|
What's the name of the song that plays during the resignation screen of EU3? I was listening to a podcast about the history of the Christian Church and it started playing and startled me
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 04:17 |
|
|
It's Dies Irae from Mozart's Requiem.
Littlefinger fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Feb 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDFFHaz9GsY Is this it? E: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^drat, wrong Dies Irae. gently caress it, time to listen to the entire soundtrack. GrossMurpel fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Feb 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
Well the tipping point for the Americas has less to do with technology or whatever and more with 90%+ of the natives dying horribly and rapidly, in several waves, leaving the better part of two continents in a post-apocalyptic wasteland of its former civilization. You don't see that in Asia or Africa, the difference the germs made is probably the biggest factor. Would be kinda hard to model in a "fun way" in game though (Well I guess all the grey colonizable provinces are kinda that, except they are like that before the Europeans even show up). Unless Paradox threw in a lot of Native American Mad Max references and unique art... 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
I've been learning Victoria 2 with friends and I'm confused about what negative tariffs are. Say tariffs are -100%. Does that mean that all imported goods are free? Does -50% tariffs mean that all imported goods are half off?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
I'm trying to do a Peru-Bolivia thing in PDM and I have no idea what I'm doing, so I'm gonna copy a post I made in /r/paradoxplaza here and see if any of ya'll have any suggestions re: surviving the initial wars and making it to 1840: So I just finished reading a fantastic book, Caudillo of the Andes, about the life of Andres de Santa Cruz, the statesman largely responsible for the formation of the Confederation. I remembered that it was (accurately) the starting configuration of the Andes in Victoria II PDM and thought I'd give it a go. I tried to start as Bolivia (since Santa Cruz was, at least temporarily, president there) because they were the non-divided state in the tripartite Confederation. They start out with pretty much jack poo poo - no factories, no reserves, no allies besides south Peru, and a brewing conflict with the external Argentinean threat. My problem is I got immediately and decisively boned by the Chileans/North Peruvians over the liberation of the coastal stretch of Bolivia. With an army 12,000 strong and nobody to mobilize Chile quickly crushed me with it's force of 15,000 regulars and 6,000 mobilized farmers. Without that force I couldn't help the South Peruvians beat either group. I'm not so worried about economics, but how do I deal with that initial war? Should I try playing as Peru? I tried googling but all I could find was a discontinued AAR or two. Any advice on actually successfully forming the Peru-Bolivian Confederation would be hella appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
Fandyien posted:I'm trying to do a Peru-Bolivia thing in PDM and I have no idea what I'm doing, so I'm gonna copy a post I made in /r/paradoxplaza here and see if any of ya'll have any suggestions re: surviving the initial wars and making it to 1840: Restart until Brazil allies, concede to other states as needed, but make sure you win the war vs Peru. Try and finish off Peru before the other states can do too much, and you can use your increased manpower to turn around and beat them with enough luck.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
GrossMurpel posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDFFHaz9GsY Verdi's is the superior one anyway 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
maev posted:There isn't anything Wiz or Darkrenown or anyone else in this thread can say to stop Wolfgang Pauli from dredging up barely applicable anecdotes or plain absurd historical arugment to argue the toss over Westernization being some kind of intrinsically racist thing that Must Be Changed. A Buttery Pastry posted:A lot of people adopted firearms before Europeans did though, and yet they still ended up dominated. RagnarokAngel posted:That's kind of intended though. The point is historically Europeans did wipe out many other cultures singlehandedly (and this would continue up until the Victoria era and some might argue is still happening, just in a different way). I realize that more goes into it than just pure tech superiority (e.g. Many native american civilizations were in a period of civil war when the Europeans arrived, making it a lot easier to fight a divided nation) and if circumstances were different, Europe may not have had the dominance that it had. The point was that it did and so that's what people expect from "historical accuracy". The tech system isn't meant to represent just this nature of "pure" racial intelligence, it represents a multitude of factors (Economic, socio, political) that the game just is not complicated enough to represent. poo poo, historians can't even agree what those factors are besides "Jared Diamond is dumb pop history trash for idiots".
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
Marx, right, I get it now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
Um...the conquest of India by the British East India Company (from the 1757 taking of Bengal to utter hegemony in 1818 when the Maratha Confederacy was finally finished off) is totally included in the period of time this game is supposed to cover. I know people think of it as a Renaissance game, but the wars with Bengal, Mysore, and the Marathas in the late 18th and early 19th century are all part of the EU timeframe, as is Nader Shah's sacking of Delhi, the rise of Ahmed Shah Durrani's Afghan empire that took in most of the northern part of the Mughal territory, the ascendency of the Sikhs in Punjab, and the general utter collapse of any native authority capable of fighting the British. The Nawab of Bengal sought to fend off the British through an alliance with the French. Mysore sought to fend off the British, forty years later, through an alliance with the French (including Tipu Sultan planting a Liberty Tree in his court and talking about how great the Revolution was in order to stay on good terms with the French diplomats). The native states that "resisted" were attempting to align with the more distant and weaker colonial power against the British and use French military expertise and weaponry to better fight back (and did so to considerable success at first, to the point that the Duke of Wellington considered his victory over Tipu Sultan at Seringapatam to be a greater victory than Waterloo). Nevertheless, my point is that there was, by the 18th century, a pretty widespread idea among the native states that emulating the British and French was the key to maintaining independence (and the ones that did that and maintained an alliance with the British East India Company, like Hyderabad, managed to maintain self-rule throughout the entire imperial period). Europa Universalis IV wouldn't be what it is if a British conquest of India was simply out of the question, and it totally was (after 1757) both a military and a diplomatic/economic expansion rather than just one, to the point where they fought three separate wars over the course of twenty years to smash the Maratha Confederacy, the last native power with the power to seriously threaten them, right after fighting four wars with Mysore. You can get to the double digits in wars the British fought in India between 1757 and 1820, calling it a mostly diplomatic or economic process is deeply disingenuous.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
maev posted:Marx, right, I get it now. Don't sink to this level even if you disagree with his politics its still a valid historical perspective.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
At this point, we may as well just move this thread to D&D! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:At this point, we may as well just move this thread to D&D! Then we'll be over run by Marxists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
maev posted:Marx, right, I get it now. Holy poo poo dude you're pretty loving dense 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:Europa Universalis IV wouldn't be what it is if a British conquest of India was simply out of the question, and it totally was (after 1757) both a military and a diplomatic/economic expansion rather than just one, to the point where they fought three separate wars over the course of twenty years to smash the Maratha Confederacy, the last native power with the power to seriously threaten them, right after fighting four wars with Mysore. You can get to the double digits in wars the British fought in India between 1757 and 1820, calling it a mostly diplomatic or economic process is deeply disingenuous. The problem, as Wiz and others have said, is that this happens in 1600, not 1757. (The speed at which the Americas is colonized is a similar problem, and one which I'm kind of sad the expansion didn't really address.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
How about we argue about Marxian perspectives on colonialism in D&D and talk about Europe Universalis and other Paradox titles in here? It would be great to have a tech system that models how technology was developed in the real world (although noone really has a concrete explanation as to how this really worked) but EU is complex enough as it is and when you have a game like this with multiple systems interacting with each other the complexity increases rapidly. I doubt the non-racist tech tree is worth the number of dev hours required to actually implement it let alone spend the time needed to constantly update and tweak it. Is it perfect? No, but its about as realistic as anything else in the game. Its kind of unrealistic how Britain can conquer pieces of India in 1600 but you basically have to fudge the system a bit and end up with less realism or else you have a cascading series of increasingly complex systems that don't work, like Magna Mundi. It would probably be good to lower colonization speed, not only so the egalitarian Sioux confederacy can develop their cure for cancer and repulse the ravenous white colonizers, but to just stop colonial snowballing. It seems like half of my games end up with Spain having a strangle-hold on most of the western hemisphere.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:Holy poo poo dude you're pretty loving dense You're a bit confused about the relationship between Marxism, it's politics and historiography. This is the equivalent of pulling out Andrew Roberts's History of The English speaking peoples (or even Churchill's book of the same name) to back the opposite. If anyone thinks serious historical debate has room for Marx bar an interest in the history of historiography then I don't know what to say. That Wolfgang Pauli is literally citing it simply puts into perspective the terrible arguments he's making, which are basically just an offshoot of 19th century predictive history at its worst, so by condoning it we just consign over a hundred years of historical methodology to the dustbin because we prefer ideological undertones which I'm frankly tired of seeing in a thread about history games.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
maev posted:You're a bit confused about the relationship between Marxism, it's politics and historiography. This is the equivalent of pulling out Andrew Roberts's History of The English speaking peoples (or even Churchill's book of the same name) to back the opposite. If anyone thinks serious historical debate has room for Marx bar an interest in the history of historiography then I don't know what to say. That Wolfgang Pauli is literally citing it simply puts into perspective the terrible arguments he's making, which are basically just an offshoot of 19th century predictive history at its worst, so by condoning it we just consign over a hundred years of historical methodology to the dustbin because we prefer ideological undertones which I'm frankly tired of seeing in a thread about history games. You're right, but that's only because Marx is seen as too Eurocentric in today's historiography. The view you are presenting here, that the Europeans were technologically, economically and militarily superior (let's say) before the last half of the 18th century, is a hilariously outdated notion. The reasons for the so called "rise of the west" (or "decline of the east" to some) is still hotly debated and I don't expect a video game to get into that boondoggle. But a European state walking over India and China in the 1500s is a totally absurd idea and the reason why many Paradox Interactive players don't notice that is mostly because they are ignorant about the history of these regions and suffer from a debilitating case of anachronism. But none of this actually matters. What matters is, if it is actually fun to play as non-European nations or to interact with them. EU4 is somewhat of an improvement in many respects for that but the game still needlessly kneecaps ROTW to submission and the end result is playing in Europe is always more fun.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
I wonder why Johan hasn't said anything about this yet. This can only mean  he's a communist.please stop
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
fspades posted:EU4 is somewhat of an improvement in many respects for that but the game still needlessly kneecaps ROTW to submission and the end result is playing in Europe is always more fun. I highly debate this notion. I pretty much only play in Asia or Africa as it's the only way I'm handicapped enough to make the AI a credible threat to me. If I'm Kongo, Portugal is an existential threat and it's exhilarating using all of the diplomatic tricks at my disposal to keep on their good side while I grow strong enough to strike back. I don't get the "Europe is more fun" notion because I like being horribly outmatched and knowing if I go to war I will be utterly smashed, because the thrill when I finally catch up and can go to war and smash them is fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:The problem, as Wiz and others have said, is that this happens in 1600, not 1757. In EU4 I don't think I've ever seen a European nation as successful in India as they were historically. Europe steamrolls the Americas in a far quicker and more bland process then it was historically, colonizes Africa to a far greater extent then it did in the time period, but they never achieve dominion in Eurasia to the extent they did irl. The game doesn't model colonization after the first 1000 people so you never get the slowly growing and deepening control that occurred historically. Instead the Europeans can conquer the Americas and become fully in control of a developed economy instantly instead of nominal control turning into actual control over the time frame as settler populations transferred. Conversely, it also doesn't model co-option of local elites or Europe's ability to turn local powers against each in Eurasia or the way that infrastructure made exerting control easier and more profitable there then it was in America. Also the lack of lift-ratings or the equivalent screws things up, especially in Africa. Basically what I'm saying is that we need Vicky-lite mechanics. SickZip fucked around with this message at 03:55 on Feb 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
Is the colonization system perfect? Nope Is it racist? No, it's the way it is for ease of gameplay and design. Is it communist? Absolutely.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
I have no problem with people debating the merits of EU4's system, from whatever perspective they want - ethical, Marxist, historiographical, etc - it is no less or more annoying to me than endless baseless speculation over DLC or games we've seen all of 5 screenshots of). But if you're gonna do that in my thread, can you guys at least do it with a little less bile and flippancy? We're not in D&D (we're next door! ), but we aren't in GBS either.
Gorgo Primus fucked around with this message at 03:42 on Feb 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
Wolfgang Pauli posted:Almost exclusively from trade, and not military conquest. Even the military conquest was more political maneuvering than having a stack of technological marvels sitting offshore -- the Aztecs weren't fighting an army of Conquistadors, they were fighting their neighbors and tributary states lead by a small contingent of Conquistadors. I keep bringing this up because the next EU4 expansion is literally called The Wealth of Nations and is supposed to be dealing with Europe's colonization of South and Southeast Asia, particularly India, which was established through trading posts and complicity with local government, not invasion or plantation. West Africa operated in a not-too-dissimilar fashion and never even had the corporate assumption of government power you saw in India. Europeans didn't even know what the gently caress the interior of Africa looked like until the 1850s. You have a deformed overly ideological conception of history. Tiny little Portugal was fighting and beating Asian powers since the 1500's. It clowned on Indian and Southeast Asian states while being located months of travel away. Saying trade was the reason for, and sole method of, European domination is dumb. It doesn't explain why Europe was able to wrest control away from established players and establish trade hegemony. Its an effect and not a cause. It also completely underrates that European trade went hand-in-hand with European force and their ability to use their supply of superior weapons to make themselves a desirable partner in local power struggles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
That is an interesting take on what Portugal did. Kind of disingenuous, but interesting. (for those wondering, portugal relied heavily on native allies in all their various conquest, though they did fight when need be. They defintely where not crushing opponents while heavily outnumbered or something.) CharlestheHammer fucked around with this message at 04:10 on Feb 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
Gorgo Primus posted:I have no problem with people debating the merits of EU4's system, from whatever perspective they want - ethical, Marxist, historiographical, etc - it is no less or more annoying to me than endless baseless speculation over DLC or games we've seen all of 5 screenshots of). But if you're gonna do that in my thread, can you guys at least do it with a little less bile and flippancy? Yeah, I actually kind of enjoy reading this stuff. People being a little less mad about
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
SickZip posted:You have a deformed overly ideological conception of history. I see you do a lot of posting in GBS 1.4!
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:That is an interesting take on what Portugal did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cochin_(1504) 1504 and Portugal managed one of the most humiliating battles in history against Calicut. Portugal fairly consistently beat local naval powers while operating in foreign territory months away from home. Portugal was able to beat Indian forces at ratios you cannot even come close to achieving in EU4. Portugal was consistently able to win trade concessions, ports, and control through clever use of local allies. How do you even explain what was happening around the Indian Ocean in the 1500's unless Portugal was more advanced in some manner? The "local ally" explanation is so lame by itself because it can't explain why the Europeans were apparently so unearthly good at making them and getting the best of them. Unless theres a solid material reason why it kept happening and why there was such a fairly consistent trend toward more European power as a result, your either left with a couple hundred years of history as nothing but an unbelievably long series of accidents or you make it seem like Europeans were so much more clever that even with no physical cause for their advantage they kept out-smarting the locals. SickZip fucked around with this message at 04:24 on Feb 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:I see you do a lot of posting in GBS 1.4! I am physically incapable of not posting low effort trolls in GBS.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
SickZip posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cochin_(1504) That was a siege, which are often able to beat a much larger force. Though I wouldn't doubt Portugals vast sea experience gave then the edge there. Also they don't get anything special out of their native allies is just in general we only talk about westerner forces using native allies. Using Native or foreign allies to supplement small numbers has been a thing for a long time. edit: I feel like trying to say it was because of tech and whatnot kind of undermines what Portugal was able to do. Which is a bit unfair.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
Defeatist Elitist posted:Yeah, I actually kind of enjoy reading this stuff. People being a little less mad about Seconded! This is actually a bit more interesting (when civil) than months of "LOL Paradox forums CLAY".
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
SickZip posted:How do you even explain what was happening around the Indian Ocean in the 1500's unless Portugal was more advanced in some manner? The "local ally" explanation is so lame by itself because it can't explain why the Europeans were apparently so unearthly good at making them and getting the best of them. Unless theres a solid material reason why it kept happening and why there was such a fairly consistent trend toward more European power as a result, your either left with a couple hundred years of history as nothing but an unbelievably long series of accidents or you make it seem like Europeans were so much more clever that even with no physical cause for their advantage they kept out-smarting the locals. Local allies kept happening because people are universally dumb when dealing with those they don't know, whereas they know they hate their neighbors. You can see the same thing happening in reverse, to the detriment of Europe, just a few centuries earlier during the Mongol Conquests. And I don't think people are arguing that Europe didn't have some degree of technological superiority during most of EU4's timeframe, just that it's given undue importance. Personally I don't care about having to westernize so much- the game will always have to revolve around Europe for as long as there are static trade routes (which I know isn't gonna change in EU4). It's only really annoying 'cause it kills what little flavour the other regions have.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:That was a siege, which are often able to beat a much larger force. 18,000 to zero is ridiculous even by siege standards. Especially when you outnumbered your opponents 50-1. It also wasn't just a siege and was significantly more complicated. Calicut was also using Ventian weapons, the couple cannon of which were the only weapons they had that had the range to hit back against the Portugese cannons (tech advantage!). My point about the native allies is that pointing them out doesn't really have any explanatory power. I've heard them pointed out about nearly every European campaign, especially in the Americas. Yeah they used locals (so did everyone pretty much), but why did they get so many local allies, why did they keep coming on top over their erstwhile allies even when they were still heavily outnumbered, why was there such a consistent overall direction to events if things were progressing through nothing but contingency.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
Johan and co come to this forum to avoid this kind of bullshit. If they wanted endless nitpicking they'd just stay on the Paradox forums.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
Sidebar from fascinating history discussion:podcat on Paradox forums posted:but there really won't be any faux cyrillics this time
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
SickZip posted:18,000 to zero is ridiculous even by siege standards. Especially when you outnumbered your opponents 50-1. It also wasn't just a siege and was significantly more complicated. Calicut was also using Ventian weapons, the couple cannon of which were the only weapons they had that had the range to hit back against the Portugese cannons (tech advantage!). SickZip posted:My point about the native allies is that pointing them out doesn't really have any explanatory power. I've heard them pointed out about nearly every European campaign, especially in the Americas. Yeah they used locals (so did everyone pretty much), but why did they get so many local allies, why did they keep coming on top over their erstwhile allies even when they were still heavily outnumbered, why was there such a consistent overall direction to events if things were progressing through nothing but contingency. Because while hindsight makes it look bad, those natives saw an oppurtnity to have a useful and heavily militarized force to increase their own power. Its a no brainer. CharlestheHammer fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Feb 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Johan and co come to this forum to avoid this kind of bullshit. If they wanted endless nitpicking they'd just stay on the Paradox forums. Oh no those poor developers who we gave money to!!!
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
Koramei posted:And I don't think people are arguing that Europe didn't have some degree of technological superiority during most of EU4's timeframe, just that it's given undue importance. Really? fspades posted:The view you are presenting here, that the Europeans were technologically, economically and militarily superior (let's say) before the last half of the 18th century, is a hilariously outdated notion. Wolfgang Pauli posted:Europe didn't advance economically or technologically by tapping the mysteries of ancients who didn't know about that poo poo either, they did it by importing that technology from abroad and using their amassed wealth to further invest in the military and cultural institutions that enforced that flow of wealth. When Cochin occurred at the very dawn of Europe arriving in the Indian ocean and Europe already had a technological lead in some areas. Alright, I'm done with this derail. My general point is that Europe already had a slight tech lead at the start date of EU4 and that people should stop proposing Westernization mechanics that are way more ahistoric then what we already have. edit: argh, guy below me. Cortez beating forces five-to-one is historic. He did way better then that irl. He just couldn't win tens-of-thousands to one, which is what the conquest would have required if he hadn't won allies by being a terrifying dude who could win at more then five-to-one and possessed the local equivalent of crazy sci-fi weaponry. SickZip fucked around with this message at 05:20 on Feb 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 04:17 |
|
|
The complexities of these examples are really interesting but in terms of implementing them in a way that is balanced, fun and meshes well with the overall game I don't really see how that's possible. Yeah, Cortez showing up and destroying Aztec armies outnumbered 5 to 1 with ease single-handedly is unrealistic, but how the hell are you supposed to simulate the complex mix of disease, internal dissent and local alliances that brought about his victory, in the context of the game? We're talking a Magna Mundi-esque level of complexity here. It just isn't going to work. I'll admit westernization is kind of gamey now, but the simple fact is that at the level of abstraction the game is set at, actually modelling these factors at anything approximating how it worked in reality is a non-starter, from what little I can see anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 05:15
|
|