Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
The game attempts a dispassionate, non-moralizing view on all of this. Slavery exists (though the slave trade isn't as clearly represented as it might be) and while the player is given the option to abolish it in their state, the game doesn't pass judgement either way. 26/46
Likewise, the game has no moral judgement to lay on violent imperial expansion or war-mongering. Consequences are always expressed in terms of their impact to the state - too rapid expansion can cause instability, but it doesn't cause you to lose your soul. 27/46
Because this is a game about states, most of the player's tools are coercive in nature and the overall model of power is zero-sum - for the player to become powerful and secure, other states must be rendered less so and defeated when they resist. 28/46
You can see this clearly in how the game models trade - trade exists as a flow of goods through trade nodes which can be redirected by either dominating the territory around those nodes, or the sea-lanes near them or both. 29/46
Successful trade policy redirects the trade flows back towards the home port of your country, thereby gaining that revenue and denying it to others. For you to get rich in trade, others must get poor. 30/46
I should note that the trade network is one part of the game that remains solidly Eurocentric; trade moves in a predicable direction and while it can be diverted this way or that in small ways, trade lanes begin in the Americas or Asia and end in Europe. 31/46
Consequently, building a trade empire from places that aren't Europe is usually impossible, restricting non-European states to large territorial empires (generally you either run a small state on trade or a big state on land taxes in the game). 32/46
All of that said, EU4 still does have some interesting bits of historical lessons. As noted, the map is fairly scrupulous and EU4 players are more likely to know where Prussia (or Mali, etc) is from playing. 33/46
As a 'Realist Political Dynamics Simulator' it is almost peerless. The value of that depends on how accurately you think Neorealism describes international systems. I think it is a useful lens, which lends EU4 some value in presenting that. 34/46
Historical events are trickier. The game is free-form, so events after the start date will not unfold in perfect historical order, though some major events (Printing Press, Reformation, etc) are encouraged by game mechanics to happen around the right time. 35/46
The big issue is the degree to which, without serious player intervention, European dominance by 1800 is inevitable. Now of course European colonial empires did happen, so it seems odd to fault the game for regularly producing historical outcomes... 36/46
...but the degree to which those outcomes are presented as mechanistic and inevitable, rather than contingent is troublesome and may lead some careless players down a fairly dark path of historical thinking. 37/46
The game is great for stimulating informative 'wiki-walks' as players want to find out what the heck the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was, or what Maurician Infantry is, or investigate the printing press. In that sense, the historical rootedness has real value. 38/46
For the teacher working with students whose history is heavily informed by EU4 (and other paradox games - they have Crusader Kings 3 for the Middle Ages, Imperator for the ancient period, Victoria II for industrial revolution and Hearts of Iron for WWII)...39/46
...you are likely to want to try to foreground the human impacts of those state-centered policies (because they game doesn't) - present students with what it means*for*people* that France is grabbing islands to plant sugar in order to raise revenue to fight England...40/46
...(mostly misery, in the event) and what it means that state-on-state competition in the premodern and early modern world more or less everywhere led to frequent warfare (mostly misery, in the event). 41/46
And second, you are likely going to want to spend more time and effort stressing the contingency of the 'rise of Europe' in the early modern period, noting how this outcome wasn't necessarily inevitable or desirable. 42/46
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
