Plausibility, Determinism or a Sandbox

[SerialCereal]

It seems so me that a considerable number of topics on this forum either descend into, or derive from, a conversation on whether or not EU 4 will be either these three. I figure that I may as well create a thread where people can voice their opinions on an ideal "genre" of game, for them. I shall start off.

Firstly, I fear that the figures and modifiers are far too arbitrary far the extremely large role that they will be playing in the game. Here I am going to refer to the distasteful tech system in EU 3 where there are just random modifiers added in so that it makes the game unlikely, if not impossible, for one part of the world to be remotely successful, whilst it ensures the inevitable success of an other part of the world. It is in my opinion, a sure sign of a lazy game design, and it would disappoint me thoroughly should such similar systems be part of Europa Universalis 4.

Secondly, I fear that the game will be too sandbox, with very little modifiers that fail to represent how history would actually go down. For example, again referring to EU 3, since I obviously can't refer to EU 4, there is no mechanism that accurately represents the people. Granted, in a feudal monarchy, the peasantry and bourgeois held very little power but they have no representation anywhere in EU 3, from what I can remember. Come to think of it, is there really any modifier that represents the opinions of any sections of society?

Finally, as you have already guessed I am stout supporter of a plausible game design. One that does not thrust a fate upon me, but rather one that grants me the free will to create what ever I choose to create with it whilst such aims will be obscure and, hopefully, perhaps impossible.

I really would like to create a pole on this, but I am not sure if it is possible on this forum.

 

[Tornadoli]

Plausibility would be perfect - the modelling of historical mechanisms, rather than history itself. But I'd rather have sandbox than determinism. I don't want to play a game where history is predetermined, as many events, eg. the formation of Prussia, were very improbable to have happened at all.

 

[1alexey]

Another tech system tread?

Comon, there is not even a consencus over what exactly propelled Europe so far ahead other than rather vague ideas. Without that, extablishing the realistic frame at which the "other" part of the world could become as succesfull if not more, is kinda hard.

 

[SerialCereal]

Another tech system tread?

Comon, there is not even a consencus over what exactly propelled Europe so far ahead other than rather vague ideas. Without that, extablishing the realistic frame at which the "other" part of the world could become as succesfull if not more, is kinda hard.

Yes, it is blatantly another tech system thread.

l2read

 

[1alexey]

Yes, it is blatantly another tech system thread.

l2read

Firstly, I fear that the figures and modifiers are far too arbitrary far the extremely large role that they will be playing in the game. Here I am going to refer to the distasteful tech system in EU 3 where there are just random modifiers added in so that it makes the game unlikely, if not impossible, for one part of the world to be remotely successful, whilst it ensures the inevitable success of an other part of the world. It is in my opinion, a sure sign of a lazy game design, and it would disappoint me thoroughly should such similar systems be part of Europa Universalis 4.

Yes, it is about the tech system and that you do not like it.

What else should i read there?

 

[SerialCereal]

Yes, it is about the tech system and that you do not like it.

What else should i read there?

Do you really lack the intellect to see the point that I am trying to illustrate? There are at least two other examples that I could have used. That is the most convenient one because it is the one that has been discussed more than the others.

 

[Chamboozer]

Generally speaking, I think every person that plays this game wants it to be plausible. The difference lies in what plausibility really is. Some people consider it plausible for Austria to conquer and colonize its way to the border of China, and others don't. I'd guess that it splits along lines of historical knowledge - if X is something that is represented well in the game, and a person knows a lot about the history of X, then they will be satisfied and lean towards sandbox because they think the game is plausible, while if another person knows a lot about Y, and Y is not well represented, then they will lean toward determinism in an attempt to better represent Y in the game.

I lean more in the direction of determinism in the sense that I do not consider EUIII to be a very realistic game, and I think EUIV could do a lot to improve the realism - and thus the plausibility - without putting it on deterministic railroad tracks.

 

[Jia Xu]

The hard truth is that "plausibility" is a completely subjective standard on this board. Unless someone wants to do up a really cool math formula to calculate the objective probability of an event occurring, all you can do is make a non-empirical guess as to how "plausible" something is.

And what's with complaints about arbitrary modifiers I've seeing lately? Of course, they're arbitrary. What else could they be? Is there some objective standard for calculating modifiers in PI games that I'm not aware of? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. The developers place the value of modifiers at levels which make them comfortable that gameplay balance is being preserved using their own personal judgments.

 

[SerialCereal]

And what's with complaints about arbitrary modifiers I've seeing lately? Of course, they're arbitrary. What else could they be? Is there some objective standard for calculating modifiers in PI games that I'm not aware of? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. The developers place the value of modifiers at levels which make them comfortable that gameplay balance is being preserved using their own personal judgments.

The best way I have seen an arbitrary modifier described is as "the enforced hand of god" i.e. they just exist, and they are not explained why they are there, they just are. In the example that I used, I would like to set all tech rates to 100% but then introduce perhaps some sort of cultural modifier that gives say -25% to tech rate, or something that leads to a similar effect. This way you can work out how to lose the modifiers and advance your civilization.

 

[Don_Quigleone]

For what it's worth, Magna Mundi (the Mod) did a pretty good job of keeping things "plausible". I had some gripes with it though, some of it's "solutions" were a bit heavy handed.

It did have a good system for modernisation though.

But I think the technology system in EUIII (invest money until you get a tech up) is fundamentally flawed. There was also all kinds of other systems all geared at simulating the same thing. As I see it we split "technology" into the following:

1. Art and Music. Mainly produces prestige, other states will like you more.
2. Philosophy & Abstract Science, Produces better forms of government, and late in the game benefits to production (Science was not practically useful until the industrial revolution).
3. Military Technology: Cannon, guns, steel, armour. Better troops.
4. Military Tactics and tradition: Better organisation of troops, better leaders.
5. Naval technology and navigation: Bigger and Better Boats, that can travel farther with less attrition.
6. Architecture and building: Better (larger?) buildings, better fortresses.
7. Commerce and Business: Capitalism Ho! Banking, Merchants etc.

None of these were directly invested in, in the conventional sense (except in the forms of Universities). Many of these things were just "discovered" by random individuals, largely depended on the intellectual atmosphere. Likewise, ideas got transferred from one place to another.

 

[paradox97]

You all seem to forget that the Renaissance was original brought about by a change in people's minds, technology is an affect of the Renaissance, not the cause.

 

[Plushie]

The relationship between economy, culture, and technology is like a group dance of equal partners: The actions of one can't really be said to be the cause of the others so much as they all influence and effect each other's actions in a harmonious whirlwind of motion.

I don't think a Paradox game will ever really get 'plausability' down until they make the mythical Hearts of Crusader Kings of Victoria Universalis. All they can do until then is 'fun'. They've done a pretty good job of that so far -- no nation on any continent in EU3 is utterly unplayable, dedicated writAARs here have proven that. Eurocentric design or not, if someone can run a world conquest as the Cherokee and enjoy themselves while doing it Paradox is on the right path.

I would like a little more depth, a little more complexity, a little more flexibility in EU4 than EU3 had. I don't want revolutionary changes meant to lunge towards some goal of plausibility or deterministic outcomes, I want a fun game that lets me believe what is happening around me while still giving me some room to strike out on my own.

It's about balance, folks.

 

[unmerged(200028)]

The relationship between economy, culture, and technology is like a group dance of equal partners: The actions of one can't really be said to be the cause of the others so much as they all influence and effect each other's actions in a harmonious whirlwind of motion.

I don't think a Paradox game will ever really get 'plausability' down until they make the mythical Hearts of Crusader Kings of Victoria Universalis. All they can do until then is 'fun'. They've done a pretty good job of that so far -- no nation on any continent in EU3 is utterly unplayable, dedicated writAARs here have proven that. Eurocentric design or not, if someone can run a world conquest as the Cherokee and enjoy themselves while doing it Paradox is on the right path.

I would like a little more depth, a little more complexity, a little more flexibility in EU4 than EU3 had. I don't want revolutionary changes meant to lunge towards some goal of plausibility or deterministic outcomes, I want a fun game that lets me believe what is happening around me while still giving me some room to strike out on my own.

It's about balance, folks.

+1

They could not possibly model the random occurances that actuated events in real history. A reworking of basic mechanics, staying true to the nature of Europa Universalis, as all that is needed IMHO. They could rework systems to make them more flexible, without replacing them or destroying the game's aim.

 

[WeissRaben]

As much as I DO think that CK2 tech system is plausible, I do not like it. And I do not like it because, in EU3, would mean putting an ENORMOUSLY important facet of the age completely out of the player's hands. Which means LESS to do for the players. Kind of like saying "Hey, let's give factory building to the capis only!" in V2.

 

[NewbieOne]

Plausibility all the way and without caving in to sandbox dreams. Turning a popular OPM into a huge blob is supposed to be hard, that's the entire point of it. I would prefer no "gameplay"/marketing motivated buffs or fantasy stuff. Determinism can result in lack of plausibility. For example, the absence of leaders past Constantine XI and Giustiniani (EU2 style) for BYZ is far less plausible than BYZ surviving. Because if BYZ had survived, it obviously would have had some leaders. This is a pitfall of the deterministic approach. (While sandbox approach could perhaps lead to temptations of artificially increasing the viability of certain nations.) I don't see a necessary contradiction between plausibility and sandbox. I suppose streamlining AI behaviour via behaviour scripts would be a good way to avoid sandbox resulting in non-human-like developments. Human players could be streamlined a bit by cores, existing CBs, existing alliances and marriages, missions, as well as reasonable constraints (sensible and proportional requirements for whatever the player is actually capable of doing, including removal of the capability if the capability itself would be completely implausible).