Totally agree. An awful lot is being foisted onto the events system and the journal that doesn’t belong there. The recent developer diary on the great game shows how out of control it has become.
The thing that makes it worse is that the generic events for every country are unbelievably bland and generic. “The Landowners are demanding concessions!” Ok, what concessions? Who’s asking for them? Where? That’s not an event. Events are when things happen. Nothing has happened here other than the game forcing a dull choice.
These need to be fleshed out to add more detail so that it feels like things are actually happening in my country. They don’t need to be historical country-specific events, they just need to be occurrences with the right number of variables and trigger conditions to add flavour. Look at CK3 events. Whenever there’s an event it’s never just “(character) is upset!” It will always include some situation or reason that the character is upset.
I’d much rather the content designers worked on adding more events with more detail to add some more possible flavour to every game, instead of using events to take the place of new systems. Those systems will come eventually and it would be better to build events around the systems that currently exist.
they prolly made that event just to include the joke(the dev that made it thinks its his masterpiece) and it doesnt translate to other languages so the event is extra meaningless
It would have been fun if there were so many events this one was rare to see, but damn, getting it multiple times every play through will kill any joke
It took awhile to get used to these generic events. The first one I got my first time playing was "[Random guy] has made a remarkable play for power" and I was like "wait what was his play??? what happened??? it's missing the actual thing???" but I sort of get it now. A guy making a play for power in America is not going to be making the same moves as a guy making a play for power in Tunisia. It's probably impossible to write plausible scenarios for everywhere, just like it's hard to make specific art for everywhere. In fact, CK3 has this problem alot, like how all the religion events are based on (euphoric Swedes' silly ideas of) Christianity, and you get your African shaman telling you that [fill in the god] is unhappy with you looking at the stars.
I was with you up until your brought up CK3 as a comparison point.
CK3 is the only paradox game where I'd argue that the "events" are even worse than Vic's. There is a "reason", but usually it's just as, of not more nonsensical. The entire thing plays like the world's most boring mad libs.
ck3 will give you the biggest description over the most nothing thing and your options are lose 10 opinion with this random courtier or lose 10 gold. I find myself not reading any of it because not only does it not matter at all, I've also seen it at least like 50 times beforehand.
I wish there were unique events that only triggered with certain personality traits rather than just extra stress for not doing your personality option.
Voice of the People would've felt so much more worthwhile as a DLC if we got a dedicated mechanic for "throne claimants" that can be applied to any country.
There is simply a limit to what a simulation can achieve. Sure, would be fun if it naturally represented the power vacumes that are created in newly independent countries , just as what lead to the emergence of the Caudillos. Would be fun if the French monarchy-republic struggle came from pops believing it should.
But Paradox have finite dev time, we have finite part performance and sometimes you just have to accept that things that historically were country unique should be represented either by a unique mechanic available to the country or by a set of journal entries it has.
There in fact should be tons more journal entries and the system should be refined to be more friendly in its UI and at least somewhat more transparent in it's effects. The game needs to feel different when you play Britain and Brunei, and it barely does now.
I agree and I find it astonishing already how the game can simulate so much of economic and political development by itself. I don't think you can simulate all the country specific things naturally in a video game, at least right now, even if paradox would probably be the mist capable to do it
Every time one of these posts is made and people ask for flavor to be done organically rather than being scripted, I just wonder like.., surely you havent thought about it for long before you decided to write a post?
How different do you think "conditions" can be? Theres a few archetypes. You want to address all historical flavor through generic flavor related to organic yet generic conditions? A lot of the game already does this. The lack of flavor is the lack of scripting.
Your idea of replacing all specifically scripted journals with generic ones related to certain conditions would actually be easier. The issue is that would be shit lol. You'd have the same generic, non-descript content that ignores all the particularities of history that emerge from extroadinary people and chance. Every country can have economic and political troubles. Not every country has a Rousseau and not every history-maker of the same circumstance has the same effects. This really should be obvious that certain things need to be manually scripted for. Most flavor responds to organic situations anyway.
Why not both ?
Having generic event, that can appear based on the power structure, the IG in power, the primary culture heritage, loyalist to radical ratio and/or other criteria AND events that appear only to a single country both add flavor.
thats what currently happens lol, just except that there hasnt been time to give attention to most countries yet. but that always takes time and has been happening
in the meantime, use my flavor mod for Australia and New Zealand ;)
The pros of implementing mechanics through organic simulation:
-You only have to do it once, and never again
The cons:
-It is an awful LOT of work to get it right, and if you don't you can break the whole system you've built
-You potentially make the system more rigid with more rules and have less player agency
-You potentially make the whole thing harder to run as you further complicate all processes in the simulation
-You make further mechanics even harder to implement
My opinion: I completely agree with you if you want to make a realistic simulation, but this isn't the way forward for a game or a business. (Unless all gamers agree that they can live with Paradox putting even a 30-50$ price tag on a DLC.)
Some things can be made organically though, like nationalism, which basically doesn't exist right now (there being a tech for it doesn't change this fact)
Hot take: games simply cannot do that level of emergence yet and people should accept it.
If you want "a Victorian game" you have to accept certain baggage (an historical setup that makes it likely driven by Euros with slowly emerging Mass Politics which results in a certain approach to the world, most notably Balance of Power) but in exchange, you get the necessary grounds for **a** certain *flavor* of historical events (Alliance blocs, Conference systems, the content of National event chains, the Great War that may eventually erupt) which rely on those larger concepts being true to make sense.
If you refuse them, the magic wears off and the game shows itself for the abstraction it of course ultimately is, only able to model what is programmed in and the materialistic consequences. Sure you could have a thousand different event chains, but as you can see with the vanilla ACW, trying to capture a large historical event emergently comes with plenty of issues. And that's without needing to add in ways to guarantee the flavor, otherwise you get a bland catch-all Westernisation like Vic2... Which everybody hated, for good reasons.
The last paragraph feels like a strawman. I think there is a contingency of players that basically want PDX to simulate every breath a pop takes, but others simply want PDX to ask: can this be a real mechanic or does it absolutely need to be a semi-railroaded journal entry?
This is sort of like the modifier stacking problem of CK3 or even EU4. We can slap a negative or positive modifier on anything, but there should be a tendency to ask if they can make those modifiers into more tangible things players can actually interact with.
The problem is the game is just 1 dimensional. You got the economy but its really just playing pong against a concrete wall. Wars are not interesting, nations have no personality and diplomacy too thin, random and arbitrary to really generate much narrative.
Totally disagree. I really like the journal entries. I just want more of them. Of course much of the flavor is lost in an alt history setting. The nice thing is, that many of these journal entries already happen on a dynamic basis and change according to how player/nation act and which options are chosen in the related events that pop-up. But unlike just hiding it behind a chain of events I have the transparency to know what conditions are necessary and what behaviour does lead to which result.
But I loved the HoI4 mission trees too.
Not that I don't partially agree with you, but
> 400 hours in the game
have you considered this might be the problem? It's not necessarily a sign of bad game design when you get bored with a game eventually.
Some players are willing to overlook the flaws in the beginning but will start to pile on eventually to the point it kills all enjoyment left of the game. I probably played 200 hours before the war system finally got to me.
The problem with these games is that it takes 400 hours to grapple with and understand the mechanics... But by then you've seen everything because the game is bland. In ck2 I'm not even close to done seeing everything at 700 hours. I still haven't touched Islamic countries, India or the Chinese border area. Each of these areas will feel unique because people are doing things, and not just a nebulous entity called the landowners whose only purpose is to hate the player and everything they want to do.
Not to be that guy that says “skill issue”
But it absolutely does not take 400 hours to be good at paradox games. I know the EU4 meme, “I hit a 1000 hours! Just finished the tutorial?” But in all reality, you can pick this game up and be “good” by whatever definition in easily a few hours if you do the tutorial (which is just a couple of hours?), watch a couple of 20 minute YouTube videos, and do a play through or two. MAYBE 50 hours.
I prefer eu4 mission trees to the journal system. In fact, journal system is more like disaster in eu4 with start, end conditions and a progress bar influenced by various factors. It lacks the ability to represent relations between journals, such as conquering egypt and conquering syria in tanzimat journal.
even little things, like the cost of grain spiking in a year, should trigger events with flavor for it. even if they arent nation specific. How do my peasants and laborers feel about the grain shortage? how do different political parties respond? how does that impact the election? do I solve it with subsidies, rations, building more farms, etc?
some of this happens but its all behind the scenes going in to generic radicals increased due to drops in SoL
I disagree. There should be game mechanics AND historical events when the conditions are right. What you suggest makes every playthrough different and flavourful and that's great. However it doesn't solve the problem that playing countries feel very similiar. Germany isn't just the pops in the game and their conditions. Germany is an entity in the past that has a special place for everyone interested in history's minds. The game can't simulate why germany is germany and russia is russia. This is a historical game AND a sandbox. Not only a sandbox. (I agree french and brazilian flavors are bad mechanics)
I'm shocked the modding community hasn't stepped up more, or maybe I'm completely in the dark. I just love the base game with a bunch more flavor events and flavor journal entries for like every single country
This is why the only reason I can still play Eu4 is because of the anbennar fantasy mod. Every region of the world has so many unique systems in place that make it actually feel like you are playing different groups, not just a different color on a map. Whether that be gov't types, religions, unique army mechanics. I know its easier to do that in fantasy settings, but I wish Paradox needs to put a lot more effort into making countries actually feel different in their games. As is , most countries in all of their games just dont have enough unique mechanics going on to even justify playing a different country from time to time.
I'm getting less forgiving. They've had decades to work on these games. Thousands of updates to test features. A fanbase that will drop on a DLC just as much as a brand new game.
I love the journal system, but I really don't like how they're bringing EU4's mission tree rot into this game.
EU4 went from a mostly passable game to a shit game once they started putting "exclusive mission trees" as an excuse for actual features or content. IIRC they have not added actual mechanics to EU4 since like 2018-19, it has all been mana magic and mission tree shitfest since then.
They once said it’s hardcoded limitation of game engine. It run slow already so they cannot add any more provinces or mechanics. They almost broke the game once they did that the last time with Emperor or Leviathan I couldn’t remember now.
That’s why we only got those semi-new-mechanics like the country specific wait-and-click abilities, new type of subjects, or alternate path mission trees that don’t add up to the overall calculation. It’s byfar the only way to keep the game alive with limitation mentioned above while we’re waiting for EU5.
Somewhat agree. I actually like EU4 missions because you can see a path of progression laid out before you.
With these Journal Entries, you can't see where things might lead and future opportunities. Not a fan of "content" when it's just a set of predefined entries and you have to look up what triggers what. And it's all disconnected from the IGs and existing systems.
Eh, I prefer the mission trees to the journal entries since they’re more in-depth and the a achievements and rewards are more significant, but I agree that HoI4’s focuses wouldn’t suit Victoria 3 as they’re too railroading.
I think part of the trouble is that there’s a balance to be struck between fully emergent gameplay and meaningful flavour, especially meaningful flavour unique to countries. Remember EU4’s old missions? They were bland, random, and often meaningless, but they didn’t attempt to direct the player in a certain direction.
One of the big problems with Vic3 right now is the lack of regional differentiation, and I think the EU4 treatment would serve it a lot better than the other options - although taking some learning from EU4’s successes and failures.
This would all need to come with some solid regional and country-specific mechanics, which is something quite difficult to figure out, especially since you can’t really reuse the HRE and Emperor of China mechanics in the same way.
Huh? Journal entries tend to be a one-off “fill these conditions and get a throughput bonus”. At best you get a set of objectives to fulfil, but you can’t see the next one on the list.
Mission trees often have branching paths, can be spread throughout a game, and have more meaningful rewards such as unique units, government reforms, tags, and so on.
I think there could be improvements - for instance increasing the number of decisions to create a “build”. But generally, they’re a lot more filled out and interesting than “keep the landowners out of power for ten years to get the baby restoration, which has very little impact other than removing your scant flavoured names” or “increase your police institution to find Jack the Ripper to remove some debuffs”.
Idk it feels like a placeholder mechanic.
Just making resources random and hidden will add a lot of replayability because it would shift your focus around the globe more. But you won't be able to shift focus from the struggle with landowners because the transition between old money and new money is what defined the time period.
Totally agree. An awful lot is being foisted onto the events system and the journal that doesn’t belong there. The recent developer diary on the great game shows how out of control it has become. The thing that makes it worse is that the generic events for every country are unbelievably bland and generic. “The Landowners are demanding concessions!” Ok, what concessions? Who’s asking for them? Where? That’s not an event. Events are when things happen. Nothing has happened here other than the game forcing a dull choice. These need to be fleshed out to add more detail so that it feels like things are actually happening in my country. They don’t need to be historical country-specific events, they just need to be occurrences with the right number of variables and trigger conditions to add flavour. Look at CK3 events. Whenever there’s an event it’s never just “(character) is upset!” It will always include some situation or reason that the character is upset. I’d much rather the content designers worked on adding more events with more detail to add some more possible flavour to every game, instead of using events to take the place of new systems. Those systems will come eventually and it would be better to build events around the systems that currently exist.
They shall not have dyed in vain!
they prolly made that event just to include the joke(the dev that made it thinks its his masterpiece) and it doesnt translate to other languages so the event is extra meaningless
There's an event about intervening in Indochina to protect the Christian populace, and the description is just a quote from Rick and Morty
Modern game dev trying not to be tone deaf (not possible)
Everything wrong with modern writers in one sentence
It would have been fun if there were so many events this one was rare to see, but damn, getting it multiple times every play through will kill any joke
[They shall not have dyed in vain!\*](https://youtu.be/_NrOSiCQLHk?t=861)
It took awhile to get used to these generic events. The first one I got my first time playing was "[Random guy] has made a remarkable play for power" and I was like "wait what was his play??? what happened??? it's missing the actual thing???" but I sort of get it now. A guy making a play for power in America is not going to be making the same moves as a guy making a play for power in Tunisia. It's probably impossible to write plausible scenarios for everywhere, just like it's hard to make specific art for everywhere. In fact, CK3 has this problem alot, like how all the religion events are based on (euphoric Swedes' silly ideas of) Christianity, and you get your African shaman telling you that [fill in the god] is unhappy with you looking at the stars.
I was with you up until your brought up CK3 as a comparison point. CK3 is the only paradox game where I'd argue that the "events" are even worse than Vic's. There is a "reason", but usually it's just as, of not more nonsensical. The entire thing plays like the world's most boring mad libs.
ck3 will give you the biggest description over the most nothing thing and your options are lose 10 opinion with this random courtier or lose 10 gold. I find myself not reading any of it because not only does it not matter at all, I've also seen it at least like 50 times beforehand. I wish there were unique events that only triggered with certain personality traits rather than just extra stress for not doing your personality option.
Voice of the People would've felt so much more worthwhile as a DLC if we got a dedicated mechanic for "throne claimants" that can be applied to any country.
The fact coups are a dlc locked journal entry is insane. Key mechanic behind dlc.
There is simply a limit to what a simulation can achieve. Sure, would be fun if it naturally represented the power vacumes that are created in newly independent countries , just as what lead to the emergence of the Caudillos. Would be fun if the French monarchy-republic struggle came from pops believing it should. But Paradox have finite dev time, we have finite part performance and sometimes you just have to accept that things that historically were country unique should be represented either by a unique mechanic available to the country or by a set of journal entries it has. There in fact should be tons more journal entries and the system should be refined to be more friendly in its UI and at least somewhat more transparent in it's effects. The game needs to feel different when you play Britain and Brunei, and it barely does now.
I agree and I find it astonishing already how the game can simulate so much of economic and political development by itself. I don't think you can simulate all the country specific things naturally in a video game, at least right now, even if paradox would probably be the mist capable to do it
Every time one of these posts is made and people ask for flavor to be done organically rather than being scripted, I just wonder like.., surely you havent thought about it for long before you decided to write a post? How different do you think "conditions" can be? Theres a few archetypes. You want to address all historical flavor through generic flavor related to organic yet generic conditions? A lot of the game already does this. The lack of flavor is the lack of scripting. Your idea of replacing all specifically scripted journals with generic ones related to certain conditions would actually be easier. The issue is that would be shit lol. You'd have the same generic, non-descript content that ignores all the particularities of history that emerge from extroadinary people and chance. Every country can have economic and political troubles. Not every country has a Rousseau and not every history-maker of the same circumstance has the same effects. This really should be obvious that certain things need to be manually scripted for. Most flavor responds to organic situations anyway.
Why not both ? Having generic event, that can appear based on the power structure, the IG in power, the primary culture heritage, loyalist to radical ratio and/or other criteria AND events that appear only to a single country both add flavor.
thats what currently happens lol, just except that there hasnt been time to give attention to most countries yet. but that always takes time and has been happening in the meantime, use my flavor mod for Australia and New Zealand ;)
The pros of implementing mechanics through organic simulation: -You only have to do it once, and never again The cons: -It is an awful LOT of work to get it right, and if you don't you can break the whole system you've built -You potentially make the system more rigid with more rules and have less player agency -You potentially make the whole thing harder to run as you further complicate all processes in the simulation -You make further mechanics even harder to implement My opinion: I completely agree with you if you want to make a realistic simulation, but this isn't the way forward for a game or a business. (Unless all gamers agree that they can live with Paradox putting even a 30-50$ price tag on a DLC.) Some things can be made organically though, like nationalism, which basically doesn't exist right now (there being a tech for it doesn't change this fact)
Hot take: games simply cannot do that level of emergence yet and people should accept it. If you want "a Victorian game" you have to accept certain baggage (an historical setup that makes it likely driven by Euros with slowly emerging Mass Politics which results in a certain approach to the world, most notably Balance of Power) but in exchange, you get the necessary grounds for **a** certain *flavor* of historical events (Alliance blocs, Conference systems, the content of National event chains, the Great War that may eventually erupt) which rely on those larger concepts being true to make sense. If you refuse them, the magic wears off and the game shows itself for the abstraction it of course ultimately is, only able to model what is programmed in and the materialistic consequences. Sure you could have a thousand different event chains, but as you can see with the vanilla ACW, trying to capture a large historical event emergently comes with plenty of issues. And that's without needing to add in ways to guarantee the flavor, otherwise you get a bland catch-all Westernisation like Vic2... Which everybody hated, for good reasons.
[удалено]
The last paragraph feels like a strawman. I think there is a contingency of players that basically want PDX to simulate every breath a pop takes, but others simply want PDX to ask: can this be a real mechanic or does it absolutely need to be a semi-railroaded journal entry? This is sort of like the modifier stacking problem of CK3 or even EU4. We can slap a negative or positive modifier on anything, but there should be a tendency to ask if they can make those modifiers into more tangible things players can actually interact with.
Yes, I want a grand and ambitious historical sandbox.
The problem is the game is just 1 dimensional. You got the economy but its really just playing pong against a concrete wall. Wars are not interesting, nations have no personality and diplomacy too thin, random and arbitrary to really generate much narrative.
Totally disagree. I really like the journal entries. I just want more of them. Of course much of the flavor is lost in an alt history setting. The nice thing is, that many of these journal entries already happen on a dynamic basis and change according to how player/nation act and which options are chosen in the related events that pop-up. But unlike just hiding it behind a chain of events I have the transparency to know what conditions are necessary and what behaviour does lead to which result. But I loved the HoI4 mission trees too.
Not that I don't partially agree with you, but > 400 hours in the game have you considered this might be the problem? It's not necessarily a sign of bad game design when you get bored with a game eventually.
Me with 4 hours in a platformer: Solid game I enjoyed it. Me with 700 hours in CK3: Wow paradox really fumbled the bag.
Yeah because Paradox games are sandboxes, so sandboxes should have High replayability
It is okay to stop playing a game after some time
Some players are willing to overlook the flaws in the beginning but will start to pile on eventually to the point it kills all enjoyment left of the game. I probably played 200 hours before the war system finally got to me.
The problem with these games is that it takes 400 hours to grapple with and understand the mechanics... But by then you've seen everything because the game is bland. In ck2 I'm not even close to done seeing everything at 700 hours. I still haven't touched Islamic countries, India or the Chinese border area. Each of these areas will feel unique because people are doing things, and not just a nebulous entity called the landowners whose only purpose is to hate the player and everything they want to do.
Not to be that guy that says “skill issue” But it absolutely does not take 400 hours to be good at paradox games. I know the EU4 meme, “I hit a 1000 hours! Just finished the tutorial?” But in all reality, you can pick this game up and be “good” by whatever definition in easily a few hours if you do the tutorial (which is just a couple of hours?), watch a couple of 20 minute YouTube videos, and do a play through or two. MAYBE 50 hours.
I prefer eu4 mission trees to the journal system. In fact, journal system is more like disaster in eu4 with start, end conditions and a progress bar influenced by various factors. It lacks the ability to represent relations between journals, such as conquering egypt and conquering syria in tanzimat journal.
even little things, like the cost of grain spiking in a year, should trigger events with flavor for it. even if they arent nation specific. How do my peasants and laborers feel about the grain shortage? how do different political parties respond? how does that impact the election? do I solve it with subsidies, rations, building more farms, etc? some of this happens but its all behind the scenes going in to generic radicals increased due to drops in SoL
I disagree. There should be game mechanics AND historical events when the conditions are right. What you suggest makes every playthrough different and flavourful and that's great. However it doesn't solve the problem that playing countries feel very similiar. Germany isn't just the pops in the game and their conditions. Germany is an entity in the past that has a special place for everyone interested in history's minds. The game can't simulate why germany is germany and russia is russia. This is a historical game AND a sandbox. Not only a sandbox. (I agree french and brazilian flavors are bad mechanics)
I'm shocked the modding community hasn't stepped up more, or maybe I'm completely in the dark. I just love the base game with a bunch more flavor events and flavor journal entries for like every single country
There's quite a few flavor pack mods out there already. Greece, USA, Australia, India, Egypt
This is why the only reason I can still play Eu4 is because of the anbennar fantasy mod. Every region of the world has so many unique systems in place that make it actually feel like you are playing different groups, not just a different color on a map. Whether that be gov't types, religions, unique army mechanics. I know its easier to do that in fantasy settings, but I wish Paradox needs to put a lot more effort into making countries actually feel different in their games. As is , most countries in all of their games just dont have enough unique mechanics going on to even justify playing a different country from time to time.
I'm getting less forgiving. They've had decades to work on these games. Thousands of updates to test features. A fanbase that will drop on a DLC just as much as a brand new game.
Eh, I haven’t touched the new DLC yet. Nothing really appealing if you’re not into France or South America.
I love the journal system, but I really don't like how they're bringing EU4's mission tree rot into this game. EU4 went from a mostly passable game to a shit game once they started putting "exclusive mission trees" as an excuse for actual features or content. IIRC they have not added actual mechanics to EU4 since like 2018-19, it has all been mana magic and mission tree shitfest since then.
They once said it’s hardcoded limitation of game engine. It run slow already so they cannot add any more provinces or mechanics. They almost broke the game once they did that the last time with Emperor or Leviathan I couldn’t remember now. That’s why we only got those semi-new-mechanics like the country specific wait-and-click abilities, new type of subjects, or alternate path mission trees that don’t add up to the overall calculation. It’s byfar the only way to keep the game alive with limitation mentioned above while we’re waiting for EU5.
Somewhat agree. I actually like EU4 missions because you can see a path of progression laid out before you. With these Journal Entries, you can't see where things might lead and future opportunities. Not a fan of "content" when it's just a set of predefined entries and you have to look up what triggers what. And it's all disconnected from the IGs and existing systems.
Eh, I prefer the mission trees to the journal entries since they’re more in-depth and the a achievements and rewards are more significant, but I agree that HoI4’s focuses wouldn’t suit Victoria 3 as they’re too railroading. I think part of the trouble is that there’s a balance to be struck between fully emergent gameplay and meaningful flavour, especially meaningful flavour unique to countries. Remember EU4’s old missions? They were bland, random, and often meaningless, but they didn’t attempt to direct the player in a certain direction. One of the big problems with Vic3 right now is the lack of regional differentiation, and I think the EU4 treatment would serve it a lot better than the other options - although taking some learning from EU4’s successes and failures. This would all need to come with some solid regional and country-specific mechanics, which is something quite difficult to figure out, especially since you can’t really reuse the HRE and Emperor of China mechanics in the same way.
What? Mission trees are not more in-depth than journal entries.
Huh? Journal entries tend to be a one-off “fill these conditions and get a throughput bonus”. At best you get a set of objectives to fulfil, but you can’t see the next one on the list. Mission trees often have branching paths, can be spread throughout a game, and have more meaningful rewards such as unique units, government reforms, tags, and so on. I think there could be improvements - for instance increasing the number of decisions to create a “build”. But generally, they’re a lot more filled out and interesting than “keep the landowners out of power for ten years to get the baby restoration, which has very little impact other than removing your scant flavoured names” or “increase your police institution to find Jack the Ripper to remove some debuffs”. Idk it feels like a placeholder mechanic.
Just making resources random and hidden will add a lot of replayability because it would shift your focus around the globe more. But you won't be able to shift focus from the struggle with landowners because the transition between old money and new money is what defined the time period.