The issue with tiny, never heard of countries taking over a region can simply be mitigated by letting them "form" a known kingdom that used to exist there or makes sense. If karamids (or whatever their name was) too over the ottomans simply let them form the sultanate of rum just with their dynasty. EUIV already solved that
That's a great point, I would like more formables that are recognizable but not just historical names ideally. Rum is a perfect one Novgorod > Russia isn't ideal - maybe some other name with the same map colour and similar flag to Russia would work well?
@@CountCristo the thing about Russia is that it formed as a claim of legitimacy for kings of Moscow, who sought to create a new nation so as they would gain independence from tatars and from the Catholic Church, a republic of Novgorod would probably play history much differently.
I think it's a little deeper than simply the brand/name recognition of the country. Most assuredly having countries and cultures you know of rise or fall from power is interesting because of that name recognition, but I would suggest that that is a secondary order effect. The key point is really the "narrative" weight for lack of a better term. As an example in Stellaris you encounter a myriad of mostly dynamic nations, but each has a clear set of government types and civics you can use to understand them. E.g Oh those Megacorps/Fanatic Purifiers or Machine democracies, i can picture that. In EU4 and similar titles most of the nations in Anatolia are Beylik monarchies, with no real differentiation of culture, government institutions or events / interactions. If Saruhan or similar rises to power, bar their colour they dont have much in the way of differences, events or interactions we can use to create a narratively distinct identify in our minds. So the fallback is known cultures and their nations. The culture system of CK3 has some interesting ideas on that, but it really comes down to the events and story we learn about them. If Saruhan rose to power, and had developed a unique institution or type of government that separated them from Ottomans (and we could learn about it in some way) they would be more compelling. Obviously this comes up against game limitations, but thinking on the most compelling nations/cultures of fantasy or scifi media, they dont have the built in historical brand recognition, but some unique cultural or social institution which the characters interact with for good or worse. In this case maybe the situation system, if dynamically implemented could work to achieve that. Would be cool to see a united Anatolia in one run, or an HRE style mishmash of small nations in the same region united under an international org, just dependent on a few different events or wars etc.
I think people lean towards wanting historical railroading is because they simple don't trust paradox can get an accurate history simulator. They think, and I do, that thinks will go wrong so the simulator should have some nudging to make historical events more likely. Everyone would love a perfect historical simulator that you can then build a game on top of, but given paradox can't do that, the nudging is a necessary evil.
1. Quantum mechanics do not conclusive explain whether the universe is deterministic or not. We don't know. ... luckily this is a game so we can do what's fun, and fun is history that changes. 2. One problem with actual history is that while a lot of stuff makes a lot of sense (like the US growing very powerful) a lot of historical stuff does not; it wasn't "likely". So the moment you want this to happen anyway you got to fudge the numbers in some way because otherwise you'd never see it ingame. And then it really comes down to personal taste and such; how often do you want x, y, z to happen in a game ... 3. A problem I personally have with PDS "alt history" is that often I don't know what the heck caused anything. If we go back to above points, unlikely events happened in reality, but I can go to wikipedia and get a reasonable explanation why on Earth Scotland thought it'd be a great idea to bankrupt itself on a colonial adventure. If the same thing happens in the game, and I'm playing let's say Japan, I don't even notice, and once I do, all I see is that the AI did something insanely stupid for apparently no reason. That's why I personally feel that the Vicky2 newspaper feature, basic as it was, is something that future PDS games really, really should develop further. If I read an article "Turkish Beyliks united after Beylik of Isfendiyar defeats rivals" or something then once I interact with that nation I immediately go from "who on earth is this and why on earth do they have an empire there..." to "ooooh, they are THOSE dudes ..."
we want historical authenticity, not accuracy in your first example it makes the game better if the Ottos become a superpower. A measure of how good the AI is will be if it can achieve historical benchmarks and often this provides the player with some gameplay. A huge problem with unmodded EU4 is the AI sits there passively, doesnt conquer, doesnt grow, doesnt challenge the player
Personally, I never liked or understood arguments for historical accuracy. On the one hand, I do like historical features, such as the Burgundian Inheritance and the like, but only so much as they allow for variety. In fact the inheritance is a good example here, since it can go in several ways and end in any number of outcomes, each of which change the balance of power in Europe dramatically. That's about as far as I want any sense of accuracy to go, since at the end of the day it's a game. I don't want the same world every time, with the same nations in the same places with the same allies. Gentle nudges in certain directions, which at the end of the day can realistically go anywhere, is what I feel would be best.
@@CountCristo Personally I wouldn't even mind the Ottomans winning more often than not. But for me personally, I literally haven't had a single game yet where they haven't completely dominated the region. (Where I haven't been involved) That's definitely a bad thing. And to the whole "historical accuracy" debate, in a game like this I feel it's more important to care about "historical authenticity". For instance, a communist revolution happening in a Russia that has become a constitutional monarcy makes absolutely no sense. But in happening in another country with a similar situation to Russia during the 1910s, sure. Based on your comment about the revolution in France I think you agree with this. Paradox should give us authenticity, not necessarily accuracy.
@@dragdritt to be fair a communist revolution did happen in Russia after it became a constitutional monarchy But yes I agree completely it’s the authenticity and plausibility that matters
1. I don't believe in pure determinism, although i have to admit, that it seems like it a valid possibility. Even if we are unable to predict something (and even fundamentally, not just due to constraints of our technology) it doesn't automatically mean that results might be different. (sorry for simulation theory, but it's probably easiest to explain this way) Hypothetical simulated character observing coin flips might not be able to predict outcome of pseudorandom generation, as he has no access to it, but if we rewind everything, and simulate his world again, outcome will be the same. 2. I don't mind unknown tag gaining superpower status as long as it is: a) quite rare - big powers are definitely more likely to get bigger and dominate region then small ones b) believable - OPM beating Emperor is pretty much impossible, so raise to power has to be somewhat gradual.
The thing is the ottomans becoming a superpower is an example of an unknown tag gaining super power status What I don't want is exactly that - "unlikely" rises to power that historically happened being all but inevitable.
@@CountCristoexactly in my mind historical momentum is neat but it shouldn't be historical railroads. Things like Ottomans rising to power could be modelled with modifiers/setup/etc without forcing the events to happen.
I think people do want to see a strong Ottoman often in EU4, because they are in the most advantageous position in 1444. If they collapsed 80% of the time, it would be too random. I personally would like to see Hungary, Austria-Hungary or Mamluks prevail more often than they do, because they're also in strong start positions. In EU5, Otto-man is not in as strong a position, & another Baylek could much more feasibly be the one to consolidate power - in EU4 they'd become "Rum" so we still had a real world concept of who they are, & I'd want the same to be true in EU5. I definitely don't want the Ottoman dominating often, even happening a third of the time seems to railroad our history, not simulate a history in game. As a player, even if you are playing as Brunswick, you do have an affect on the Bosporus, by pulling Poland, Austria, Hungary, France, Aragon, Venice & Muscovy in as your ally/rival of your ally, you change the balance of power, & their likelihood to interfere in the Balkans & Aegean, allowing eg Serbia & Bulgaria to not worry about their northern border, or denying them useful European regional power allies to help them rival a strong Romans or Beylik unifier. I'd like eg ruler personality, stability & length of reign & estate strength to be stronger influences than they seem to be in EU4. Long reigning conquerors often don't conquer, & diplomats rarely try to diplomatically unify with their erstwhile rival dynamically, only through railroading ie the Iberian Wedding, Burgundian inheritance. When referring to people liking a strong Muscovy or Ottomans, they may be referring partly to the success of mission systems in EU4 effectively railroading the narrative of development for major powers through dominating the AI's strategy, as opposed to the first mission system which was more dynamic, railroading AI less obviously, and disliked.
There needs to be a balance on the historical butterfly wings to create interesting scenarios but not so much to the point that it's just totally random always because at that point your suspension of disbelief is ruined. You'll quickly pick up on the fact that it's just always totally random after a few playthroughs. And to that end, especially in this period, battles need to feel more decisive and have more impact. The reason why Manzikert was so decisive, for example, had little to do with the casualties and more with the total destruction of Roman morale and their total humiliation. These watershed moments are important and they need to find a way for them to be visible to the player. If I look over in EU5 and see that the Ottomans had actually been crushed by the turn of the 15th century and that the Eastern Roman Empire is resurgent, I should be able to see why. (Maybe key moments? battles with the most warscore gain recorded? casuaties? etc.) I think that would also at least make it interesting if a country the player hasn't heard of somehow beats a big name country. At least in then the player can see why it happened in this version of the world instead of being something with totally no meaning.
I want a game where geography, demography and diplomacy matters (in that order). That's my vision for an historical game, I don't want a bland game where everyone can conquer the world and got the same opportunities (oh look, I unlocked a steam achievements with Ryuku and Theodoro). 100% agreeing with you, please "historical games" BE PLAUSIBLE !
That's why when I make mods for Paradox games I like to remove tags and dates. The perfect Paradox game for me would be completely procedural, events and decisions should be based on the data values of provinces, countries, and the diplomatic context, not on predetermined constants. I would go as far as arguing Civilization games should have "big temples" and "big arenas" and "big statues" as buildings instead of Parthenon, Coliseum, Colossus... Have you be able to design and build your own wonder procedurally with certain bonuses like in Imperator.
Big agree, I hope sometime in the future we get more of a world simulator, rather than a history simulator. Let big wars and such happen naturally. Im not wild about seeing the tinto talks discussing "situations" that are predeterministic, it feels like the world is being railroaded into certain things occuring, which then feels like the decisions and the big events of the world im playing in arent as impactful
I'm very glad you made this video. I think a very important but overlooked example in the EU4 timeline is the Spanish conquest of the Aztec and Inca empires. They were instrumental in Spain becoming a superpower from the massive amount of wealth obtained at almost 0 cost (only a few hundred Spanish men participated in both expedition, most of the work was done by native allies). However they both required the perfect timing and circumstances and tons of luck to achieve. For the Aztecs alone, dozens of factors were at play. It was meant to be a trade expedition, not full on invasion and was technically illegal (Cortes didn't receive permission for it from the Cuban governor, who later tried to capture and arrest him). The conquistadores were nearly defeated by Tlaxcala (Aztec rival state) early on before they made an alliance. Tlaxcala would convert to Christianity and later provide thousands of warriors (80,000-200,000) to fight the Aztecs. The Spanish were almost wiped out again in "La Noche Triste" when they were fighting in Tenochtitlan, barely escaping. On their march back to the coast, The Cuban governor sent a small force to arrest Cortes, but they ended up joining him for the second attack on Tenochtitlan. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_conquest_of_the_Aztec_Empire These are just a few of the reasons why it succeeded. If even one of them went differently, the conquest would've failed and the Aztec Empire (and the rest of Mexico) might have survived and remained unconquered by Europeans, while adopting their technologies through trade or stealing. Of course the Europeans brought disease, but I believe this is overstated, the initial outbreaks were more comparable to the Black Death (30-50% dying off). The 90% figure you hear about all the time was only in Mexico after many decades of Spanish rule, where 2 massive "Cocoliztli" epidemics occured in 1545 and 1576, killing many millions of people. Firstly Cocoliztli is thought to have been endemic to the Americas rather than being brought over. Secondly the Spanish forced most native people into towns called "reducciones", these were cramped and very dirty, where disease could easily and rapidly spread. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocoliztli_epidemics#/media/File:Acuna-Soto_EID-v8n4p360_Fig1.png The Inca empire likely also survives in this timeline because it took even greater luck and timing to pull off the conquest there, (Won't get into it cause this comment is long enough) The ramifications would be big, not just for Spain but the rest of Europe (Spain would not be able to afford their expensive wars in places like the Netherlands) and the world, the colonization of the Americas would look very different in this timeline. Even for China because their economy would not be flooded by New World silver, which caused massive inflation and ruined their former economic stance above Europe. The Ming may survive for longer due to this. And I'm only skimming the surface here... Who knows, maybe the industrial revolution never happens
I agree with your reasoning why Imperator failed, too many tiny random flavorless countries no one knows anything about. Also about the Turkish minors you talked about, I think if one of them becomes dominant they should form Rum (it may already work like that now). Basically the solution is add more formables for minor nations to make them more interesting
I definitely am not on B-line time, but I do think that from a game perspective, it is good to through some nudging, make some events at least somewhat likely to occur. Not just larger events, like the 30 years war or the French revolution, but also events that led to the creation of other nations that players are likely to recognize. Like Prussia or the Dutch republic. For example, the secession of the Dutch provinces from Spain is technically already modelled by EUIV even if we were to remove all the related events. Unrest leads to seperatists which can lead to a the secession of territory. However, in the simulation this is very unlikely to occur, and then suddenly you are short a pretty significant naval and colonial power from the time period EUIV covers. In that same vein, I don't mind the simulation being rigged in favor of some countries. To ensure that they become significant recognizable pawns in the game. However, I think the devs handle it better with the Dutch republic, which comes about as a significant nation in some games but not others, as opposed to how the Devs handle the rise of the Ottomans or Russia, which seem to come about every game as if their prominence was ordained by natural law. Then there is how "rigging" of the simulation can actually lead to more diverse and interesting outcomes. In Anatolia and the balkans the hamfisted nudging of the devs causes a heavy bias in favor of the Ottomans, and a lack of diversity in simulation outcomes for that region. However, in the HRE, nudging by events actually leads to a more diverse set of outcomes. Without hard-coded historical events the entire HRE would just end up in Austria's hands 90% of the time with the other 10% being Bohemia. I think diversity of simulation outcomes, with recognizable nations is a good goal to strive for in a game like EUIV. That keeps the game fresh, but also engaging.
One thing of note - given the distance element of control the Dutch rebellion would be almost certain in the simulation of eu5 from what we know so dar
@@CountCristo Neat, it seems like EUIV --> EUV is going to be a big leap. Still I would not mind more deterministic events in the game as long as it leads to famous faces joining the retinue, like Prussia or Sweden' s seemingly unlikely rise. Though the ideal game would of course have general systems that allows for each of these historical happenings to occur. Rigging events or bonuses can lead to more diverse simulations, as well as less diverse ones. Its' all about how the devs implement it.
This should entirely be a thing that the player can set. If the devs have to hard code certain events to happen, then it's not a very good simulator (by simulator I mean, simulator of how the political and world systems worked in the period, not historical simulation)
And what about a game that try to understand the mecanics of History to create a gameplay that can mimic it. So that the alternate History that can be created from it is plausible ? A game that propose gameplay of rise and fall of kingdoms and empires. A game where technology can rise, but also stagnate and fall with the viscicitude of states ? A game where big factions are not just stomping their neighbors, but can also have internal trouble and even collapse from it ?
People want a mixture of historically relatable events and dynamism depending on historical significance and how causal factors are simulated. This ties into a larger balancing act between simulation, historicity, and gameplay. Generally, I prefer major events to emerge naturally from player and AI action intersecting with background simulation. Still, if the simulation itself is shallow or non-existent I would rather things just happened historically than randomly or in an arbitrary fashion. Paradox has carved its niche by straddling this line because if they lean too far into either aspect they come up against stiff competition; Civilization games with their strong focus on game mechanics that result in tight strategic decision-making on a dynamic stage (almost) entirely shaped by player action; and a multitude of Slitherine games that lean heavily into deep historical simulation that get into the minutia of events already played out.
A good mix would be nice. Most often, events take place in a history mimicking manner, sometimes they don’t. Then by compounding, by midgame, you have a situation where some things are recognizable and familiar, and some things are new and interesting.
Hail Be To You Count Cristo. I Enjoyed Your Theory Of Photons Being Unpredictable And I Do Concur With This Line Of Thinking. However I Strongly Disagree With Your Opinion Which Is The Opinion Of Ottoman Invincibility And Germiyanid Inferiority. Bro That One Photon Could Have Gone A Different Way And We Could Have Had A Vidinian Empire. I'm All For Historical Accountability Man. If You Can't Larp. If You Can't Roleplay. Then You Shouldn't Be Playing Games Like Europa Universalis Four Or Europa Universalis Five Or Europa Universalis Six Or Europa Universalis Seven Or Europa Universalis Eight Or Europa Universalis Nine Or Europa Univeralis Ten Or Europa Universalis Eleven Or Europa Universalis Twelve And So On. I Hope You Get THe Point. Peace Be Upon Your Lands And Your Family And I Wish You A Prosperous Thursday.
I am of the opinion there should be as much historical railroading as possible. Seeing nonsensical things occur is not fun and takes me out of any form of immersion. Alt history is only fun when you have to work for it and is not the default state like it is in nearly every paradox game. I want to play an end game where the Napoleonic war happens and I fight against Napoleon. Organically that will never happen, so either railroad it into happening or give us multiple start dates. I am very much not a fan of the 1337 start being used for EU5. In my mind as a CK2 player very much a CK start date. I don't think that start date will lead to resembling anything remotely close to what age of exploration will look like and how the colonial world will shape place.
This is what annoys me about the Hearts of Iron players. They want historically accurate USA and everyone else. Yet if they would give the US their IRL industry and wealth, they would be able to steamroll the world in 1942 in the players hand, with their knowledge of the coming conflict. Also dealing with the great depression is not very entertaining to say the least, so implementing that would just turn people away from the US. And i think this is the same reason PDX decided to add in focus trees for small nations so they can become big players by 1939. Even if their IRL markets, resources and wealth would made it impossible to do so in such short timeframe. I dont get why are the mission trees giving away buffs, that makes small nations bonkers in Eu4 too. You can tripple you size in 20 years and the missions just solve your unrest issues with lowering autonomy or unrest, or whatever. And they speed up the game with free claims, cores, other bonuses for no reason. I get that some people don't like to play for long, but this shoudn't be the norm. I remember when WC was hard and you had to play till the very end. Now people do it in 100 years with goverment forms that should make it impossible to rule over vast amount of territory.
The issue with tiny, never heard of countries taking over a region can simply be mitigated by letting them "form" a known kingdom that used to exist there or makes sense. If karamids (or whatever their name was) too over the ottomans simply let them form the sultanate of rum just with their dynasty. EUIV already solved that
Or form the Turkish empire
That's a great point, I would like more formables that are recognizable but not just historical names ideally. Rum is a perfect one
Novgorod > Russia isn't ideal - maybe some other name with the same map colour and similar flag to Russia would work well?
@@CountCristo the thing about Russia is that it formed as a claim of legitimacy for kings of Moscow, who sought to create a new nation so as they would gain independence from tatars and from the Catholic Church, a republic of Novgorod would probably play history much differently.
@CountCristo the only realistic Russian contender is hyperborea, jk you could call it kievan rus or novgorodian rus whoever unites it.
@@CountCristo Russia is pretty natural since all of these states trace their origin to the Kievan Rus, including Novgorod
I think it's a little deeper than simply the brand/name recognition of the country. Most assuredly having countries and cultures you know of rise or fall from power is interesting because of that name recognition, but I would suggest that that is a secondary order effect. The key point is really the "narrative" weight for lack of a better term. As an example in Stellaris you encounter a myriad of mostly dynamic nations, but each has a clear set of government types and civics you can use to understand them. E.g Oh those Megacorps/Fanatic Purifiers or Machine democracies, i can picture that. In EU4 and similar titles most of the nations in Anatolia are Beylik monarchies, with no real differentiation of culture, government institutions or events / interactions. If Saruhan or similar rises to power, bar their colour they dont have much in the way of differences, events or interactions we can use to create a narratively distinct identify in our minds. So the fallback is known cultures and their nations. The culture system of CK3 has some interesting ideas on that, but it really comes down to the events and story we learn about them. If Saruhan rose to power, and had developed a unique institution or type of government that separated them from Ottomans (and we could learn about it in some way) they would be more compelling. Obviously this comes up against game limitations, but thinking on the most compelling nations/cultures of fantasy or scifi media, they dont have the built in historical brand recognition, but some unique cultural or social institution which the characters interact with for good or worse. In this case maybe the situation system, if dynamically implemented could work to achieve that. Would be cool to see a united Anatolia in one run, or an HRE style mishmash of small nations in the same region united under an international org, just dependent on a few different events or wars etc.
I think people lean towards wanting historical railroading is because they simple don't trust paradox can get an accurate history simulator. They think, and I do, that thinks will go wrong so the simulator should have some nudging to make historical events more likely. Everyone would love a perfect historical simulator that you can then build a game on top of, but given paradox can't do that, the nudging is a necessary evil.
That’s a fair angle
1. Quantum mechanics do not conclusive explain whether the universe is deterministic or not. We don't know. ... luckily this is a game so we can do what's fun, and fun is history that changes.
2. One problem with actual history is that while a lot of stuff makes a lot of sense (like the US growing very powerful) a lot of historical stuff does not; it wasn't "likely". So the moment you want this to happen anyway you got to fudge the numbers in some way because otherwise you'd never see it ingame. And then it really comes down to personal taste and such; how often do you want x, y, z to happen in a game ...
3. A problem I personally have with PDS "alt history" is that often I don't know what the heck caused anything. If we go back to above points, unlikely events happened in reality, but I can go to wikipedia and get a reasonable explanation why on Earth Scotland thought it'd be a great idea to bankrupt itself on a colonial adventure. If the same thing happens in the game, and I'm playing let's say Japan, I don't even notice, and once I do, all I see is that the AI did something insanely stupid for apparently no reason.
That's why I personally feel that the Vicky2 newspaper feature, basic as it was, is something that future PDS games really, really should develop further. If I read an article "Turkish Beyliks united after Beylik of Isfendiyar defeats rivals" or something then once I interact with that nation I immediately go from "who on earth is this and why on earth do they have an empire there..." to "ooooh, they are THOSE dudes ..."
I really like #3 in this comment.
The newspaper feature sounds cool!
we want historical authenticity, not accuracy
in your first example it makes the game better if the Ottos become a superpower. A measure of how good the AI is will be if it can achieve historical benchmarks and often this provides the player with some gameplay. A huge problem with unmodded EU4 is the AI sits there passively, doesnt conquer, doesnt grow, doesnt challenge the player
Personally, I never liked or understood arguments for historical accuracy. On the one hand, I do like historical features, such as the Burgundian Inheritance and the like, but only so much as they allow for variety. In fact the inheritance is a good example here, since it can go in several ways and end in any number of outcomes, each of which change the balance of power in Europe dramatically. That's about as far as I want any sense of accuracy to go, since at the end of the day it's a game. I don't want the same world every time, with the same nations in the same places with the same allies. Gentle nudges in certain directions, which at the end of the day can realistically go anywhere, is what I feel would be best.
Lots of people here talking in favour of nudging - I think that’s fair
@@CountCristo Personally I wouldn't even mind the Ottomans winning more often than not. But for me personally, I literally haven't had a single game yet where they haven't completely dominated the region. (Where I haven't been involved) That's definitely a bad thing.
And to the whole "historical accuracy" debate, in a game like this I feel it's more important to care about "historical authenticity".
For instance, a communist revolution happening in a Russia that has become a constitutional monarcy makes absolutely no sense. But in happening in another country with a similar situation to Russia during the 1910s, sure.
Based on your comment about the revolution in France I think you agree with this. Paradox should give us authenticity, not necessarily accuracy.
@@dragdritt to be fair a communist revolution did happen in Russia after it became a constitutional monarchy
But yes I agree completely it’s the authenticity and plausibility that matters
@CountCristo ah shit, lol. I should have just gone with "stable and nonoppressive" instead. 😅
1. I don't believe in pure determinism, although i have to admit, that it seems like it a valid possibility. Even if we are unable to predict something (and even fundamentally, not just due to constraints of our technology) it doesn't automatically mean that results might be different. (sorry for simulation theory, but it's probably easiest to explain this way) Hypothetical simulated character observing coin flips might not be able to predict outcome of pseudorandom generation, as he has no access to it, but if we rewind everything, and simulate his world again, outcome will be the same.
2. I don't mind unknown tag gaining superpower status as long as it is:
a) quite rare - big powers are definitely more likely to get bigger and dominate region then small ones
b) believable - OPM beating Emperor is pretty much impossible, so raise to power has to be somewhat gradual.
The thing is the ottomans becoming a superpower is an example of an unknown tag gaining super power status
What I don't want is exactly that - "unlikely" rises to power that historically happened being all but inevitable.
@@CountCristoexactly in my mind historical momentum is neat but it shouldn't be historical railroads. Things like Ottomans rising to power could be modelled with modifiers/setup/etc without forcing the events to happen.
I think people do want to see a strong Ottoman often in EU4, because they are in the most advantageous position in 1444. If they collapsed 80% of the time, it would be too random. I personally would like to see Hungary, Austria-Hungary or Mamluks prevail more often than they do, because they're also in strong start positions.
In EU5, Otto-man is not in as strong a position, & another Baylek could much more feasibly be the one to consolidate power - in EU4 they'd become "Rum" so we still had a real world concept of who they are, & I'd want the same to be true in EU5. I definitely don't want the Ottoman dominating often, even happening a third of the time seems to railroad our history, not simulate a history in game.
As a player, even if you are playing as Brunswick, you do have an affect on the Bosporus, by pulling Poland, Austria, Hungary, France, Aragon, Venice & Muscovy in as your ally/rival of your ally, you change the balance of power, & their likelihood to interfere in the Balkans & Aegean, allowing eg Serbia & Bulgaria to not worry about their northern border, or denying them useful European regional power allies to help them rival a strong Romans or Beylik unifier.
I'd like eg ruler personality, stability & length of reign & estate strength to be stronger influences than they seem to be in EU4. Long reigning conquerors often don't conquer, & diplomats rarely try to diplomatically unify with their erstwhile rival dynamically, only through railroading ie the Iberian Wedding, Burgundian inheritance.
When referring to people liking a strong Muscovy or Ottomans, they may be referring partly to the success of mission systems in EU4 effectively railroading the narrative of development for major powers through dominating the AI's strategy, as opposed to the first mission system which was more dynamic, railroading AI less obviously, and disliked.
Lots I agree with here, and yes I suspect mission trees will be a BIG part of how they do it
Please Do another MEIOU and Taxes Playthrough! love seeing you play this mod!
There needs to be a balance on the historical butterfly wings to create interesting scenarios but not so much to the point that it's just totally random always because at that point your suspension of disbelief is ruined. You'll quickly pick up on the fact that it's just always totally random after a few playthroughs.
And to that end, especially in this period, battles need to feel more decisive and have more impact. The reason why Manzikert was so decisive, for example, had little to do with the casualties and more with the total destruction of Roman morale and their total humiliation. These watershed moments are important and they need to find a way for them to be visible to the player. If I look over in EU5 and see that the Ottomans had actually been crushed by the turn of the 15th century and that the Eastern Roman Empire is resurgent, I should be able to see why. (Maybe key moments? battles with the most warscore gain recorded? casuaties? etc.)
I think that would also at least make it interesting if a country the player hasn't heard of somehow beats a big name country. At least in then the player can see why it happened in this version of the world instead of being something with totally no meaning.
I want a game where geography, demography and diplomacy matters (in that order). That's my vision for an historical game, I don't want a bland game where everyone can conquer the world and got the same opportunities (oh look, I unlocked a steam achievements with Ryuku and Theodoro).
100% agreeing with you, please "historical games" BE PLAUSIBLE !
Seems like Eu5 is ticking the geography box for sure, hard to say from what we have seen on the other two but getting there
I mean, MEIOU and taxes seems pretty good for that. Geography DEFENITELY plays a role there and the whole thing simulates populations and economy.
The thumbnail made me remember that I need to watch your Byzantium campaign for the 5th time
That's why when I make mods for Paradox games I like to remove tags and dates. The perfect Paradox game for me would be completely procedural, events and decisions should be based on the data values of provinces, countries, and the diplomatic context, not on predetermined constants. I would go as far as arguing Civilization games should have "big temples" and "big arenas" and "big statues" as buildings instead of Parthenon, Coliseum, Colossus... Have you be able to design and build your own wonder procedurally with certain bonuses like in Imperator.
Sounds really fascinating and fun. Have you ever considered releasing the mods or getting into game development?
Big agree, I hope sometime in the future we get more of a world simulator, rather than a history simulator. Let big wars and such happen naturally.
Im not wild about seeing the tinto talks discussing "situations" that are predeterministic, it feels like the world is being railroaded into certain things occuring, which then feels like the decisions and the big events of the world im playing in arent as impactful
I'm very glad you made this video.
I think a very important but overlooked example in the EU4 timeline is the Spanish conquest of the Aztec and Inca empires. They were instrumental in Spain becoming a superpower from the massive amount of wealth obtained at almost 0 cost (only a few hundred Spanish men participated in both expedition, most of the work was done by native allies).
However they both required the perfect timing and circumstances and tons of luck to achieve.
For the Aztecs alone, dozens of factors were at play.
It was meant to be a trade expedition, not full on invasion and was technically illegal (Cortes didn't receive permission for it from the Cuban governor, who later tried to capture and arrest him).
The conquistadores were nearly defeated by Tlaxcala (Aztec rival state) early on before they made an alliance. Tlaxcala would convert to Christianity and later provide thousands of warriors (80,000-200,000) to fight the Aztecs. The Spanish were almost wiped out again in "La Noche Triste" when they were fighting in Tenochtitlan, barely escaping. On their march back to the coast, The Cuban governor sent a small force to arrest Cortes, but they ended up joining him for the second attack on Tenochtitlan.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_conquest_of_the_Aztec_Empire
These are just a few of the reasons why it succeeded. If even one of them went differently, the conquest would've failed and the Aztec Empire (and the rest of Mexico) might have survived and remained unconquered by Europeans, while adopting their technologies through trade or stealing.
Of course the Europeans brought disease, but I believe this is overstated, the initial outbreaks were more comparable to the Black Death (30-50% dying off). The 90% figure you hear about all the time was only in Mexico after many decades of Spanish rule, where 2 massive "Cocoliztli" epidemics occured in 1545 and 1576, killing many millions of people. Firstly Cocoliztli is thought to have been endemic to the Americas rather than being brought over. Secondly the Spanish forced most native people into towns called "reducciones", these were cramped and very dirty, where disease could easily and rapidly spread.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocoliztli_epidemics#/media/File:Acuna-Soto_EID-v8n4p360_Fig1.png
The Inca empire likely also survives in this timeline because it took even greater luck and timing to pull off the conquest there, (Won't get into it cause this comment is long enough)
The ramifications would be big, not just for Spain but the rest of Europe (Spain would not be able to afford their expensive wars in places like the Netherlands) and the world, the colonization of the Americas would look very different in this timeline. Even for China because their economy would not be flooded by New World silver, which caused massive inflation and ruined their former economic stance above Europe. The Ming may survive for longer due to this. And I'm only skimming the surface here... Who knows, maybe the industrial revolution never happens
I agree with your reasoning why Imperator failed, too many tiny random flavorless countries no one knows anything about.
Also about the Turkish minors you talked about, I think if one of them becomes dominant they should form Rum (it may already work like that now). Basically the solution is add more formables for minor nations to make them more interesting
Yeah formables seem like a great solution to this issue
I definitely am not on B-line time, but I do think that from a game perspective, it is good to through some nudging, make some events at least somewhat likely to occur. Not just larger events, like the 30 years war or the French revolution, but also events that led to the creation of other nations that players are likely to recognize. Like Prussia or the Dutch republic.
For example, the secession of the Dutch provinces from Spain is technically already modelled by EUIV even if we were to remove all the related events. Unrest leads to seperatists which can lead to a the secession of territory. However, in the simulation this is very unlikely to occur, and then suddenly you are short a pretty significant naval and colonial power from the time period EUIV covers.
In that same vein, I don't mind the simulation being rigged in favor of some countries. To ensure that they become significant recognizable pawns in the game. However, I think the devs handle it better with the Dutch republic, which comes about as a significant nation in some games but not others, as opposed to how the Devs handle the rise of the Ottomans or Russia, which seem to come about every game as if their prominence was ordained by natural law.
Then there is how "rigging" of the simulation can actually lead to more diverse and interesting outcomes. In Anatolia and the balkans the hamfisted nudging of the devs causes a heavy bias in favor of the Ottomans, and a lack of diversity in simulation outcomes for that region. However, in the HRE, nudging by events actually leads to a more diverse set of outcomes. Without hard-coded historical events the entire HRE would just end up in Austria's hands 90% of the time with the other 10% being Bohemia.
I think diversity of simulation outcomes, with recognizable nations is a good goal to strive for in a game like EUIV. That keeps the game fresh, but also engaging.
One thing of note - given the distance element of control the Dutch rebellion would be almost certain in the simulation of eu5 from what we know so dar
@@CountCristo Neat, it seems like EUIV --> EUV is going to be a big leap. Still I would not mind more deterministic events in the game as long as it leads to famous faces joining the retinue, like Prussia or Sweden' s seemingly unlikely rise. Though the ideal game would of course have general systems that allows for each of these historical happenings to occur.
Rigging events or bonuses can lead to more diverse simulations, as well as less diverse ones. Its' all about how the devs implement it.
This should entirely be a thing that the player can set. If the devs have to hard code certain events to happen, then it's not a very good simulator (by simulator I mean, simulator of how the political and world systems worked in the period, not historical simulation)
And what about a game that try to understand the mecanics of History to create a gameplay that can mimic it. So that the alternate History that can be created from it is plausible ?
A game that propose gameplay of rise and fall of kingdoms and empires. A game where technology can rise, but also stagnate and fall with the viscicitude of states ?
A game where big factions are not just stomping their neighbors, but can also have internal trouble and even collapse from it ?
A "perfectly accurate" history game would just be a movie. (Yes even those aren't perfect)
People want a mixture of historically relatable events and dynamism depending on historical significance and how causal factors are simulated. This ties into a larger balancing act between simulation, historicity, and gameplay. Generally, I prefer major events to emerge naturally from player and AI action intersecting with background simulation. Still, if the simulation itself is shallow or non-existent I would rather things just happened historically than randomly or in an arbitrary fashion.
Paradox has carved its niche by straddling this line because if they lean too far into either aspect they come up against stiff competition; Civilization games with their strong focus on game mechanics that result in tight strategic decision-making on a dynamic stage (almost) entirely shaped by player action; and a multitude of Slitherine games that lean heavily into deep historical simulation that get into the minutia of events already played out.
A good mix would be nice. Most often, events take place in a history mimicking manner, sometimes they don’t. Then by compounding, by midgame, you have a situation where some things are recognizable and familiar, and some things are new and interesting.
I agree there is a balance to be struck
Hail Be To You Count Cristo. I Enjoyed Your Theory Of Photons Being Unpredictable And I Do Concur With This Line Of Thinking. However I Strongly Disagree With Your Opinion Which Is The Opinion Of Ottoman Invincibility And Germiyanid Inferiority. Bro That One Photon Could Have Gone A Different Way And We Could Have Had A Vidinian Empire. I'm All For Historical Accountability Man. If You Can't Larp. If You Can't Roleplay. Then You Shouldn't Be Playing Games Like Europa Universalis Four Or Europa Universalis Five Or Europa Universalis Six Or Europa Universalis Seven Or Europa Universalis Eight Or Europa Universalis Nine Or Europa Univeralis Ten Or Europa Universalis Eleven Or Europa Universalis Twelve And So On. I Hope You Get THe Point. Peace Be Upon Your Lands And Your Family And I Wish You A Prosperous Thursday.
I agree but we should differentiate between historical plausibility and fantasy
we need plausibility and great mtth of multiple factors ticking in a certain way hidden to the player.
Thank you for not making a free will argument lol
my pleasure XD
I am of the opinion there should be as much historical railroading as possible. Seeing nonsensical things occur is not fun and takes me out of any form of immersion. Alt history is only fun when you have to work for it and is not the default state like it is in nearly every paradox game. I want to play an end game where the Napoleonic war happens and I fight against Napoleon. Organically that will never happen, so either railroad it into happening or give us multiple start dates. I am very much not a fan of the 1337 start being used for EU5. In my mind as a CK2 player very much a CK start date. I don't think that start date will lead to resembling anything remotely close to what age of exploration will look like and how the colonial world will shape place.
I have no opinion on the matter whatsoever.
I just liked the video.
Nice
This map looks delicious. ❤
This is what annoys me about the Hearts of Iron players. They want historically accurate USA and everyone else. Yet if they would give the US their IRL industry and wealth, they would be able to steamroll the world in 1942 in the players hand, with their knowledge of the coming conflict. Also dealing with the great depression is not very entertaining to say the least, so implementing that would just turn people away from the US.
And i think this is the same reason PDX decided to add in focus trees for small nations so they can become big players by 1939. Even if their IRL markets, resources and wealth would made it impossible to do so in such short timeframe.
I dont get why are the mission trees giving away buffs, that makes small nations bonkers in Eu4 too. You can tripple you size in 20 years and the missions just solve your unrest issues with lowering autonomy or unrest, or whatever. And they speed up the game with free claims, cores, other bonuses for no reason. I get that some people don't like to play for long, but this shoudn't be the norm. I remember when WC was hard and you had to play till the very end. Now people do it in 100 years with goverment forms that should make it impossible to rule over vast amount of territory.
Eu4 trees are a little crazy - the PUs especially feel very OP