• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I've heard a lot of takes on mana in EU4, whether or not it's bad for the game and how it could be improved(or maybe it should be left alone?)
Now I'm curious to hear yours!

Assume some degree of feasibility(ie. nothing that would require an AAA studio to work overtime for 5 years)
An efficiency % you can dole out to tasks, so say you have 50% admin efficiency you can put 15 on tech, 10 on coring, 5 on state administration and 20 spare that ups overall efficiency. The amount available rises and decays with ruler score/tech/empire size ext.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Both "research points" and "culture points" are "mana", just with different names...
One of the biggest problems with mana in EU4 (at least in my opinion) is how spending some on something prevents you from doing something else, even when there's no logical reason why it should (eg, you can't develop a new model of warship because you recently conquered a large amount of unclaimed land). By having tech and ideas use their own specialized mana this problem would be at least greatly reduced.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
One of the biggest problems with mana in EU4 (at least in my opinion) is how spending some on something prevents you from doing something else, even when there's no logical reason why it should (eg, you can't develop a new model of warship because you recently conquered a large amount of unclaimed land). By having tech and ideas use their own specialized mana this problem would be at least greatly reduced.

Having more, specialized, types of "mana" just removes strategic decision-making. Limits and trade-offs make for occasional tough choices, being able to do everything removes that.
 
  • 3
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Having more, specialized, types of "mana" just removes strategic decision-making. Limits and trade-offs make for occasional tough choices, being able to do everything removes that.
He was basing his argument on realism/immersion. Not on pure game design. Mana makes certain actions share the same pool of resources when it makes no sense. Such as technological innovation with coring, firing cannons or hiring generals for your army.
 
I was quite excited by the idea of mana when I first started reading production dev diaries. Believe it or not, mana as a concept was one of the mechanics that made me decide to get this game.

So, I actually think it should still stay in the game. I like to view it as a ruler's capacity to focus on and deal with particular things. And I mostly just hate instant click effects. So I would change it so you have to allocate manarch points in a kind of budget.

For example, with MIL points you can:
- gain army disciple
- gain siege effectiveness
- gain fort effectiveness
- increase army move speed
- increase unit build / rally speed
- decrease army upkeep
- intimidate smaller foreign nations
- intimidate rebel factions
- affect estates
- suppress natives
- gain bonus to military technology
- progress towards finding a military leader
- progress towards a causus belli
- strengthen government
- boost development growth

If you have MIL of 3, you can choose 3 of the above. I think it works best if each choice must be different. For things like the military leader or causus belli stuff I imagine it working like how councillor tasks work in CK3, with a progress wheel.

Even though I listed it above, I do also think mana shouldn't be the primary source of tech gain. Rather, mana can be used as a boost, like +10% tech gain rate, where tech points are gained from some other source.

Also, while I generally dislike hard cooldowns, I think a year cooldown or something after switching might be necessary to avoid people feeling obligated to micro between tasks every month - especially in a war to switch to discipline before a battle and movement and siege when not about to battle. You know?
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Having more, specialized, types of "mana" just removes strategic decision-making. Limits and trade-offs make for occasional tough choices, being able to do everything removes that.
It removes that particular form of strategic decision-making, but the benefits from doing so are substantial enough to make it worthwhile, especially since there's room for plenty of strategic decision-making elsewhere.
 
Having more, specialized, types of "mana" just removes strategic decision-making. Limits and trade-offs make for occasional tough choices, being able to do everything removes that.
Not all strategic decision-making makes sense. I can say that having more alliances should stop you from constructing buildings, and it would be a tradeoff, but it would make no sense beyond some extremely abstract thinking (something like "it promotes a choice between improving your own land and going at it alone, or remain less strong singularly but have lot of friends").
purge with fire.
Straight from the Word of God.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1Love
Reactions:
@Johan That's... wild. Can you elaborate? Do you want to? I'm actually sincerely interested on your take as a game designer, and as someone that's been around Paradox for something like 30* years.
 
Last edited:
I would suggest this for EU5 - Remove the mana and have the following:

A tech tree that you unlock, and some have been unlocked by cultural traits (a hybrid of CK3 and Vicky3) - but also unlockable via diplomacy or purchasing rights (you buy a tech from X nation, but it can't be something say 2 techs away in the tree, it has to be next step, and you have to wait a minimum period before buying the next one).

Government expansion over time (kinda like Vicky 3, but done via estates - and also factions, finally combine the two!) So in this example, you have the faction of the guilds and the burghers estate forming a political movement, which vies for power together, against say the likes of the nobles and clergy who wish to join forces (to an extent). The more you conquer, the more than join the fold - such as local nobles of the region, so if you're Polish and you conquer through to the Steppes, you would have your Szlachta, but also you'd get tribes, cossacks, and if you went further afield to india, depending on where you conquer, you also get Marathas, Brahmins, Rajputs etc. So it's ever expanding and ever dynamic.

Development - this can be done via sprawl. Capital gets most developed, and select areas get developed also (but not to the level of the capital), everything further out reaching gets sprawl development. So the closer to your capital, the more development potential. If you take over a nations capital, you have the option to make it a sprawl city (perhaps, city of culture).

Religious Conversion - done via a combination of sprawl (like Centre of Reformation, starts at a fixed point, then expands outward) with a backup of clerics further helping the agenda. Replacing local temples with the faith equivalent (so, Church/Masjid/Gurdwara > Abbey / Mosque / Sahib > Cathedral / Grand Mosque / Grand Sahib for example)

Cultural Conversion - done via the CK3 method of a singular person on the province. The closer to your culture it is, the easier your can convert it.
Merge and Hybrid Cultures - done via CK3 method, but more natural. So You have the varying flavours of German (such as Saxon, Westphalian, Rhenish etc) eventually become German, or they hybridise with a culture that they border like French, and you revive Frankish or Lotharingian etc.

Admin - becomes a function of your court and advisors (hiring more than one, and recruiting specific ones would be a bonus), which becomes a bonus to your research of some technologies. This should include things to build like infrastructure - such as roads, canals, viaducts, bridges etc. Things that can aid in development, and troop transport and commerce.

Diplomacy - you have to hire as many diplomats as you wish, and their individual skill becomes what determines how relations are improved, also providing a chance to learn new technologies from far away lands. The better the diplomat, the more chance of success (they can also learn languages which would improve their abilities further)

Land Military - Generals develop tactics, aid in development of new military units and fighting abilities, and creation of Special units for each nation - such as Ottoman Jannisaries, Swedish Caroleans, British Redcoats, Spanish Tercios etc.

Naval Military - Admirals develop tactics, aid in development of new ships, flagships and such. Creation of special ships for each nation, such as Iberian Caravels, British and Germanic Crayers, Dutch Hoys or North Sea Balingers.

Golden Era - Only 1 nation in any continent can have a golden era at any time. Nations can have multiple golden era's, but if they lose a war, its an end to it, if their monarch dies, its an end to it.

Government representation - think like in IR...every region gets a governor that deals with things on a local level, whilst you deal with things on a national level, and you instruct them what to do.



More could be done for EU5, but that is just my take on things.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
(you buy a tech from X nation, but it can't be something say 2 techs away in the tree, it has to be next step, and you have to wait a minimum period before buying the next one)
I strongly disagree with this, largely because technological "leaps" by purchasing from another power - guns being the big one here - usually works the exact opposite way of this. If we take Japan as an example, they didn't first purchase handgonnes, then after some time, more refined-caliber guns, then at last the Arquebus. No; they instead went straight on with the Arquebus, and built their own structure of support and their own drills for the weapon, and eventually, their own means of manufacture. If a tech-purchasing system is implemented, I'd much rather see it work more in that fashion. You unlock, say, the unit type right away, no fuss. However, you would lack the preceeding techs with all that entails in terms of military tactics, shock/fire bonuses, combat width, Manufactories, etc, and still have to research those - potentially with a bonus, now that you have access to the culminative technology - for your new-found power (in this case units) to be as strong as the selling power's. But it would still give "early adopters" of this new, foreign tech a big advantage over local neighbours.

This would of course mandate a change in the tech system, but we're on the same page there about one being needed.
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
yeah, so my logic was, if you're researching say, gun riffling, then you have the option to buy it from another power for X value, and the closer to finishing it you are, the cheaper it becomes.
 
I strongly disagree with this, largely because technological "leaps" by purchasing from another power - guns being the big one here - usually works the exact opposite way of this. If we take Japan as an example, they didn't first purchase handgonnes, then after some time, more refined-caliber guns, then at last the Arquebus. No; they instead went straight on with the Arquebus, and built their own structure of support and their own drills for the weapon, and eventually, their own means of manufacture. If a tech-purchasing system is implemented, I'd much rather see it work more in that fashion. You unlock, say, the unit type right away, no fuss. However, you would lack the preceeding techs with all that entails in terms of military tactics, shock/fire bonuses, combat width, Manufactories, etc, and still have to research those - potentially with a bonus, now that you have access to the culminative technology - for your new-found power (in this case units) to be as strong as the selling power's. But it would still give "early adopters" of this new, foreign tech a big advantage over local neighbours.

This would of course mandate a change in the tech system, but we're on the same page there about one being needed.
I like the idea of a tech tree (like the mission tree) where you can nick-pick what you research. more pips, more tacticts, more merc oriented or more professional oriented. Some can be mutulaly exclusive and it fits well with the ''buy/steal tech'' mentionned. You can even merge the tech and idea together in this tree. Research mass draft for 25% manpower or intense training for +5% discipline. These kind of choices more than just click tech 16 and get new bulding, new pips, new stats in 1 day.

Mission tree and governement reforms should also have an effect on tech tree. locking path and fastforward some tech.

On the topic of mana, i like the idea of having a sets of advisor/king stats affect the speed of research in each of the categories instead of a currency in itself.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Personally I'm not a fan of having civ-like research of technology. Rulers selecting what to research or not to research is not very correct representation of this period and the very concept of individual countries reearching stuff independently goes against the way research works in general. Techniques and Technology are discovered and then they spread, virtually all people adopt technology they saw somewhere else, they do not discover it independently. Thus I would prefer a system where 90% of gameplay regarding technological innovation goes towards diffusion of knowledge rather than its creation; something ala the institution mechanic we have already in EU4 which is sadly under-utilized. Also I would appreciate if technology was more focused on marginal improvements rather than "locking stuff behind", but these marginal improvements should accumulate and shift the way player is ruling his country in qualitative manner to make a distinct change between early game and late game.

On the other hand, actively advancing technology is a big dopamine hit and major shifts in what is possible for player make up for more interesting gameplay. So I definitely would like to see the mechanic of a "research tree" with these big tasty buttons implemented, but for govermental reforms regarding taxation systems, military logistics or legal institutions and not for things like "scythe".
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
EU4 mana system actually works well in my opinion. On release it was bad yes, but now you've got so many different ways to affect your mana points and its not all RNG which makes it actually alright.

Certainly its better than Victoria 3 capacities (especially the bureaucracy capacity where you just spam buildings to alleviate it and its really annoying)
 
  • 5
  • 4
Reactions:
I just think much more should be dependent on ducats than anything else.

You want your canons to shoot down walls? That's fine, just make sure you invested in them extra before the war.
You want to develop your provinces? Great, give your bureaucrats/clergy and burghers more gold.
You want to increase the rate at which an institution progresses or technology is adopted? More. Gold.

Where a monarch's skill should be emphasised is in dealing with power-brokers within their domain. A skilled monarch should be able to extract more benefits from his burghers, nobles and clergy while offering them less concessions. A weak one will find themselves in the opposite situation. If it cost 300-400 admin to revoke a privilege offered to the clergy, that would make sense; and it'd be entirely sensible that a strong monarch (i.e., 6/6/6) could revoke the privilege sooner than a weak one.

Empires should also generate much less gold than they do as is. By the 1700s, you could easily make like 500+ ducats in net income and the AI could simply never keep up with you.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
What I don't like is that it is a replacement for a POP mechanic.
I love POP mechanics in Victoria, but I want the EU franchise to be more boardgamey. Victoria 1492 could make for a fine game in its own right, but not as a substitute for an EUV. Victoria provides a world I want to explore and experience; EU I want to play to win, against an AI coded to competently do the same.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Eu5 should not have mana, because I want the forums to be readable.
Also Portugal and Spain should be overpowered.
 
  • 3Haha
  • 1Love
  • 1
Reactions: