Declining Powers

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Captain Gars]

And at last. It scares me if you as developers listen too much to these total war players wanting an easier game of the EU-series.

Personally I'm very far from the conquer-the-world playstyle, but the thing is we have to listen to them as well. The reason I answered in this thread is not that I dismiss these ideas but because I would like to introduce more features in this direction.

 

[Captain Gars]

How about Brandenburg that was ravaged in 30years war, and than rose in power, to form Prussia, and win the 7-years war?

Ravaged yes, but they actually didn't lose any territory in the conflict. Instead, without lifting too many fingers, they were rewarded with even more land than Sweden got out of it.

 

[Captain Gars]

the N1 and N3 are same type of players, that want to be capable of doing what they want, without the AI interfering too much.

Definitely not. magritte2's description above is actually a rather good definition of some of the different views players have when playing our games.

 

[Captain Gars]

Loosing about half of population equates to not lifting too many fingers?
I beg to differ. It is a huge blow, not many countries IRL even suffered, not to mention recovering from such.

Their military contribution may be small, but my point was about devastation and recovery, not military contribution.

I wasn't talking about human suffering but in terms of game mechanics. If you have all your provinces looted by foregin armies plus some bad modifier on pop growth and economy, but in the end - without any real military effort - don't lose any provinces and are rewarded with more land than any other participant in the war, I would say you were rather lucky.

But, it is great to know, that you did read the tread.

Why wouldn't I? Only you and Jaol have posted more in this thread than I

 

[Captain Gars]

What if Atlas shrugged?

 

[Captain Gars]

You do not seem to comment on the sugestions much, in a typical PI manner :closedeyes:

I always wanted to ask why do various developers behave that way, if it is not too much to ask.

Several reasons. One is that forumites tend to read way too much into everything you say. Two, by just commenting on something many forumites take that as a promise that a feature will be in the game. And three, as a developer to get into an argument on the forum rarely ends well.

And since I'm neither the producer, game designer or project lead I have a limited influence on what goes into the game or not anyway.

 

[Castellon]

Discussion of death camps and the like is a banned topic on this forum.
There are no death camps in the game there will be no death camps in the game, all conversation related to death camps will cease.