After listening to the Vicky 2 interview and hearing Stalin!'s opinion, I wanted to see what people thought on how grand strategy games should use history. I personally prefer when the game is balanced so that history runs in a general path (like making it so that the Americas have tons of immigrants and slowly grow in power) but the game takes a different course each time and almost any country has the opportunity to rise to the top through deft maneuvering.
I like intense freedom, I love leading a country through time and making it an empire and making a story in the history books of my mind.
My preferable system would be that the game does contain big concepts of the timeline, and big events to be able to fire in any country (like a massive Civil war), as long as it's plausible, making it true alternate history. Changing the start date to every single day like in EU3 is very good as well (although there's really only one mod where I'd do that, and it doesn't work).
Definatly more freedom than not, if you are playing with full scale realisim and historical accuracy than basically all you are doing is playing history if that makes any sense....there is no freedom to say "what would I have done in this scenario?" just reliving the past kind of. I much prefer the freedom to lead my country MY way
I like the idea of more historical accuracy but it would not work out too well in a 100 year long scenario. The amount of variation needed would be too great.
