Declining Powers

[BigPoppa1111]

Instead of instituting declines, a different approach would be to make it less "profitable" from a gameplay standpoint to annex everything in sight. I believe there is a value that could be achieved by making allies/vassals/satellites worthwhile to have around in the game, worth more than just outright annexing. If this is achieved, then it naturally becomes an obvious block to growth. The rebels from newly conquered provinces are just annoying, and let's be honest, if you have a large standing army, you just run it around crushing the rebels anyways. Ultimately the tools you use to expand are the same tools that you use to keep expansion profitable.

I think the CB system in Victoria 2 isn't a bad model for some of this. Use a system like this for diplomacy/national interactions. It will slow things down, but at the same time, make alliances/unions last longer and take efforts from other countries to drive that wedge apart. Part of the reason we annex countries in EU was that you could never really count on them to do anything useful for any length of time, not to mention we could manage that country better than the AI anyways. If we strengthen the diplomatic part of the game and make alliances useful and long lasting, we probably will be less tempted to annex them the first time they break our alliace for no reason.

You could also put a large penalty on the rewards of newly conquered territory and then make the player use alot of resources to remove the penalty. Make production, tax, and manpower different penalties so players can pick and chose were to invest the resources. Instead of playing whack-a-mole with rebels, make it just another large dissention penalty that is only slowly reduced if you actively occupy the province with a certain number of soldiers. Annexing five or six provinces may seem like a good idea, until I realize that I will need to tie up 50k troops for 50 years to make those places actually useful to me.

 

[unmerged(75409)]

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.

I understand you guys don't want to make a game that players end up hating.

However when you say, you were steamrolled by Russia and then slowly built up again, aren't you actually saying, "I blobbed like I always do when I play EU3, but this time it only started 100 years into the campaign, and therefore I quit the game only in 1700 instead of 1600 like I always do" ?


I like the CK2 idea that you don't have to blob, that you can have fun even when you are being un-blobbed by fate and by agressive neighbours. You say players hate it, but I get the impression that in CK2 there is a lot that lets you "pull through" and not quit, even when you have to take losses. For example, when you're in a succession crisis with a 5-year old king, or when you have a woman ruler, you suffer, and you may even lose your king titles. But in your head you're like, "I am weak now, but when my king is grown up (or my queen has gotten rid of the short reign penalty), I will be strong again and I will take back what is mine!" You know, for sure, that your period of weakness will end, because you know the boy king will grow up.

EU3 never had that for me. When you are trounced by Russia or Spain, there isn't that "glimmer of hope" that has you pull through. All you see is, you are losing the valuable colonies, you are racking up debt that takes decades to pay back. You go "I am not going to get stronger any time soon. When Russia is done with me I know for sure that Portugal will also jump on me and I will end up in a no-fun situation, where I don't know when it will end."

I was thinking, how can you give the player hope, in EU3? How can you let a player see a light at the end of the tunnel, even if the tunnel is still long and dark?

What about having society-transforming events that only kick in, when you are losing?

For example: Cultural "achievements" that happen to you when you are down on your luck, like having a writer compose an epic tragedy that will forever more define your national ethos? (Think: Kosovo Polje for the Serbs... worst defeat they suffered, ever, leading to a very very long time under Ottoman servitude. But it's, like, the supreme epic of their literature, and a point of reference for every Serb even 600 years later.) The effect of such a cultural achievement would be a lasting modifier to all nations that share your culture, and making your provinces of your culture harder to culturally convert / religiously convert after you lose control of them.

You could also have certain military effects, like "Complacency among the officer corps", be removed much easier if you have been through a defeat. Think about how defeats can break the complacency of your ruling classes and totally shake up your nation. Think Prussian reforms under Hardenberg and von Stein, after Prussia's crushing defeat at the hands of Napoleon.

Other things... bankruptcy could lead to improved business practices. The greatest scholarly minds are inspired to write ground breaking treatises, after disaster befell your country. Would France ever have become the leading nation of the enlightenment, if the French monarchy had not lost all its prestige under Louis XV and XVI? Playing a successful absolutist monarchy should PREVENT you from ever seeing much enlightenment! Seeing your monarchy lose all its prestige in lost wars and bankruptcies, on the other hand, could trigger the event that gives the player hope again - "Our philosophers are developing a totally new system of government." and you know, if this keeps up, you will be the first to get to try out the revolutionary republic concept! If you choose to tolerate the new thinkers, that is. You could also try to crack down on them.

Religious things as well... having conversion forced on you by a stronger nation, could lead to a resurgence in cultural thought where your great thinkers re-define what it means to be an Omani / Portuguese / Brandenburger. Religious could suddenly become less important to your nation, thereby giving you that "

The central idea is, that after defeats and during periods of weakness, some really grand things happen to you. While you are down on your luck on one front (bankruptcy + lost war) a light appears on another front (breakthrough in philosophical thought). When it's darkest (loss of all colonies) your nation realizes that there are totally different pathways to light and fortune (emergence of national consciousness). When you think you lost it all (death spiral of debt and instability, revolters forced your government to make concessions that destroy all advances you made in centralization) you suddenly see that the failure only aided you in shedding the parts that held you back (the weakness of your government provides your merchants and producers with unexpected freedoms, your economy recovers, you discover you like constitutional monarchy much better than absolutism after all).

I think EU4 would profit, as a game, if there were rewards for those who accept failure and pull through. The game would also gain unexpectedness and challenge. A nation that you defeated and stripped of half its territory might get "Rise of Nationalism" and suddenly be stronger than it ever was, despite being cut in half.

Think of how France made it through the 18th century, if seen through the lense of EU3: Started out as a blob under Louis XIV, won phenomenal successes (imposed its dynasty on Spain, colonized N.A., became immensely prestigeous), then declined massively (lost all N.A. colonies, lost all prestige, went bankrupt, suffered massive revolt) and then soared again like a comet after the string of defeats totally shook up the country's government, economy, national identity and ultimately its entire self-definition. It should be fun to play through something like that. Modifiers that you get only during defeats, and paths of development that only open up when your society suffers a deep "Shake-up", would enable something like that.

 

[magitsu]

I think that the game can include some amount of pure evilness.
Like the BBB in EUs, or the Abominable Snow Monster in SkiFree.
If the mechanism is somewhat fair, it can be very hard and remain a fun challenge.

Hard work and risk of losing it all is required to really value your achievements.
Gunning for ever faster WC is just meaningless grind, but escaping from Coup de grâce -situation and rebuilding is a true feat.

 

[Happy_Lonely]

What PI games are generally lacking is a big enough difference between difficulty levels. The hardest should be impossible with France, the easiest piece of cake with Trebizond. If you want to play on very hard, you shouldn't be complaining about your empire falling apart. I do understand people who want to see their empire expanding from day 1 until the end. For most players, that should be on normal or easy level. For the mechanic of Empires declining, I see the plurality as the main reason behind eventual collapse of an empire. Of course, it needs other reasons, such as bad rulers or internal deadlock between factions of the society. You have different cultures, religions, increasingly diverging economic interests etc.

Easy way to make late game empires implode would be to have fewer, but harder rebellions - more similar to those found on V2. Instead of single province rebellions, have continent-spanning colonies declare independence while you are fighting a two front war in continental Europe... that would pose a credible yet challenging situation.

Good management of these situations could also lead to in-game accomplishments, such as tags. For example, if you give your colonies independence peacefully, you could have a tag for being seen as progressive and humane leader. If you time and again crush colonial revolters, you would be seen as narrowminded opressor. Or something similar.

 

[Nis Baggesen]

I think EU4 would profit, as a game, if there were rewards for those who accept failure and pull through. The game would also gain unexpectedness and challenge. A nation that you defeated and stripped of half its territory might get "Rise of Nationalism" and suddenly be stronger than it ever was, despite being cut in half.

I really have to agree with you there. And I think you are also spot on about the 'glimmer of hope' being a vital ingredient of being willing to pull through, and one of the things that work quite well in CK2. Another thing I like in CK2 is that since some things are 'once per king' or only really happens when you inherit, you are actually wishing for even good rulers to dies some times. You know it will cause some setbacks when it happens, but you also know that it will allow you to do even greater things. And you can prepare (at least a bit) for the crisis.

 

[Don_Quigleone]

Some EU mods introduced "administrative efficiency", depending on your sliders and national ideas, you could govern more territories. This put a nice break on expansion. Suddenly it wasn't just about grabbing that piece of land, it was also about "can I run it afterwards?"

 

[Secret Master]

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.

Well, the problem is that the player isn't enjoying the decadence. I'm trying to enjoy myself by building an empire. Since the decadence isn't coming over to my house for a fun evening of debauchery, I can't see it being "fun" to have decadence be a herald of imperial decline

It does give me the best idea for an expansion, though. I can see it now!

For immediate release!


Paradox Interactive announces Europa Universalis IV: Decadence and Debauchery

Tagline: Can your empire survive decadence and debauchery?

From the masters and inventors of grand strategy comes an expansion to the best selling Europa Universalis IV. Understanding the secure and powerful empires breed decadence and debauchery, the expansion seeks to capitalize on the factors that led to imperial decline during the Renaissance. Now, not only must you build an empire, but you must keep it.

New Features:

Decadence mechanic: As your empire grows in power, so does its decadence without major wars being fought on a regular basis.

Swedish Bikini and Male Speedo Teams: When decadence gets too high, the game switches into unpausable mode and the Swedish Bikini and Male Speedo Teams come over to your house. Can you continue to guide your empire to victory while they writhe and dance? (There is a Danish Bikini Team Spritepack available as DLC for pre-orders. Just copy and paste it over them when they come to your house.)

Tasteless Nudity: At the highest levels of decadence, interface elements are replaced with tasteless nude frescos guaranteed to offend your ruler's religion of choice!

New Province Buildings: Build a vomitorium in your capital and have it appear in your own home! Create a massive theater and have Shakespeare stop by to bite his thumb at your facebook page!

Get personal with your leaders: Commission conquistadors to explore the New World, and then have them stop by your apartment after their travels to regale you with stories! Have you admirals sail to your yacht club and sink your fellow members expensive boats!


All of this and more is available on April 1st via Gamersgate.

 

[ANO1453]

I like the CK2 idea that you don't have to blob, that you can have fun even when you are being un-blobbed by fate and (...)

That was just great!

For example, in a mod I was working on, losing wars (like -70 warscore) would be the only way to change to more democratic/decentralised Government types, precisely in the spirit that, in adversity, there is also change.

 

[Jaol]

What about having society-transforming events that only kick in, when you are losing?

Great idea. One of the excellent features of Vicky2 is that sometimes you really want things to go horribly wrong, because that's the only way to push your POPs towards a certain ideology, or its a shortcut to certain reforms.

If EU4 had some sort of "lessons of defeat" events/modifiers/missions that gave you interesting bonuses after or while getting crushed, it might make players more willing to suffer through the bad times.

 

[murlocmancer]

I do agree that with CK2 i do decline especially if I am near considerable enemies and have a large empre. For example playign she the Byzantines rebellions can really slow me down and set me back. Although sometimes I don't like it (i hate plagues in small places when playing vic (like krakow ><) but in some ways they are fun.

 

[AlHasanAlbaghdadi]

I agree, I dont like losing completely, its just not fun, I would accept defeat if there was a hope that I could regain what I lost but when there isnt the game gets rather pointless... this is something that applies to victoria 2 more than EU3
in EU3 its easy to become unstoppable, I agree that there should be something like a decline that you can interact with and try to get out of... more micromanagement would be nice
as to heresy, it already exists and I think it works pretty well

 

[unmerged(75409)]

You could also have game aspects where you are more or less asked to "de-blob" yourself. For example, if your colonies aren't profitable and just holding you down (something the player needs to "detect" himself in EU3) you could get an event where the leading minds of your nation explain this to you, and advise you to dump the colonies or rid yourself in some other way of them. You can of course defy them but it would also tell you that the leading minds think (=i.e. it is certain) that the nation will re-invent itself in some way if you heed the advice.

In-game this means, that once you cut yourself free from the colonies, not only will your income/expenses ratio be better (you wouldn't need an event to see that), you would also get to choose your nation's "destiny" in some other, new way. I.e. you get to swap one or two NI's for free, twinkle with sliders for free, and so on. For a few years, your nation might get the "we are reinventing ourselves" modifier and that would lower requirements for all kinds of society-changing decisions.

A reward, in a way, for doing something that a capable player would never have to do (lose unprofitable colonies, or make up for earlier mistakes in slider-tuning) but that would make it easier on the less experiences players. It would tune them in to the idea that you can profit from de-blobbing, and also give you the chance to adapt.

 

[unmerged(271387)]

Changing society should be really hard and isn't something done overnight

 

[keynes2.0]

Maybe some wimps would complain about being forced into a decline but if there's one thing I've learned from these forums it's that a lot of players are gluttons for punishment. P'dox, appeal to this core demographic and give EU4 a badass mode. Let the heavens rain every punishment imaginable upon me, it will make my survival legendary or my defeat glorious!

 

[Gunnarr]

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

Agreed! For me Realism>Gameplay!!! But perhaps that is from my history obsessions

 

[Connor Mulhern]

Maybe some wimps would complain about being forced into a decline but if there's one thing I've learned from these forums it's that a lot of players are gluttons for punishment. P'dox, appeal to this core demographic and give EU4 a badass mode. Let the heavens rain every punishment imaginable upon me, it will make my survival legendary or my defeat glorious!

I might need something a little bit more than a "badass mode" maybe borrow the idea of "realism" from total war, optional, but for hardcore players, it greatly improves the experience

 

[ANO1453]

You could also have game aspects where you are more or less asked to "de-blob" yourself. For example, if your colonies aren't profitable and just holding you down (something the player needs to "detect" himself in EU3) you could get an event where the leading minds of your nation explain this to you, and advise you to dump the colonies or rid yourself in some other way of them. You can of course defy them but it would also tell you that the leading minds think (=i.e. it is certain) that the nation will re-invent itself in some way if you heed the advice.

In-game this means, that once you cut yourself free from the colonies, not only will your income/expenses ratio be better (you wouldn't need an event to see that), you would also get to choose your nation's "destiny" in some other, new way. I.e. you get to swap one or two NI's for free, twinkle with sliders for free, and so on. For a few years, your nation might get the "we are reinventing ourselves" modifier and that would lower requirements for all kinds of society-changing decisions.

A reward, in a way, for doing something that a capable player would never have to do (lose unprofitable colonies, or make up for earlier mistakes in slider-tuning) but that would make it easier on the less experiences players. It would tune them in to the idea that you can profit from de-blobbing, and also give you the chance to adapt.

For a mod I was working on, I always thought of nudges to take people down certain roads. Something the player doesn't have to do, but he will feel better if he does it and if he goes that way.
I think that is a good approach, and it looks like exactly the approach you are suggesting.

 

[fenwayb]

Agreed! For me Realism>Gameplay!!! But perhaps that is from my history obsessions

why play video games then? If you want realism over gameplay, just go out to the real world. Gameplay should always trump realism, because it is a game, and the point is to play it.

 

[lullelulle]

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.

Yes, one of my favourite moments in any Pdox game was when I was new with Vicky2 and testing the Great War mod as the Ottomans. I lost the first great war against Austria and Russia, but destroyed them both and France in the second. Probably one of the most satisfying victories I've had.

I really wish I had an easier time to roleplay, but I always end up just making excuses for gaming the system, or often I just straight up stop roleplaying and game the system anyway.

why play video games then? If you want realism over gameplay, just go out to the real world. Gameplay should always trump realism, because it is a game, and the point is to play it.

But I'm not an emperor in real life.

 

[Secret Master]

why play video games then? If you want realism over gameplay, just go out to the real world. Gameplay should always trump realism, because it is a game, and the point is to play it.

In fairness to others, it is impossible for me to travel back in time, take control of House of Trastámara in 1399, redirect Castile's foreign policy, finance explorers towards the New World in the 1450s, establish colonies in the Caribbean by the 1470s, and completely dominate both North an South America within two centuries, blocking out all other European powers. I can't do that in the real world. Hell, I can't even do that in the contemporary world with a contemporary nation-state (assuming I could get into power; that's a laugh), since the United States might object to my plans of imperialism.

If I could do that any of that in real life, then I would a) probably not be a human being (I'd be a Time Lord or something similar) and b) I'd be living in a world where Paradox games would be the least of my entertaining possibilities. I'd like to think that if I were in a position of political power and could influence geopolitics substantially at work, the last thing I'd want to do when I got home for the evening would be to dominate the world as a hobby. I'd probably take up Farmville or Angry Birds.