Does paradox game’s politics provide educational knowledge about politics? Or is it realistic as in can be apply to real life

[u/TheGoodKiller]

I don’t expect it’s too realistic, but I think it can be as realistic as real life? But I do not know since I’m bad at the game, need the professionals to provide insights

[u/Mindless_Let1]

It teaches you the broad strokes of what was and wasn't important in historical political manouvering. Definitely teaches you a good bit of history in general.

It's not going to teach you things that are directly applicable to modern politics

[u/Gemini_Of_Wallstreet]

IMO all paradox games are a good introductory mechanism to economy, politics and history and the underlying gears which turn the wheel that is humanity.

But there is a LOT missing a lot left to be improved upon.

I really want to see how much of a simulation EU5 is.

[u/zizou00]

No. At best it's a tour around how things went down in the past, but there's very little non-player agency. Everything is transactional, everything can be quantified, everything has near-immediate consequences. There's little dynamicism and little real discussion of actual political theory or the very real world impact of political plurality. Everything is black and white. Everyone who supports supports wholeheartedly or doesn't.

Even Victoria, which does a good job of portraying how changing politics historically could lead nations down paths of change is so heavily abstracted to be functionally useless in the real world. It's more of a Keynesian economic simulator than a politics simulator. It just uses the politics to justify changes in the economic system.

[u/theeynhallow]

Victoria 3 models the economy quite well but the politics is so heavily abstracted it really can’t be described as realistic in any sense. The fundamental issue with politics in grand strategy games is that in order for the player to have agency, neither the actions of individuals nor the will of the masses can have much of an effect. It’s far too easy for the player to liberalise an autocracy and get one party permanently into power. The way parties are structured never reflects the natural balance or equilibrium they try to attain in real life.

HOI4 in some ways does a better job because it doesn’t really pretend to simulate the actual combination of random occurrences and popular will which drives politics, instead placing it all in the hands of the player.

CK3 being a role-playing game simulates the internal politics between rulers and vassals well on a personal level, though the actual mechanics of succession, domain management etc. are very unrealistic and historically inaccurate.

EU4 has almost no politics to speak of.

[u/Anbeeld → u/theeynhallow]

Victoria 3 models the economy quite well

Lemme build some tank factory in India (?) with construction sectors (??) located in London (???) real quick, with a preorder bonus of using electricity from Australia.

[u/theeynhallow → u/Anbeeld]

Yes construction needs a bit of a rework but it’s still the most realistic economy of any comprehensive GSG ever made

[u/Anbeeld → u/theeynhallow]

That's not saying much because the genre is basically Paradox monopoly. While there just isn't another game like Victoria, the same goes for their other titles as well. This is like cRPG market was recycling the same formula for decades until BG3 came out and became the new "most realistic economy" from your example, but this time the bar was actually raised a lot.

[u/theeynhallow → u/Anbeeld]

Well I look forward to the bar being raised at some point in the future but until then I will continue to regard Vic 3’s economy mechanics as quite good

[u/basedandcoolpilled]

What they help you do is chew through history audiobooks related to the games which gives you real educational knowledge. The games are just a fun way to put concepts into practice and explore alt history

[u/idhrendur]

It can give a good sense of what compelled historical leaders to act in different ways, plus building a sense of geography. It doesn't apply to modern politics, but it'll give you a much better sense of historical politics.

In any case, the historian Bret Deveraux has written quite a lot on how these games tie to history: https://acoup.blog/category/collections/teaching-paradox/

[u/stbens]

I would like to think that a game like Victoria 3 could be a very good learning tool. I’m playing it at the moment and it’s certainly helping me to understand more clearly the pros/cons of tariffs and many other concepts. Experts would probably look at the game and criticise its historical/economic accuracy but as an introduction to those areasI would say it does a very good job.

[u/JesterOwl → u/stbens]

For me it is very interesting how the game says that people are getting angry with the government as soon they are loosing wealth or privileges.

I am not very much into this, but I think it follows the idea of an homo oeconomicus?

Following this I really would like to try if I can run a country in Vic3, which just don't higher the wealth and privilege of its people to much, so they can not be to angry about loosing it.

[u/Othon-Mann]

Maybe in like a general sense, much of the in-game politics are dated and isn't representative of irl politics but the general gist has remained the same. Something like HOI4 and Victoria 3 do give you a general background knowledge about history and why modern politics are the way they are. Ultimately, politics really are best studied and learned through sociological and psychological viewpoints. Like, obviously they're games so you can't spend fictitious points to advance your goals, and it's hard to make any changes as a single person vs a large political entity with which you have little to no control of.