More Plausible: Total War, or any historical strategic games Paradox makes

I would think paradox games are more accurate, but they cannot be real.

a Byzantine Empire with only one province cannot take over a 15 province ottoman Empire.

...and armies don't move out of the way the second they spot your army moving. *twitch*
 
Besides, which exactly games are we talking about? I do not know much about Paradox games (except for HOI 2), but for example Shogun 2 is far, far more plausible than Rome TW or Medieval TW and its hard to put them n the same category.
 
Lets just put this in context:

In 1750 if you capture Paris, Quebec and Strasbourg in EUIII you're a good way to getting a strong victory, but could still easily lose ground to France.

In Empire Total War you've completely and irrevesibly wiped out the french nation.
 
Lets just put this in context:

In 1750 if you capture Paris, Quebec and Strasbourg in EUIII you're a good way to getting a strong victory, but could still easily lose ground to France.

In Empire Total War you've completely and irrevesibly wiped out the french nation.

In Empire, if it's 1750 and you don't control most of Europe, you're doing it wrong.
 
Neither are really all that plausible as whole. Paradox games are definitely more detailed, but what could happen is still up to chance, like England having the worlds greatest navy at a 1399 start of EU3. With Total War games up untill Shogun 2 balance had to called into effect and that lead to some things where just plan wrong. In Medieval Total War 1 Italy was 1 country, with hereditary doges, as well as the Holy Roman Empire. Rome was a train-wreck with barbarian phalanx spearmen, ancient Eygptian armies and Roman ninjas. Shogun 2 stands out because with the Sengoku period any clan could of risen to power, although the realm divide makes late game diplomacy pointless, and is absurd.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Wrong forum

Paradox has a good economical system and a detailed diplomatic system. For a map that even resemble the World how it looked like then Paradox it is. But it's a game, not a historical simulation. So there will be loads of really unrealistic stuff.

If you want deep strategy in your battles, and don't give a crap about diplomacy or economy, the Total War it is.
 
Paradox games generally have a theory of causation underlying game play including multiple economic, social, political and diplomatic factors. This enhances the verisimilitude, and helps players believe that the results of play are caused in a manner similar to that in which most people believe history is caused.

While Paradox claim to revile Marxism, their theory of causation shows an interpenetration between economic and social factors, with economic factors often determinate "in the last instance."

I'd describe Paradox's offerings as history simulators, despite their often broken nature. The intention is to provide verisimilitude about causation, while allowing players to engage the world.

yours,
Sam R.
 

Delta Force

Banned
I have actually never had a left wing government in Victoria II. In a game as Japan I had full voting rights and an excellent education system but ended up with more people voting conservative at the end of the game than at the beginning. As Austria-Hungary (later Greater Germany) I had to put down multiple anarchist and communist rebellions, although oddly enough I never had a nationalist revolts. In the ten year period of rebellions I ended up with hundreds of thousands if not millions of people dying in the uprisings (which were so massive it was more like a civil war) and had so much economic damage done that my factories had to exist on subsidies for the rest of the game due to the huge losses of workers and consumers.
 
Where on earth did the Marxism comment come from?

Marxist historiography has two strong and contending theories of causation—summarised broadly in the Thompson / Althusser debate. Watching one of the development videos when talking about the underlying theories of causation, Johan criticised Marxist theories of causation. I'm pretty sure this was around EUII / HOI2 development. It is relevant to the discussion of Paradox games' underlying causal structures, given the fact that the structures they imply actually existed* are the ones generally pointed to in Marxist and Marxist influenced economic history. Given that we can't directly relate to the past, but relate to it through the narrativised causal analysis of texts (history), the fact that Paradox simulates a complex causal sequence whose model generally mirrors the theoretical model of one of the most popular and influential methodologies for social and economic history enhances Paradox's verisimilitude. Even if they claim to not appreciate or use that theory of causation.

It would be hard to describe Paradox's underlying causal theory as a "great man" theory, for example; or as "vulgar economic determinism" for another example.

yours,
Sam R.

* Let's not get bogged down between social structures and dense networks of self-reinforcing practice. The game model treats institutions and social phenomena as structures actually existing rather than emergent phenomena.
 
I have actually never had a left wing government in Victoria II. In a game as Japan I had full voting rights and an excellent education system but ended up with more people voting conservative at the end of the game than at the beginning. As Austria-Hungary (later Greater Germany) I had to put down multiple anarchist and communist rebellions, although oddly enough I never had a nationalist revolts. In the ten year period of rebellions I ended up with hundreds of thousands if not millions of people dying in the uprisings (which were so massive it was more like a civil war) and had so much economic damage done that my factories had to exist on subsidies for the rest of the game due to the huge losses of workers and consumers.

I actually had the opposite; Of course, Jacobin, anarcho-liberal, communist, and fascist rebellions were the most serious, but nationalists, due to all the vagaries of ruling Germany, with its manifold cores, were the most common. Of course, this led to the exact situation you described; Essentially, civil wars every few years, with massive economic damage.
 
Total War does not have enough provinces BTW to make war realistic enough. Paradox Games, in the meanwhile, sometimes the nations' actions are often too unrealistic.

I would have to say that Paradox is more plausible than Total War for more realistic war paths.
 
Top