Declining Powers

[Ichabod]

Normally in EU (and most strategy games), the play's faction/country is something of a snowball that gets progressively larger - perhaps hitting a momentary bump or snag here or there - but for the most part onwards and upwards. In the evident of a player implosion (or sometimes a momentary bump or snag) the gut reaction is to reload a save or quit the game. I would love to see some way for EUIV to emulate the decline of a player's empire in a way that's both fun and rewarding (i.e. not soul crushing).

Perhaps there is a way to implement a sequence of events that changes the player's focus from glory and expansion to OH MY HEAVENS! SAVE THE COUNTRY! What I'm thinking here is that just like growth is almost inevitable normally; for a declining country, contraction would be inevitable, but give the player certain objectives or let them focus on staving off certain blights. Perhaps Poland is being threatened with invasion by foreign powers, rebels wanting decentralization, and a spreading heresy. The player would only have the resources to focus on one, so during a succession of wars, she would have to cede chunks of her kingdom, and offer religious tolerance to the heretics (increasing stability costs and leading to new branches of more diverse heretics). "Succeeding" wouldn't mean centralizing, but rather decentralizing a little as possible.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

I agree this problem exists, but I just cannot think of a practical way to solve it.

 

[Captain Gars]

I agree this problem exists, but I just cannot think of a practical way to solve it.

It's easy to solve, just not in a way that most players will agree to. Because most players want to see this happening to others - not to themselves. Then the game/devs are just punishing them.

 

[Mr. Capiatlist]

It's easy to solve, just not in a way that most players will agree to. Because most players want to see this happening to others - not to themselves. Then the game/devs are just punishing them.

And that's true. I try to roleplay my countries as much as possible, but I still like succeeding in the end.

 

[Fintilgin]

I think it would help a lot to weaken the ability of the player to blob up so much to begin with. Some form of administration cost per province, declining returns for growing large, etc etc.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

It's easy to solve, just not in a way that most players will agree to. Because most players want to see this happening to others - not to themselves. Then the game/devs are just punishing them.

Well, yeah. There are any amount of ways to solve it, but apparently none of them viable for gameplay. Which is a shame, many of my favourite moments with PI games have been in defeat.

 

[Captain Gars]

Well, yeah. There are any amount of ways to solve it, but apparently none of them viable for gameplay. Which is a shame, many of my favourite moments with PI games have been in defeat.

Same for me. Being steamrolled by Russia and then slowly build up again and start plotting my revenge on them gave me much more fun than blobbing from day one. I think it's one of the better mechanics of CKII that a country can get into a serious decline upon the succession of a new ruler. Hopefully we can add som of this with EUIV's monarch points. But again, many players hate any sort of setback.

 

[Captain Gars]

And that's true. I try to roleplay my countries as much as possible, but I still like succeeding in the end.

It's not about not succeeding (unless being a giant blob over most of the map is what you mean ) but about it being more of a rollercoaster ride than a straight line towards success.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

Same for me. Being steamrolled by Russia and then slowly build up again and start plotting my revenge on them gave me much more fun than blobbing from day one. I think it's one of the better mechanics of CKII that a country can get into a serious decline upon the succession of a new ruler. Hopefully we can add som of this with EUIV's monarch points. But again, many players hate any sort of setback.

Definitely, CK2 made massive strides towards addressing this. AHD did too, with great wars. You are never secure.

Would a system where the more cataclysmic consequences of a bad ruler could be turned off be possible? That way you and me can cheersfully spend the entire game in terror of Ryuku while others can pursue a completely unproblematic quincontinental decentralised Albanian empire.

 

[Mr. Capiatlist]

Same for me. Being steamrolled by Russia and then slowly build up again and start plotting my revenge on them gave me much more fun than blobbing form day one. I think it's one of the better mechanics of CKII that a country can get into a serious decline upon the succession of a new ruler. Hopefully we can add som of this with EUIV's monarch points. But again, many player hate any sort of setback.

I like the idea of diminishing returns. In theory there should be an "optimal" size, best for defense and best for income. Too big and you are sacrificing income for defense, too small and you are sacrificing defense for income. "Income" here is income per prov.

 

[Jaol]

It's easy to solve, just not in a way that most players will agree to. Because most players want to see this happening to others - not to themselves. Then the game/devs are just punishing them.

True, but I think the OP's suggestion still has merit. Perhaps some sort of missions or events that give players a goal when things are going wrong, would help make it feel less like the game is punishing them and more like a new challenge.

For example, if you're Poland getting steamrolled by Russia and the TO, you might get a mission to not lose Danzig. The little reward you get for that could make it feel less frustrating when you have to trade away other lands to save the port.

The way CK2 empires can collapse on a monarch's death make blobbing harder, but it still can feel like the game is out to get you. Getting some sort of guidance on what to save and a reward for managing the decline might make it psychologically more enjoyable.

 

[Slaxl]

It's easy to solve, just not in a way that most players will agree to. Because most players want to see this happening to others - not to themselves. Then the game/devs are just punishing them.

Just out of curiosity what is your opinion the best way to solve this, that some players might perceive as you punishing them?

 

[Darkath]

It's not about not succeeding (unless being a giant blob over most of the map is what you mean ) but about it being more of a rollercoaster ride than a straight line towards success.

I don't know how hard it would be to do, but may be a stability setting (low/normal/high) that would cause blobs to shatter more easily if they become too big, more powerful rebellions, and the likes if set to low. I reckon it would be tricky to execute and balance, but as players do have very different tastes in that regard it can be worth a shot.

I know i'm often bored in late game EU3 when my empire become un challenged, either from within or from outside. And it's true that CK2 can give a more thrilling aspects to managing a large empire because there is some sort of AI behind every one of your vassals (while in EU3, once you blobbed everything, it's over, they might throw rebels at you, but nothing a human player can't handle).

 

[Autonomous]

Same for me. Being steamrolled by Russia and then slowly build up again and start plotting my revenge on them gave me much more fun than blobbing from day one. I think it's one of the better mechanics of CKII that a country can get into a serious decline upon the succession of a new ruler. Hopefully we can add som of this with EUIV's monarch points. But again, many players hate any sort of setback.

Y'know, just spitballing here, it doesn't necessarily have to be a setback setback. Relative decline is still a decline, right?

 

[unddu]

As long as any limitations or maluses do not change the game into fast forwarding on speed 5, then it's all good. One needs to be able to also better their country and not be forced to twiddle their thumbs because they need to burn BB//wait for better relationships//wait for the century to turn because then it magically becomes easier to manage more land//

Do not ever give my empire a silly malus, just because it should get it "in reality". Gameplay>Realism every day of the week.

In short, for the extremely patient and capable player, it should be possible to do a full world conquest and full conversion of the entire world with a OPM.

 

[Nis Baggesen]

It's easy to solve, just not in a way that most players will agree to. Because most players want to see this happening to others - not to themselves. Then the game/devs are just punishing them.

But then, that is arguably _not_ a solution. The whole point would be to make the decline an experience you would want play, or at least try.

Without implying that these are easy solutions, I could come make a couple of suggestions:

1) A scoring or achievement system which rewards decline. It could reward the decline itself or it could reward recovering from a decline (indirectly forcing you to decline, to become small enough to reenter the state of recovery and growth). Of course score and achievements alone are not enough motivate everybody, but for some it could be a reward worth the 'pain and struggle' of playing through a decline.

2) Let 'growth' be a resource and let empires 'run out of steam', and let the decline be a way of recharging that steam. The boardgame Smallworld (and it's predecessor Vinci) has mechanics to this effect, where you struggle to push your race/nation to the fullest, but a key decision is when to shift to a new and more vital group. Or in the boardgame 'History of the World' where you are similarly forced to change empires. Obviously in EU you would often prefer to stay with the same nation, but something similar might be adapted there.

3) Turn decline/defeat into opportunities. A nation that always succeeds will become complacent and lazy, but one that faced adversity may innovate and fight with new vigour. So facing opposition might lead to advantages like faster technology improvements, or an opportunity to reform national policies and ideas. Loosing to land or wars might turn territory into 'cores' faster than just holding it, as now you have the national myth of having lost 'traditional' territory. Or decline can be an opportunity to get rid of old institutions that are hobbling your realm - such as a corrupt military or a backwards looking clergy. Or you might get specially good leaders and great people - people how are driven to restore your empire to its former glory.

4) Allow us to feel the joys of decadence and decline. In most strategy games there are none of the rewards of corruption and decadence as there is in the real world. When you can't experience the joys of the drunken orgies and the loose women, there is much less of an incentive to give in to these temptations. But you could at least offer some temptations for a corrupt king to enjoy. An ability to build wonders and monuments to yourself. Events that describe these orgies and other amusing stories.

5) Make it 'easy' to recover. While recovery shouldn't be trivial, it should somehow be a bit easier than achieving greatness in the first place. On of the things that make partial setbacks fun in CK2 - such as loosing an important title - is that at least you are given a claim to it, and you probably have a few supporters that would like to see you have it back. So getting back to where you where is not as hard as getting the title in the first place.

6) Make the decline fairly swift. Don't force me to suffer through a long period of 'almost making it' or knowing things can only go down hill. There should be some chance to avoid the problems all together, but if the decline hits let it be fairly swift, so you can get back into the generally more fun part of growing back.

7) Allow me to play the 'heirs'. Obviously this only applies to some forms of decline, but if one dynasty is in a position to overtake another, or a significant part of your nation is looking to secede in rebellion, then allow me to play the rebels. And let these rebels have some of the advantages of being a new a vital force.

These are just a few very broad strokes ideas, and I know it is much easier writing these than actually getting them to work in a game. But I think it would be a shame if you don't try to capture declining empires in some form which is actually appealing to play, as it is such a central part of history. And I think CK2 is a great example of a game where I've sucked up many more defeats that I would normally take from a computer game, just because they are fun to play through, so I know you have it in you to do these things.

 

[Slaxl]

Do not ever give my empire a silly malus, just because it should get it "in reality". Gameplay>Realism every day of the week..

See... to me if something isn't realistic it detracts from the gameplay. Anything that takes me out of the mood of the game or makes me roll my eyes is a terrible thing. For me realism and gameplay are so intertwined that if you try to reduce realism to enhance gameplay you end up detracting from both. Some of the things I see people saying about balancing gameplay and realism make me scratch my head. If it's real put it in, if it's not don't. Don't add unrealistic elements.

But I'm not trying to market a game to a wider audience, I selfishly only want it to be tailored to me. At least I'm honest about that, though.

I'll agree with you about the no maluses for the sake of it. If everything was modelled in more detail and depth (which isn't meant to imply things aren't at the moment, it's amazing levels of details, i'm just insatiable), then the maluses could be better applied, and more realistic.

 

[Me_]

Let me tell you a few stories. They are as you already guessed based on games I had of EU3 and I want to use them to explain what I think makes a fine experience and what does not.
First a game as Khmer in EU3 In Nomine. That was before the Chinese factions were introduced. I played happily expanding in Indochina sometimes easily, sometimes with great difficulty when Ming declared war on me. I had no chance. A great player might have pulled it out but I couldn’t. The Chinese crushed my armies and took my provinces. They would stop at nothing less than half or more of my land. I couldn’t agree to that. If I did that wouldn’t mean just being set back – it would mean that everything I did up until then was meaningless. That it was all for nothing. If I left the game and started again I would be in a better position than if I gave up to Ming. So I did (quit) and tried again this time trying hard to keep as far from Ming as possible. Many, many turns later I was fully westernized and with European units from my European colonies. I attacked Ming with 20 000 high tech units and crushed them completely.
This was not a fun game first try because I was punished by random number generator (the war started with an event given core) the second try because I found a way to remove all feeling of threat.
Second game is one I played as Muscovy -> Russia. I played with random lucky nations in EU3 In Nomine and the Timurids were lucky. They created a giant undefeated empire spanning from Turkey to India (but somehow never formed the Mughals). For a long time they were a huge threat and we had a couple of wars that ended either in a White Peace or a province-two changing hands until one time I decided to make a full scale war. I destroyed all of their armies and occupied their lands until I had 90% warscore. I demanded that they release Persia and the war exhaustion tor the rest of their land apart.
This was not a fun game. In just a single war I managed to completely wreck the biggest threat there was to me in the game. I quit soon afterwards with no challenge or purpose left.
The third game was as Byzantines in Divine Wind. I managed to take back all Byzantine cores and fulfill all of their missions. I was quite happy with myself when Austria declared war on me over some former HRE provinces. They were the HRE, their army was over twice larger than mine and lots of allies and a few months later Qara Konlyu broke tribute I paid them I was a year or two away from Timurids (pre 5.2) attacking me again after last horde war. It was difficult I had to use my fleet to move my troops around and to trap Austrians in North Italy. I won but I only grew by uncored two provinces.
That was a fun game. It was hard but I felt that I might just be able to pull it off even when I was against two of the top 5 nations in the game (Austria and Timurids) at the same time. And I neither lose anything nor broke my enemies to the point of removing all challenge.
The fourth game was as England -> Great Britain In Nomine. There is only one thing of note from this game. At some point I found myself responding to a call to arms from some HRE member (I randomly became Emperor). It seemed like an easy fight until I noticed that I was rapidly losing ground in France. Turns out four-province Provence (with a CoT) managed to build a single 20000 strong army with a great general (high skilled king) and was storming my forts one by one and defeating my anti-rebel armies like they weren’t there.
It was fun because: 1) it was totally unexpected, 2) it forced me to treat what seemed like a minor war like a serious conflict and made me think outside the box (there was no way for me to match that army before it would take all of France).
The last game is a game as Byzantines In Nomine. Over the course of the game I had an alliance with Austria and we both grew considerably. Then we parted ways and when our paths crossed again we were the top two nations in the world and I had a core on their province. It was a hard war and not the only one. We fought a few hard wars and neither one of us were ever dropped out of the “best two” club.
It was a good game – every war was a challenge and I never managed to break Austria. Even when they got the Revolution chain of events and I took the Imperial crown from them, even when they lost Poland and Vienna I knew I was never truly safe when a fifth of Europe was still Austrian (and mostly cored). I played that game to the end (1821) the last one I did.

So what lessons do I give from this?
1) do not let random numbers generator punish players and give them warnings that things may go to hell soon;
2) make sure there are nations around that can mach them in power (keep in mind that to mach a human in “power” the AI nation needs to be both richer and bigger than human-controlled one);
3) reward players for overcoming challenges, the details I leave open, but that Khmer game was a huge disappointment from day 1 due to a lack of any possible goal;
4) punish players in ways that make them understand what caused the punishment (I know why Provence could kick my ass in France when they were 60 times smaller – I neglected constructing forts and kept too few troops near the border, I also didn’t pay attention when they formed a wealthy CoT and monopolized it);
5) do not let nations be broken in a single war, it makes it very hard to achieve 2);
6) give players some unexpected challenge (Provence again) every once in a while.

There may be some other lessons I thought about but already forgotten.

 

[Nis Baggesen]

As long as any limitations or maluses do not change the game into fast forwarding on speed 5, then it's all good. One needs to be able to also better their country and not be forced to twiddle their thumbs because they need to burn BB//wait for better relationships//wait for the century to turn because then it magically becomes easier to manage more land//

Do not ever give my empire a silly malus, just because it should get it "in reality". Gameplay>Realism every day of the week.

In short, for the extremely patient and capable player, it should be possible to do a full world conquest and full conversion of the entire world with a OPM.

I would have to say that I don't completely agree. I'm with you in the sense that I don't think the game should ever leave you with nothing to but wait. There should preferably always be something engaging, fun and meaningful to do. But I do think it is more than fair to put roadblocks in the way, and (this is purely personal taste of course) think it is completely fair to say that World Conquest is impossible no matter how you began.

 

[Jaol]

Gameplay>Realism every day of the week.

In short, for the extremely patient and capable player, it should be possible to do a full world conquest and full conversion of the entire world with a OPM.

You and I have a very different definition of good gameplay.