EU2: the most ahistorical game ever!

[Maniac]

In my current game, playing the Uzbek Khanate in the EEP GC, I'm experiencing the biggest sum of improbabilities I've ever seen together in one game. You can see a screenie of Europe below, fortunately of bad quality due to my conversion from bitmap to jpeg.

Aragon has not united with Spain.
France has been defeated by England and a monster Burgundy, and has not been inherited by Austria.
Hungary has not been inherited by Austria or the Ottoman Empire. (also not 25 years after I took this screenie)
Lithuania has not been inherited by Poland.
The Ottoman Empire has been crushed by the Mamelukes (at one point they also had Smyrna and Macedonia) after a good initial expansion phase, and Byzantium had a Renaissance.
Also Russia was formed by Suzdal instead of Muscovy.
And to add to the list of improbably events, China chose to open up in the Zheng He event, putting them in the muslim techgroup. As a consequence China has the highest landtech of the world, and all other muslimtech countries are hardly lagging behind the latins. I'm certainly not complaining.

So can anyone beat this list of improbablities? Human influence doesn't count of course: if so, I could add the non-existence of Persia and the Mughal Empire to the list.

(Darn: I had to cut the screenie in two due to the large size. )

[Maniac]

Blah!

[Serb]

My current HOI 1.05 game (I'm playing Yugoslavia with hardest difficulty settings) is quite interesting. After I declared war on Italy in 1936 (and annexed it few month later). France and its allies declared war over Germany and...survived. The most funny thing that currently is 1938, Poland enered the war and Polish armies...reached Berlin Germans were unable to conquer France and currently defending their capital from Polish invaders.

[lord of the mark]

Theres a difference between an alternative history game, and a fundamentally ahistorical game.

In an alternative history game, different strategies from OTL (orginal time line - ie actual history) should generate different results (IE if im playing Germany in 1914, and i dont invade Belgium, it makes sense that British intervention is delayed) It may also have reflect as random events that were genuinely random, like weather.

On the other hand if there are rules that make it possible to do things that probably werent possible, or vice versa, now thats a problem.


I would wager that each of the royal marriages that didnt happen in your game, was quite capable of not happening. Although one would expect to see some OTHER royal marriages resulting in state linkages instead - did that happen?

England and Burgundy beating France at the end of the 100 years war seems not only plausible, but likely - what happened in OTL (english throne inherited by weak minded minor, France to victory by teenaged girl on religious mission) is whats implausible.


Im more concerned about HOI - Yugoslavia beating Italy in the 1930's may be feasible, but annexing it??? Sure to get a massive rebellion that Yugoslav army cant control. Now THATS a problem - sounds like HOI is ahistorical (ive heard that the defense of HOI is that it was basically designed to be played as a major power, and when you play as a minor power, weird stuff happens)

[Araanor]

HOI, as EU, is designed to be open-ended. Work is contiinuously done to reduce unrealistic effects but there will always be some amount of it due to the nature of the games.

[Serb]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Im more concerned about HOI - Yugoslavia beating Italy in the 1930's may be feasible, but annexing it???

What's the problem? Currently is 1939 in my game and besides Italy, Yugoslavia already annexed Bulgaria, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Turkey, Persia and Spain. My ships are heading to Brazil now.

[Maniac]

Theres a difference between an alternative history game, and a fundamentally ahistorical game.

I know I know. I was first planning to write "alternative historical" to reflect my opinion that history isn't written in stone. But on second thought that would've made the thread title too long, so I decided against it.

[civman2000]

Aragon has not united with Spain.

Not that uncommon. Really, the fact that Aragon united with Castile but Portugal didn't was a fluke of history, it would be plausible for them both to have joined or neither.

France has been defeated by England and a monster Burgundy, and has not been inherited by Austria.

Monster Burgundy is pretty rare, but France getting beaten up isn't. Neither of those things are historically implausible, If Henry V hadn't died in battle all of northem france might be english today, and Burgundy could control all the rest except Guyenne. Several Burgundian dukes had dreams of recreating the Carolingian Middle Kingdom stretching from the low countries to the Mediterranean, so IMHO they should actually be given cores on Savoy and maybe some others.

Hungary has not been inherited by Austria or the Ottoman Empire. (also not 25 years after I took this screenie)

Hmmm...unlike the others so far, this one actually does require the AI to take an unhistorical event choice. Pretty unusual (and the same thing happening in the Machiavelli MP game caused a big discussion over giving Austria italian culture.) BTW, I don't think the Ottomans can ever inherit Hungary.

Lithuania has not been inherited by Poland.

It's not supposed to happen yet (or even 25 years after the screenshot)! It doesn't happen until around 1570!

The Ottoman Empire has been crushed by the Mamelukes (at one point they also had Smyrna and Macedonia) after a good initial expansion phase, and Byzantium had a Renaissance.

The OE flopping is common, as is the Mamelukes thriving. Ahistorical and arguably implausible but not something that makes your game uinque . Byzantium thriving is though.

Also Russia was formed by Suzdal instead of Muscovy.

Uncommon but by no means implausible. That Musovy united Russia instead of any of the others is as arbitrary as Holland dominating the Netherlands, Castile uniting Spain, Myanmar among all the little Burman minors uniting Burma, England becoming protestant, etc. IMHO, there are too many biases that help Muscovy.

And to add to the list of improbably events, China chose to open up in the Zheng He event, putting them in the muslim techgroup. As a consequence China has the highest landtech of the world, and all other muslimtech countries are hardly lagging behind the latins. I'm certainly not

It's just one ahistorical event choice that historically is very plausible. If China had opened up, they would most likely be the commercial if not also technological superpower of the world.

One last thing: When you play as a non-Euro, I've found that Europe tends to get pretty screwy. I've seen either events not firing (even if they fell asleeep when I reloaded they should have come up) or soem quite ahistorical options being chosen (eg no CoT in Anglia, no CoT in Thrace and OE capital staying in Anatolia leading to Venice taking Thrace, etc). This is a real problem that should be fixed, but IMHO ahistoricalness or even ocassional implausibility is OK.

[Maniac]

Several Burgundian dukes had dreams of recreating the Carolingian Middle Kingdom stretching from the low countries to the Mediterranean, so IMHO they should actually be given cores on Savoy and maybe some others.

Well in the EEP there actually are two events that can give Burgundy cores on the Middle Kingdom, but Austria first has to pick a "B" choice for it to happen, so it's quite unlikely.

BTW, I don't think the Ottomans can ever inherit Hungary.

With all those changes to the Hungarian event sequence, I'm not sure anymore what is supposed to happen, but I think that in the EEP Hungary normally gets inherited by the Ottoman Empire in 1540, thereby releasing the vassal of Transsylvania.

It's not supposed to happen yet (or even 25 years after the screenshot)! It doesn't happen until around 1570!

At the current point in my game 1570 has just passed, and guess what: Poland chose "Keep it a loose confederation.", leaving Lithuania independent. Not that an inheritance would have helped Poland a lot, since Lithuania is only two provinces big at this point.

Uncommon but by no means implausible. That Musovy united Russia instead of any of the others is as arbitrary as Holland dominating the Netherlands, Castile uniting Spain, Myanmar among all the little Burman minors uniting Burma, England becoming protestant, etc.

Really? I thought Musocvy and Novgorod were the only two with enough power to unite Russia.


Anyway, I know most of what happened is historically plausible, and that there isn't a single thing that makes my game "unique". However this is the first time I have seen so many "historical alternatives" combined in one game.

[Heresson]

Well, it actually IS historical in some sense... History is a matter of coincidents... But some situations are funny. Of my games;
-byzantine empire reborns. Its progress into Balkan is
slowed by me, but it takes all modern day Greece and
Albania, conquers entire Anatolia and most mamluk
posessions, conquersTunis and is about to crush Persia
when I dissolve our alliance and cripple it.

-Pomerania as the great Baltic power, with large
posesions in modern-days germany and Netherlands,
leading succesfull wars against Poland.

-Klewe. This imperialistic state conquered half of
Germany and enitre Netherlands, not to mention parts
of France

-mighty Novogrod annexed Denmark (with Norway)

-Twer (Kalinin) conquers novogrod and leads succesfull
campaigns against Moscow

-Aztec empire attacks Spain and takes a province with trade center from them.

-Lithuania inherits Poland, Brandenburg and Hungary. Its further progress is stopped by me. But I got really scared.

-China has colonies as far west as Senegal

-Albania has colonies

-Spains turns to protestantism as one of the first states in Europe

-one of the Indochina states unites entire region and expands

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Serb
My current HOI 1.05 game (I'm playing Yugoslavia with hardest difficulty settings) is quite interesting. After I declared war on Italy in 1936 (and annexed it few month later). France and its allies declared war over Germany and...survived. The most funny thing that currently is 1938, Poland enered the war and Polish armies...reached Berlin Germans were unable to conquer France and currently defending their capital from Polish invaders.

Very nice

It's not supposed to happen yet (or even 25 years after the screenshot)! It doesn't happen until around 1570

Not quite. Complete unification wasn't reached until 1791... First union and "application" of Lithuania to Poland took place in late XIV century (I'm pretty ashamed, but I never remember if it, the union of Krewo, took place in 1384 or 1385), and though practically Lithuania reamained separate, creating a common Polish-Lithuanian civ wouldn't be bad from the start of the game.

Monster Burgundy is pretty rare

It became a great power in each of my games.

Really? I thought Musocvy and Novgorod were the only two with enough power to unite Russia.

Nope. The greatest Moscovite Russian opponent was
Twer in fact. At the start.

[Maniac]

Hmm, now I look back to this thread, from the title thread alone one could think that I'm criticizing EU2.

[Heresson]

Your handle didn't allow that thought.

[Heresson]

Oh, except for the wrong cultures and provinces, a giant mistake is to make Mamluks Shiis... Also, Persia wasn't completely shii at the time. But mamluks... gimme a break.
I guess they needed to make more than one shii civ...
But...
Also, a common persian-mamluk state stretching from Tunisia to India was something strange for me.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Heresson
Oh, except for the wrong cultures and provinces, a giant mistake is to make Mamluks Shiis... Also, Persia wasn't completely shii at the time. But mamluks... gimme a break.
I guess they needed to make more than one shii civ...
But...
Also, a common persian-mamluk state stretching from Tunisia to India was something strange for me.

do they make Mamelukes Shia? sounds like theyre mixing Mamelukes up with earlier Fatimids, who were Shias and covered just about the same territory (though population was mainly Sunni, IIRC)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Serb

What's the problem? Currently is 1939 in my game and besides Italy, Yugoslavia already annexed Bulgaria, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Turkey, Persia and Spain. My ships are heading to Brazil now.

Hard to see how Yugoslavia manages to support the number of troops needed to occupy Italy. How does HOI handle the need for occupation forces?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by civman2000



The OE flopping is common, as is the Mamelukes thriving. Ahistorical and arguably implausible but not something that makes your game uinque . Byzantium thriving is though.

Is this implausible? Presumably the unique nature of the Mameluke state prevents a reform that would make possible better exploitation of its resources. Is this modeled in EU2? Otherwise one could simply assume that Mamelukes are reformed into more Ottoman-like monarchy - in that case what prevents the Mamelukes from thriving? Sounds like a good one for SHWI.

[Heresson]

yes, I had the Fatimid thought too, but Fatimids died out 80 years before mamluks got the power... It would be incredible stupidity to mix them. I guess the thought that they would be too strong as sunnis is right.

[civman2000]

IIRC the Mameluks were the slave guards of the Fatimids, so they would probably be Shiite too, though I'm not sure.

In my current handsoff game I have confirmed that playing as a non-euro really does mess things up. Examples: Eire annexing Bremen, Holstein annexing Hannover and Munster, England taking Piemont, TO annexing Magdeburg. And this is just in the first few decades! I think the "far and wide conqueror" value in the PAI (whatever it corresponds to in the AI file) gets put really high in europe for some reason when you play a non-euro. Also in my game, Byzantium annexed Athens and is still alive with 3 provinces in the 1460s, saxony annexed brandenburg but lost it to rebellion, Burgundy lost Artois to France and Zeeland to elre but has tekan back Zeeland and annexed Koln, Lorraine, Savoie (the province), and Alsace (but only took Luxemburg as a vassal instead of annexing it in the event!), the Timurids lost tons to Chagatai and Qara Koyunlu way too early because of turboannexation but in the 150s began to regain several of its territories, and France controlled all of England's continental possessions (and Scotland had northumberland) but made peace for around 100 ducats!! Nothing especially rare, but clearly things are more messed up than i've ever seen playing as a euro.

BTW, Protestant Spain is scary

[Heresson]

Mamluks were slaveguards of Ayyubids, not Fatimids.
Fatimids were using berbers, and later Nubians mostly.

[civman2000]

An interesting event choice made by the ottomans in a hands-off game. Not only is the event choice outrageous, that the event would occur at all is rather odd, considering the locations of the countries is pertains to.

[Maniac]

This could be cured by adding a neighbour trigger in the event. But the Ottomans going Shi'ite really weakens them. They have low stability all the time.

[Nikolai]

civman: As the Mameluks is shiite in the game, it's not that impossible, but it's not very likely. Only 15 % I think. That is, if it's only two choices?

[Serb]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



Hard to see how Yugoslavia manages to support the number of troops needed to occupy Italy.

With two absolutely fantastic ministers in government (school of mass combat+man of the people) Yugoslavia has 11.5+ manpower growth. It's more than enough to conquer the world. In the middle of 1944 Yugoslavia annexed Germany and Japan+China.

How does HOI handle the need for occupation forces?

There is no need for occupation forces in HOI, because there are no rebels.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Heresson


Very nice

Yes, it is. In 1942 or so, Germany annexed Poland. During my 1943-1944 campaign Germany was annexed by Yougoslavia. Poland is part Yugoslavian Empire now. Very nice.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Serb

There is no need for occupation forces in HOI, because there are no rebels. [/QUOTE

I would say thats pretty ahistorical.

[Nikolai]

AFAIK, it's supposed to be rebels or something similar to represent this, but it don't work by now. It has been so much bugfixing to be done for this game so far I'm afraid, but it will come. I do remeber that it was hope in the HoI forum for this to work some months ago, but it isn't implemented yet!

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Nikolai
AFAIK, it's supposed to be rebels or something similar to represent this, but it don't work by now. It has been so much bugfixing to be done for this game so far I'm afraid, but it will come. I do remeber that it was hope in the HoI forum for this to work some months ago, but it isn't implemented yet!

Its not a bug, it was an intentional game design decision to represent the relative ease of conquering territory during WW2. I would say it is flawed and should be revised, but its unlikely to occur at this point.

[Nikolai]

It's been mentioned as a thing people want to be implemented at least. It has been mentioned before nearly every patch I can remember.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Mordoch

Its not a bug, it was an intentional game design decision to represent the relative ease of conquering territory during WW2. I would say it is flawed and should be revised, but its unlikely to occur at this point.

well im quite sure the Germans needed a certain number of units for occupation duty - most especially (but not only) in Yugoslavia - I wonder if anyone has info on that - it would be a perfect question for a history forum, if we had one.