Declining Powers

[ZechsMerquise73]

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.

The problem is that most PI games do this by spawning arbitrary rebels that annoy you into quitting the game instead of making an actual challenge. Chasing rebels from province to province isn't any fun for anyone. Another big problem is that the game doesn't have any real macro management ability to put the player on par with what a computer can do.

Don't be arbitrary and outfront reveal the mechanics of it. Don't say "you have too many provinces, please wait 75 years to start a war again". That doesn't even make any sense, and is clearly showing that the game is punishing you for "being a little too big", when that shouldn't be your only reason for having problems. Find a more fun way to do it, like in CK2.

But don't hold the player's hand. Who cares if they post a few negative "too hard Q.Q" threads? Tell them to play on easy mode, use cheats, or mod the game. :/ Why give crybabies any more than three options?

 

[Ashantai]

The law of diminishing returns should be in force. The amount of provinces you can profitably hold should be moderated by your government type, leader ADM stat and number of same culture provinces you have.

Napoleon was probably the greatest general of his age, yet even he could not hold all of Europe for 10 years let alone 100. There should come a point where it is simply too difficult to conquer more. Not through rebels, but by it simply not being profitable.

The advantage here would be that colonial provinces; small in size and mostly uniform in culture, could be owned much more than the high population, disparate populations of Europe or Asia. In EU3 it is simply too easy to conquer Europe, convert it to your religion and make money off them within a few decades. Remember, production income isn't reduced by most of the things taxes are.

You could model it on base tax or a similar figure, after which it's not worth continuing. BUT, it gives the players something to work towards. By the end of the game, with advanced governments and a good leader you can dominate Europe. Just...don't make it possible by 1500!

 

[Alerias]

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.

Setbacks when you screw up are fine. Setbacks for the sake of setting players back aren't, IMO. Good play should be rewarded.

Anyone who scumsaves is destroying his experience and the game shouldnt be modeled around him.

The only thing that got me the scumsave in EU are the horribly broken cascading alliance mechanics.. and then, I stopped playing EU in short order.

This bitter experience makes me wary of your statements, as I'm very much against 'artificial challenge' created by absurd mechanics like this one.

OTOH succession in CK2 feels fine to me. If you prepare carefully for it, you can avoid it. If you play with fire, and die unexpectedly, it blows up in your face. I can live with that, because I prepare carefully.

 

[flame7926]

I really think this needs to be thought about in development a lot. A game that keeps challenging you, and where you pretty much can't grow beyond a certain point, because it isn't profitable anymore.

 

[vanin]

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.

I don't think he (and me and others) ask for a historical simulator, but we want a game that depicts a period in history to be heavily anchored in that period of history. Yes, Europa Universalis is certainly anchored in the period, but not heavily enough that things that are completely implausible may yet happen or that things that in history happened often - states being faced with adversity and decline - are nearly omitted in the games. Yes, your country can fall apart, but often it does so over a few years involving being teamed by your neighbours, not over a century were you fall behind in tech and stop being the behemoth you were previously like what happened to the Ottomans. In EU3 "decline" meant that you were wiped of the map, not that you became a bit weaker so that those around you stopped being as afraid of you. EU3 is about painting the world in your color and to avoid getting your country painted in another color than your own.

I personally want gameplay mechanics anchored in realism, because I can't play a game set in a period that I have marginal knowledge of without eventually modding my save file to such a degree that I mod more than I play, and I often quit games just because something completely implausible was kicked in motion and I'm no longer in the mood to fix it by cheating. In that sense maybe pen-and-paper RPGs would fit me better as I like to tailor the game to fit reality to a plausible degree, but pen-and-paper isn't much of an interactive medium and I like games.

And no I don't want determinism either, I don't want 100% game swere the Ottomans always rise to the top and then decline, but I want things like that happening in the game, to whichever nations they may be. Trying to steer a country you have built to greatness out of a period of decline and instability would in my opinion be a challenge that could be very enjoyable. Also it would be an inherent mechanic to deter blobbing like Ming in Russia or France owning all of Europe.

 

[Jaol]

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.

I'd be wary of trying to copy CK2 too much in this regard. CK2 does a roller-coaster game well because so much of the game is based on essentially random things like your ruler's stats, whether your heir dies in battle, etc.. A certain level of randomness is a key part of CK2, so when things blow up in your face because of something you had little or no control over, it fits the feel of the game.

In EU games, on the other hand, these sorts of random events are less important, or at least more in background. So using them to reign in the player may feel less like a challenge and more like an arbitrary limit.

For example, when your ruler dies and is replaced by his incompetent son in CK2, it's unquestionably a setback, but in some ways it's actually more engrossing than if your new ruler was competent. For one thing, you've probably been nervously watching the heir for a while, hoping he'd develop some decent skills, and planning out how you'll deal with rebellions/lower demesne limits/etc.. But more importantly you've probably planned out his marriage, and can not only look forward to how you're going to eventually get out of this mess, but also see how the bad ruler is part of the plan. Getting a bad ruler never felt like this in EU3, and while I'm sure EU4 can do better, I doubt it can ever equal a character-based game like CK2 in terms of making bad rulers feel like a fun part of the game.

 

[AlphaNarwhal]

I think this would be nice, but I hope they don't use the stability mechanic from EU3. In CK2 your empire would be unstable as the result of something tangible, like angry vassals or pretenders.

 

[nOxr]

The law of diminishing returns should be in force. The amount of provinces you can profitably hold should be moderated by your government type, leader ADM stat and number of same culture provinces you have.

Napoleon was probably the greatest general of his age, yet even he could not hold all of Europe for 10 years let alone 100. There should come a point where it is simply too difficult to conquer more. Not through rebels, but by it simply not being profitable.

The advantage here would be that colonial provinces; small in size and mostly uniform in culture, could be owned much more than the high population, disparate populations of Europe or Asia. In EU3 it is simply too easy to conquer Europe, convert it to your religion and make money off them within a few decades. Remember, production income isn't reduced by most of the things taxes are.

You could model it on base tax or a similar figure, after which it's not worth continuing. BUT, it gives the players something to work towards. By the end of the game, with advanced governments and a good leader you can dominate Europe. Just...don't make it possible by 1500!

The most natural would probably be to link it with Monarch points and traits. To control and administer a hugely expanded kingdom, full of newly conquered and wrong culture provinces, should suck up a lot of time and attention (points) from the ruler. As a result, less points are left to other projects and developments, forcing the player to make hard choices. In that way, the cost of too rapid expansion becomes an opportunity cost, and such costs can be much more severe without feeling intrusive or crippling since they become part of your story. Instead of just sitting on your hands and waiting for the penalties to go away, you would feel the weight of your large country over your head and try to juggle hot priorities. Combine that with the opinion penalties your expansion probably incurred from neighbours and overexpansion becomes a high stress endeavour. Then your ruler dies. And the new incompetent ruler can't juggle, and don't have the strength to hold the weight of your large country over his head, so everything falls down on you.

 

[TheArchduke]

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.

Make it optional in the settings I would say. Civil Wars in Eu2 were a great MP-Feature shaking up things now and then without being too crippling.

 

[SA_Avenger]

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 think most of those players will use the load older save and do something to counter things before hell break lose. So as long as players have tools to avoid missluck even those who don't like losing should be fine with a reload

It's much less fun when you get streamrolled by Russia every single time imho but it's fine if it happens sometimes

 

[Nis Baggesen]

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.

Because for some reason arbitrary nations wont let me rule them just for my personal entertainment. Not to mention the hassle of restoring the historical conditions of 1453, and implementing save game in the real world. I've tried, but it is just so much easier on a computer.

 

[Ichabod]

Perhaps one simple way to limit sprawling empires would be to link garrisons to manpower. I've never really understood why a country's army can be completely destroyed in a battle, but it still has 30,000 men to garrison it's provinces. If garrisons were linked to manpower, then controlling many far-flung, foreign provinces which don't make up for the garrison drain would either drastically limit the ability to continue conquest, or they would be too vulnerable to reconquests.

 

[Grubnessul]

Perhaps one simple way to limit sprawling empires would be to link garrisons to manpower. I've never really understood why a country's army can be completely destroyed in a battle, but it still has 30,000 men to garrison it's provinces. If garrisons were linked to manpower, then controlling many far-flung, foreign provinces which don't make up for the garrison drain would either drastically limit the ability to continue conquest, or they would be too vulnerable to reconquests.

Yea, this would be nice. Especially if you could use troops to instant reinforce provinces from your army.

 

[unmerged(75409)]

I think most of those players will use the load older save and do something to counter things before hell break lose. So as long as players have tools to avoid missluck even those who don't like losing should be fine with a reload

It's much less fun when you get streamrolled by Russia every single time imho but it's fine if it happens sometimes

Being defeated severely in EU3 was just a painful experience, that made your game unfun and had little redeeming value. For example, consolidating your finances after a war was in no way fun or even challenging. You just cut all your expenses and twiddled your thumbs until all loans were repaid.

Recouping stability: Same thing. About as exciting as formating your hard drive. Set stab slider to high, unpause, wait. Hope you don't get comet events in the mean time.

Getting attacked again and again while you're weak: Your country doesn't even learn from bad experiences so it's just not something people want to have happen. You just lose territory and get more debt that is all.

No wonder people reload savegames... you play to have fun and when something is no fun you don't play that.

 

[Jstebby]

Well I think the best way to have a player's empire decline without frustration would be the combination of the manpower changes and more extreme effects from monarch skills. Less Mp means slower expansion as well as problems after wars, and bad monarchs mean trying to hold together the empire when one comes to the throne. It wouldn't be too bad since you just have to stick it out through that crappy ruler.

 

[Andy_Dandy]

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.

To be punished can be as good as being rewarded in a strategy game, but it shouldn't be done by random events too much (a little is OK, and I love the current event system, so that is said). There should be a reason like for instance too fast expansion. You shouldn't feel you've won the game after 100 years of play, no matter how good you are. I like how EU3 has slowed down the expansion and made constant warfare more cripling with the new manpower rules for instance in the beta patch.

It should also be harder to keep vassals and personal unions in line. I feel claiming throne mechanichs, and vassalizing en masse has been a too easy way of expansion as well. I'd like to see a war goal system where taking more in the peace deal then originally going to war for (with rightfull claims or goals) will punish the player alot more in relations to other countries. Alot of things can be done, but please don't by random factors. That's also why I fear the new monarch system abit too, but we'll see.

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. More focused on conquering the world with OPM and not having to pay any setbacks for it. This game should rather be made harder on expansion, preferable with the use of good game mechanics.

Damn, I will have to beta test this game. It's very important for it's success.... Hear me Johan?

 

[Andy_Dandy]

The most natural would probably be to link it with Monarch points and traits. To control and administer a hugely expanded kingdom, full of newly conquered and wrong culture provinces, should suck up a lot of time and attention (points) from the ruler. As a result, less points are left to other projects and developments, forcing the player to make hard choices. In that way, the cost of too rapid expansion becomes an opportunity cost, and such costs can be much more severe without feeling intrusive or crippling since they become part of your story. Instead of just sitting on your hands and waiting for the penalties to go away, you would feel the weight of your large country over your head and try to juggle hot priorities. Combine that with the opinion penalties your expansion probably incurred from neighbours and overexpansion becomes a high stress endeavour. Then your ruler dies. And the new incompetent ruler can't juggle, and don't have the strength to hold the weight of your large country over his head, so everything falls down on you.

Hmmm, interesting thoughts. This system will also include strategy: you'd better make sure you're empire can survive with a future bad ruler too....

 

[unmerged(63836)]

In Magna Mundi Mod playing large empire was fun and challenging. Trying to modernise big blob, with all societal changes that it brings, was a difficult thing. Same with going to extreme policy sliders - you could make one of the factions (aristocrats, clergy, merchants, etc.) your enemies, ready to hit you under good circumstances. Converting population could trigger nation wide rebellion of targeted devotees. Under monarchy there was always risk of serious noble opposition that was often hard to deal with. Having a lot of vassal states would trigger 'vassal council', where their rulers could jointly demand policy changes, priviledges, or even rebel jointly. And there was Administrative Efficiency - not only there were limits of how vast your empire can be while still being able to govern it effectively, but player had to take into account culture and religion of each provinces.

There's a lot that paradox can learn from MM. Maybe, if they're afraid that such mechanics would scare away 'casual players', they could limit it to normal difficulty level or higher? That way, 'casuals' could happily play blobby/WC games, and veterans of EU series could still have fun and challenging game.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

Gars, coalitions have been mentioned as a feature - how about making the AI progressively more determined to form defensive coalitions as the game goes on, making it harder for anyone to blob?

 

[vranasm]

best way I read here was to limit REX being always profitable.
I think EU III was on the right track with increased tech costs and inflation mechanism. Just deepen a bit. The new provinces can eventually pay for themself, but it should need work on the players part and time. Something similar like in Civ IV where every city eventually becomes profitable, but on the same time it's long term investment and often times (especially on highest difficulty levels) you actually wanted to be small until SOMETHING.

Working on making vassals/alliances more profitable and worth having is another possible way. It makes another kind of blob (I have such game now at 1650 with me having like 20 vassals in western europe as france), but is a bit more eye appealing. Even creating some new vassals out of colonies is very good idea (and make something rewarding out of it).

Adjusting AI to form competent blobs is another very good suggestion I read here. That way players has always something to look at.

Don't agree with the CK II praise... I actually hated succession crisis.