EUIV - Development Diary - 28th of January 2020

[Cardolam]

I would prefer a method of uncertainty. I hate the fact that as a rival of the Ottomans I have full intel on their armies and their quality, their economics, when their forts are mothballed, their loan size and debt ect. But you would have to first revamp the espionage system, which badly needs rework.

Smart play shouldn't come from free information, you should make actual effort to see it.

Indeed. You touch on several points that certainly would improve the game and how it is played immensely.

Uncertainty is essential in a game like this. After all, it portrays life and contingency and such aspects are subject to a certain degree of randomness. In many aspects of the game this should be displayed. From the top of my head, conversions, coring and claims all would benefit immensely from an amount of uncertainty.

 

[Cardolam]

Infiltrate Administration is at Diplo Tech 30. You would have no information on enemy troop numbers for roughly 16 out of 377 years at most. Not to mention that the AI always has perfect information on the player (with only a handful of exceptions), so it's rather pointless to restrict it in Singleplayer.

Of course, there were small things that needed to be rebalanced or modified. Obviously the Infiltrate Administration should be changed or a new Infiltration (call it whatever) should be scripted.
As for the AI, don't you think you already have enough advantages over it? You are far smarter, you can abuse in the letter or in the spirit the game's rules, you can minmax the game variables... isn't that enough to cut the AI some slack in order to have a more realistic system that would lead to more sensible and better strategies on the part of the player?

It would be very simple, the player would only know detailed foreign info from allies, entities under him/her and those he/she has infiltrated.

 

[Slayen]

On the subject on hiding information, I would not be opposed to such an idea so long as it was an option, one which ideally would not lock out achievements should one wish to play as things are now.

While some like uncertainty in their wars, it would basically cripple me with indecision.

 

[Shiny Dog]

As for the AI, don't you think you already have enough advantages over it? You are far smarter, you can abuse in the letter or in the spirit the game's rules, you can minmax the game variables... isn't that enough to cut the AI some slack in order to have a more realistic system that would lead to more sensible and better strategies on the part of the player?
It would be very simple, the player would only know detailed foreign info from allies, entities under him/her and those he/she has infiltrated.

Unless they make a separate mechanic for Espionage: Not a chance.
Currently you would have to hold up a Diplomat for ~2.22 years to infiltrate one nation for five years (40 cost, 1.5 per month spy network building). That number would have to be multiplied for every single enemy. Most nations have 3 diplomats and 4 diplomatic relations, which means you would have to spend insane amounts of time for this information and you likely won't have it all at one time. Some people may like the uncertainty, but other people will be extremely frustrated at how obtuse information is now, me included.

As for strategic depth, I fail to see a situation where this would benefit strategy. Most interactions would amount to guesswork to how powerful your enemy is, and would either result in massive missed opportunities by not attacking or further player frustration when they accidentally attack an alliance 3x their size due to lacking information they would have had if this mechanic hadn't been added.
It would probably just end with people either ignoring previous ledger information and only fighting wars they are absolutely certain they can win, or better yet creating "Scout Saves" where you back up your save, send spies to infiltrate your potential enemies, find out the information (probably won't have changed in 2 years), and reload to declare war.
I suppose that's a strategy but I'd rather have less mechanics encouraging me to cheat, not more.
Perhaps if rough troop numbers (Error of 20% or something) were added then it wouldn't be so annoying, but then nobody would infiltrate.
Finally, I'm so opposed to this because: If it does ever get implemented, considering EU4's track record... this will likely be a requirement for Achievements just like Formable Nation restrictions.

 

[Cardolam]

Unless they make a separate mechanic for Espionage: Not a chance.
Currently you would have to hold up a Diplomat for ~2.22 years to infiltrate one nation for five years (40 cost, 1.5 per month spy network building). That number would have to be multiplied for every single enemy.

There's one gameplay concept called "opportunity cost". You should decide where your precious resources are spent. Also, it's very easy to code a modifier to turn infiltrations faster. Add it to a weak idea, thus killing two birds with one stone.

Bottom line: Having everything, all the time is a poor game design concept.

As for strategic depth, I fail to see a situation where this would benefit strategy. Most interactions would amount to guesswork to how powerful your enemy is, and would either result in massive missed opportunities by not attacking or further player frustration when they accidentally attack an alliance 3x their size due to lacking information they would have had if this mechanic hadn't been added.

Not that hard to see three new strategies and an extremely rewarding consequence, even if we think just one minute. For a start the player should decide where to apply its resources - in this case diplomats - and when to do it. Then what ideas to pick to increase its power (number of diplomats & "infiltration speed"). Then what risks would the player be willing to run to attempt his objectives, adding a risk management element to the player thought. Concerning this latest point, obviously the player is not totally in the dark regarding a country capabilities. Without thinking on it now, looking at the map and counting the provinces or in some cases sending a fleet to check the size of the armies in coastal provinces would help the player making a judgement.

As for the consequence and given it would be harder to judge what countries would be vulnerable to attack, it would hinder the pervasive and boring map painting aspect of the game, which is a magnificent bonus gameplay wise.

It would probably just end with people either ignoring previous ledger information and only fighting wars they are absolutely certain they can win, or better yet creating "Scout Saves" where you back up your save, send spies to infiltrate your potential enemies, find out the information (probably won't have changed in 2 years), and reload to declare war.

Everybody is entitled to play as everyone sees fit. There are more mature ways of playing than others, but all are respectable. Just talking about me, last campaign I played in CK2 I was finished in the second generation when my ruler got smallpox and died without an heir. No reloads as that breaks the great stories the engine is capable of delivering, something much more important than the boring activity of map painting.

Finally, I'm so opposed to this because: If it does ever get implemented, considering EU4's track record... this will likely be a requirement for Achievements just like Formable Nation restrictions.

I don't see what is the problem here. Not that it would break achievements, for those that enjoy playing with them.

 

[Shiny Dog]

There's one gameplay concept called "opportunity cost". You should decide where your precious resources are spent. Also, it's very easy to code a modifier to turn infiltrations faster. Add it to a weak idea, thus killing two birds with one stone.

Bottom line: Having everything, all the time is a poor game design concept.

Not that hard to see three new strategies and an extremely rewarding consequence, even if we think just one minute. For a start the player should decide where to apply its resources - in this case diplomats - and when to do it. Then what ideas to pick to increase its power (number of diplomats & "infiltration speed"). Then what risks would the player be willing to run to attempt his objectives, adding a risk management element to the player thought. Concerning this latest point, obviously the player is not totally in the dark regarding a country capabilities. Without thinking on it now, looking at the map and counting the provinces or in some cases sending a fleet to check the size of the armies in coastal provinces would help the player making a judgement.

We already decide where to apply our Diplomats for: Improving relation, integration, gifting money, building spy networks for claims (which will be in direct competition with this mechanic), offering Alliances, Vassalization, Royal Marriages, Military Access, Docking rights, Declaring War, negotiating peace, demanding provinces, etc.
This is not a new dimension of strategy, and is definitely not worth removing the ledger for. An optional game rule (where the ledger is limited, like in multiplayer) is fine, just like difficulty levels, but if they are adding a new mechanic specifically for Pre-Tech 30 infiltration, it will be mandated.

 

[Cardolam]

We already decide where to apply our Diplomats for: Improving relation, integration, gifting money, building spy networks for claims (which will be in direct competition with this mechanic), offering Alliances, Vassalization, Royal Marriages, Military Access, Docking rights, Declaring War, negotiating peace, demanding provinces, etc.

One more aspect, important as this would be, is another way of improving gameplay, turning decisions more consequent in the process. What resources to allocate, where to allocate them and when to do it, certainly adds to the strategy challenges of the game.

This is not a new dimension of strategy, and is definitely not worth removing the ledger for. An optional game rule (where the ledger is limited, like in multiplayer) is fine, just like difficulty levels, but if they are adding a new mechanic specifically for Pre-Tech 30 infiltration, it will be mandated.

For me its totally indifferent if this is an optional game rule or not. As long as it is included, it would be excellent for the game in my opinion and - if optional - would cater to everyone's tastes.

 

[Shiny Dog]

For me its totally indifferent if this is an optional game rule or not. As long as it is included, it would be excellent for the game in my opinion and would cater to everyone's tastes.

The fact we're even having this conversation is proof it wouldn't, especially if it were not optional. Lots of people like to just look at the ledger and see how countries are doing relative to each other. Other people wouldn't like to be hamstrung by waiting a while for information they used to get for free, especially after being promised it in the war declaration screen by this Dev Diary after waiting years for a feature like that.

One more aspect, important as this would be, is another way of improving gameplay, turning decisions more consequent in the process. What resources to allocate, where to allocate them and when to do it, certainly adds to the strategy challenges of the game.

You could also argue taking away the immediacy of information, not just the accuracy, would add to the strategic weight. Your orders to troops and ships would take a certain amount of time to register relative to the distance between you and your troops. This would be rather realistic too, as the Battle of New Orleans two weeks after the Treaty of Ghent was signed. The AI would be, of course, immune to this because they are incapable of planning that far ahead.
Point is, optional handicaps relative to the AI are fine, but restricting all players' options because it will force them into new strategies is not. This is how we got Conversions restricted to states in 1.26. Converting everywhere was unrealistic and game-y so it was restricted, but as a result the Humanist idea group became even more meta than it already was, and all ideas relating to conversion became practically useless.

 

[Cardolam]

The fact we're even having this conversation is proof it wouldn't, especially if it were not optional.

As I told you and even made more clear by placing the words between dashes in my previous post, the optional inclusion of such a system would be great for the game and would please everyone.

Lots of people like to just look at the ledger and see how countries are doing relative to each other. Other people wouldn't like to be hamstrung by waiting a while for information they used to get for free, especially after being promised it in the war declaration screen by this Dev Diary after waiting years for a feature like that.

More power to them, they are absolutely entitled to their taste, as I said before.
But looking at the up-votes my comments are getting, other people still would prefer the game to be more realistic, more challenging in terms of strategies adopted and resources managed and more plausible to the realities encountered by the rulers of the time - after all, there was no ledger for them to easily compare which countries to attack and which ones to avoid.

You could also argue taking away the immediacy of information, not just the accuracy, would add to the strategic weight. Your orders to troops and ships would take a certain amount of time to register relative to the distance between you and your troops. This would be rather realistic too, as the Battle of New Orleans two weeks after the Treaty of Ghent was signed. The AI would be, of course, immune to this because they are incapable of planning that far ahead.

Sure. That's boring and unfun and I know it for around 25 years. I attempted to design that in 1995 and saw the fruits of my labour.
Now, what the delay of orders of troops has to do with hiding information from the player, that clearly baffles me. The subjects are not even remotely related.

Point is, optional handicaps relative to the AI are fine, but restricting all players' options because it will force them into new strategies is not.

The strategy lies in managing the restrictions and the game is full of them. Otherwise you would just click on the provinces and turn them to the color of your country. Voilá, no restrictions. Nobody "restrict the players options to force them into new strategies". The strategies, in all strategy games - be they Chess, Go, Stratego or EU4 - are devised within the restrictions placed, which is very different. That's the point of the game rules. Always. That's also game design 101.

This is how we got Conversions restricted to states in 1.26. Converting everywhere was unrealistic and game-y so it was restricted, but as a result the Humanist idea group became even more meta than it already was, and all ideas relating to conversion became practically useless.

The implementation was awful and much more would need to change to make it a good design. Anyway, I can only agree that converting anywhere and how it is done are very poor design decisions.

 

[regne_valencia]

About improving Espionage/counterintelligence ,i think it deserves more importance and must have his own tab like the options of diplomacy,trade,estates etc...all the countries must start with a basic infrastructure of spionage/counterintelligence depending off the resources off the country,you can rise your infraestructure spending resources with it,,and also you can upgrade your spionage/counterintelligence system by taking spionage/counterspionage ideas.

 

[Cardolam]

About improving Espionage/counterintelligence ,i think it deserves more importance and must have his own tab like the options of diplomacy,trade,estates etc...all the countries must start with a basic infrastructure of spionage/counterintelligence depending off the resources off the country,you can rise your infraestructure spending resources with it,,and also you can upgrade your spionage/counterintelligence system by taking spionage/counterspionage ideas.

I can only commend going in that direction. As it stands at present, it is certainly a system that needs much improvement.
Now taking advantage of what few resources there are already implemented in MP, Paradox could make it optional in SP too.

 

[grommile]

Now, what the delay of orders of troops has to do with hiding information from the player, that clearly baffles me. The subjects are not even remotely related.

Simulating the time taken to transmit new orders to troops (and, correspondingly, the time taken for victorious or defeated commanders overseas to transmit news of their achievements to the metropole) and hiding information about whether a country's allies will support them in a war, or how many troops a country has, occupy adjacent (and partially overlapping) portions of the verisimilitude spectrum, since they are, at heart, about the availability and currency of information.

From the top of my head, conversions, coring and claims all would benefit immensely from an amount of uncertainty.

Please explain how any of those things would benefit from nondeterminism.

EU3 had nondeterministic conversion, and it was bloody awful to deal with.

CK2 has nondeterministic claim fabrication, and it is bloody awful to deal with.

Vicky 2 had nondeterministic coring, and it was weird and unsatisfactory.

 

[Mounir Al-Fateh]

More difficulties mean more challenge.

 

[Lightwell]

More difficulties mean more challenge.

You know how games with a permanent UI and HUD screw are regarded as bad and unrewarding to play? Difficulty isn't always a challenge. It have the same effect as an Out of Order sign on a machine.

 

[springel]

Another small UI suggestion: on the estates panel, when you select the estate interactions, could you add a symbol whether each interaction is available? Especially the ones with a cool-down could do with a mark that they are still locked, instead of having to check it manually each time.

 

[MasterPaw]

You can specify what fleets you want to be allowed for automatic transport. Or do you mean something else?

As others said, it is so much pain to auto move armies with fleet because it is using random fleet from all other the world and if we need to move armies all over the world it is a lot of micro to enable/disable auto fleets.
We should have a list of fleet to choose from in a pannel pop up when using auto fleet, having shortcut buttons to use every fleet, only the nearest, every fleet in the region and the same amount as the army; and the default selected fleets being the ones in the region/ sea area.

 

[MasterPaw]

Another small UI suggestion: on the estates panel, when you select the estate interactions, could you add a symbol whether each interaction is available? Especially the ones with a cool-down could do with a mark that they are still locked, instead of having to check it manually each time.

Yes but we should be able to tick which one we want to be alerted (like for decisions)

 

[coachjohn]

One way to beef up spying is to have them be able to dissuade a country from a diplomatic move = alliance , etc.

Also, try to steal something about troop movement. Maybe (with very low chance) get to change opponents troop movement - I .e. intercept message - send different. Lead them into ambush.

Both of these happened in that time.

Also - i'm still relatively new - can spies assonate? If not might be good.

 

[love sweden]

One way to beef up spying is to have them be able to dissuade a country from a diplomatic move = alliance , etc.

Also, try to steal something about troop movement. Maybe (with very low chance) get to change opponents troop movement - I .e. intercept message - send different. Lead them into ambush.

Both of these happened in that time.

Also - i'm still relatively new - can spies assonate? If not might be good.

This would be useless for the player since alliances are random and never makes sense so preventing them before they happen is impossible.

 

[coachjohn]

If you had a spy in the area - you would get a pop up before saying a diplomat from (country) is in (another country.)
Do you want to interfere? and the cost. Spies would be more realistic.