering to larger markets, but if this is something of a return to their roots this is one fan who'll happily return as a buyer of their games. I miss the old Paradox, I really do.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't get too carried away with that thought. Paradox has said over and over that they're not going back to the design philosophy of EU2. Based on comments they're made, they don't seem to view it very fondly internally, and they've even said in this thread that EUIV will not bring back the "railroading" style of EU2. Based on what we know, I expect EUIV will be much more like 3 than 2, just with more events and flavor.
 
For me personally, the ideal game follows history as closely as possible, while still allowing me, the player, freedom to do whatever I want. That is to say, I would like the world around me to unfold as it did historically, but my own actions, while still influenced by historical events, are up to me. I liked some of the more dynamic features in EUIII, but at the end of the day, the historical aspect is what made EUII such a great game for me, that is completely absent in EUIII. I felt like my decisions mattered more when I was changing something historical. Winning the 100 years war, taking out Spain early, kicking the Ottomans out of Europe, were all fun things to do as a player because it felt like I was accomplishing something unique, because of the domino effect that it would cause. You could look at the map and know that you caused radical changes. In EUIII everything just goes crazy as soon as you unpause the game. I had some fun playing EUIII multiplayer, but as far as single player goes, for me, EUIII has nothing on EUII.
 
Yeah, deterministic is not nice. My first game in AGCEEP as Spain, I had a massive empire even greater than historically, when suddenly I get a Spanish War of Sucession event and lost a bunch of territories in Europe. Obviously I ragequit.

Generalized missions would be better, just lead the AI in towards certain long-term objectives (instead of the inconsequential and short-term missions in EU3).

Also I think the CK2 map is the best map Paradox has made. The best 2D map is Darkest Hour's.
 
I really do not know what the issue is, because as soon as a player makes a decision on a event, or DOWs someone, he/she changes the historical aspect of the game for his neighbours and other nations. even a simple non-historical alliance can effect this.
So, the game might start historical, but will become more random as decades and centuries pass.
 
Sandbox vs. deterministic has always been a false dichotomy. I mean, we can all agree that the developers (and many players) want a game that covers the early modern period with all the main features of that era, so that each century is broadly recognizable.

That has always meant determinism. For instance, you can't have a recognizable 18th century world without the reformation and wars of religion. I've never seen an EU3 game without the reformation.

The change between EU2 and EU3 was much more about design philosophy to avoid hard-scripted events forcing game-destroying results like OPM Bavaria inheriting Burgundy. I personally really missed the Dutch revolt, St. Bartholomew's massacre, and all of that. But I totally see how the EU3 approach has the potential to be better in the long run, even if it didn't always turn out in ways I liked. But you can just look at SRI for instance for how you can use EU3's 'sandboxy' system for very historical gameplay.

I love what I hear about EU4's events, kings, and historical personalities. I hope it'll give more historical flavour, and allow me to play more historical games if I so choose. I don't think it represents anything bigger than that. Evolution, not revolution.
 
Tornadoli said:
I wrote this before, but I'd like Paradox games to model historical mechanisms, not history.
Click to expand...

This.

History is full of what-if's. Events that could so easily have just gone the other way, which would change everything (Charlemagne at Poitou, what if Charles V had died young, what if Corsica was kept by Genoa, preventing a French Bonaparte, etc...)

Yet history is also full of "this was bound to happen". The mechanism of printing was invented almost simultaneously at three different places in Europe. Reformation sprung up at different places in the 16th century, revolutions at the end of the 18th century were almost inevitable, not only in France.

My ideal EU-game would be a game where the what-if's could actually turn out different, with all their consquences, but the mechanisms in the game would support those things that were bound to happen anyway to actually happen.

EU3 with all its expansions did a good job on this. There was a mechanism for the QftNW, but anyone could do it. There was a mechanism for Charles V-like inheritances, but any country could have it. There was a mechanism for revolutions in the latter part of the 18th century, but anyone could have it. Scotland could form UK, and Gelre could form Netherlands. Even Portugal could form Spain if they were able to defeat Castille. The mechanism for the strength and weaknesses of the HRE and all its plotting was there as well.

Considering what I've seen from the dev's so far, it seems Paradox wants to continue on the same path. Allow for all those random chances, and make sure the mechanism themselves support a broader historical "path".
 
Count me among the determinists. In theory, apart from the game, I am 95% on the other side. But for what it does for the game, in my experience, the determinist approach of AGCEEP (and even more, EP) in EUII, wins hands down. You get, in SP, at least a century more of genuinely challenging play. Any game which still has me sweating in 1680 (from the GC start) is a mile above EUIII, at least in that respect. Nowadays, even with max roleplaying strategy, by 1550 at the very latest, you've won, and cannot go down.

So until I see evidence that the "sandbox" approach can build in more challenge, I'm against it.

And for the record, MP is not an option for me, and while I think MM might have given me what I want, the execution was not to my liking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back