Declining Powers

[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.

 

[Atlanteax]

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.

Is this something that could be addressed with the options-toggle menu?

Such as "Ruler Adm + Gov't Type restriction on Empire size" can be Yes/No ... where "Yes" is default, but the Total War conquer whole world players can toggle it to "No" if they want to play it that way.

In a way, it could be 'a wash' as the TW player toggling it to no, means that the AI would not be similarly restricted?

 

[1alexey]

It is surprising that so many people praise the CK2`s system of "decline" based on pretty much a crappy random roll, and so few people prise the PI game that almost made the things right.

Yes, I`m speaking about Victoria 2.

In Victoria 2, you got some conselation prise, every time you lost a war, and it actually allowed to do curious stuff with your country. You were getting Revanshism if you lost cores, that could give you more strong military, propell more pro-military parties into power, and give you more political power, make your population wish the revanche, and be willing to strengten the country.
You would get militancy and unrest, that would shatter the conservatives, polarise the country and allow for new reforms, new approaches, and eventually, the comeback and revanche.

If you loose some cores in EU3, you will get almost nothing, exept for prestige penalty. In CK2, if your crappy heir colapses the country, nothing really helpfull hapens, he still sucks as ruler, and you still regret that you didn`t killed him before the succesion.

So, in EU3 and CK2, if you lost something, you know for sure, that you would be better without the loss.

In V2, it is different. You lost, but you got new options, that you didn`t had before. So, it is possible, that the loss is not a bad thing, in the long run.

That, this kind of suspicion, is what makes the player accept the loss, and fight up.

That, is what PI would be better developing for EU4, instead of CK2 system, of "you got bad ruler, sucks for you"(that i assume the monarch points system will be, in the end).

The mechanics that punish you in the ovbious way, just because, you did too good, like the aforementioned Administratve efficency are not interesting.

The way too much succes should not punish you short term, but on contray, you should be great short term, but if things are great now, why change them? So the conservatism, pride and prejudice should follow succes.

On the other way, the loss, should open the closed eyes, show that conservatism is not an option, and shift the country into reform and innovation phase.

That is historical, and that would make sure that the loss is not just a catastrophe, but an opportunity.


The things that are needed, compared to V2, is to make the impact less "controlled".

Than, it will be harder to exploit the system, and make sure that player is not all that eager to loose on purpose, as it often happened in V2.

 

[Secret Master]

Well, you forget the most important part of that losing wars benefit: gaming wars for losses on purpose.

Losing wars (or even just failing to get some goals when you get others) generates militancy which can be used to pass reforms. So, some people initiate wars deliberately just to lose them to game the reform system. Ending slavery before the Slavery Debate fires in the USA. Getting max healthcare by 1850. And so on.

That's not really decline in the sense people are talking in this thread. That's a very minor setback that generates a backlash that can be used to achieve some effects.

 

[1alexey]

Well, you forget the most important part of that losing wars benefit: gaming wars for losses on purpose.

Losing wars (or even just failing to get some goals when you get others) generates militancy which can be used to pass reforms. So, some people initiate wars deliberately just to lose them to game the reform system. Ending slavery before the Slavery Debate fires in the USA. Getting max healthcare by 1850. And so on.

That's not really decline in the sense people are talking in this thread. That's a very minor setback that generates a backlash that can be used to achieve some effects.

Not really, look at this paragraph:

The things that are needed, compared to V2, is to make the impact less "controlled".

Than, it will be harder to exploit the system, and make sure that player is not all that eager to loose on purpose, as it often happened in V2.

But IMO, if the decline doesn`t give you some opportunities in the long run, it will always be precived as a punishment, and lead to bad things, such as players reloading the game after some crapines happened.

Why would you accept the rule of crappy king, if it changes nothing?
And after the rule of him ended, and the next one succeds the trone, it is same way if the new king would succes a good king.

There should be something about this bad rule, or to be more precise, there should be forces that create a breaktrugh adter the good ruler succeds the crappy one.

Then, it would depend, on how long did the bad ruler reigned, and how much damage would be needed to be fixed, afterwards.

The player should not know for sure, if it would be better afterwards, but player should know for sure, that it could be better to accept the bad ruller to reign for some time, in the long run.

Then, the country can collapse, or can revitalise and regain strengt. The purpose is to encourage playing on the border of collapsing the state.

Because, otherwise, the player will try to immediately terminate the forces/phenomenoms/whaterver that is treatening the country, which leads to much larger blobbing, and too stable states, since instability and innefective rule can only be bad, so you will try to get rid of it ASAP, instead of allowing it to some extend, and trying to win something from it.

 

[Secret Master]

Not really, look at this paragraph:

I don't know how I missed that part of your post. It was well thought out and makes an excellent point.

Less predictable. Less controllable. I'm trying to think how I would do it Vic2, and I can't think of how I would do it. Make the UH grant a random reform to relieve militancy upon losing a war so you can't cherry pick? Boost soldier POPs upon losing a war (if you weren't cut down to size)? Enable tech stealing upon a loss (the Prussians have awesome artillery, let's copy it since they kicked us around last time)?

In CK2, it is can be very easy to bounce back thanks to claims on titles and internal bickering. I've literally been deposed as king and ten years later, boom! I depose the usurper with the help of some of his friends. (My ruler came of age and they all hated how he was running the kingdom.) But that doesn't work in EU games because there really isn't any internal fighting to be done.

 

[Jaol]

The way too much succes should not punish you short term, but on contray, you should be great short term, but if things are great now, why change them? So the conservatism, pride and prejudice should follow succes.

Excellent suggestion!

I'm trying to think how I would do it Vic2, and I can't think of how I would do it.

One thing PDM does is to remove the militancy trigger from UH reforms (they only look at how strong movements are). This means losing a war may can be beneficial in the long run, but it's not an easy shortcut to reform. I also liked the tech stealing idea.

If EU4 were to have a tech system more like V2 where some inventions are bad, then having a period of innovation after defeat could be a double-edged benefit. You might learn from your enemy's military tech, but you might also "learn" how to get stronger rebels.

 

[1alexey]

Less predictable. Less controllable. I'm trying to think how I would do it Vic2, and I can't think of how I would do it. Make the UH grant a random reform to relieve militancy upon losing a war so you can't cherry pick? Boost soldier POPs upon losing a war (if you weren't cut down to size)? Enable tech stealing upon a loss (the Prussians have awesome artillery, let's copy it since they kicked us around last time)?

In CK2, it is can be very easy to bounce back thanks to claims on titles and internal bickering. I've literally been deposed as king and ten years later, boom! I depose the usurper with the help of some of his friends. (My ruler came of age and they all hated how he was running the kingdom.) But that doesn't work in EU games because there really isn't any internal fighting to be done.

Random reforms would be quite bad, but In V2, that could be done via movements. Defeat can create several movements, which one would be more succesfull and enforce changes, shoul not be visible at glance. Also, reforms could be less one-sided, for example medicine means each familiy has more childern surviving, but it also means more mouths to feed for parents, increasing the life and daily needs of Pops.

But in V2, it is largely connected to the pop system, something EU4 do not have.

In CK2, you can bounce back and forth, but you still only restored what you had before the succesion, and got almost nothing.

Excellent suggestion!


One thing PDM does is to remove the militancy trigger from UH reforms (they only look at how strong movements are). This means losing a war may can be beneficial in the long run, but it's not an easy shortcut to reform. I also liked the tech stealing idea.

If EU4 were to have a tech system more like V2 where some inventions are bad, then having a period of innovation after defeat could be a double-edged benefit. You might learn from your enemy's military tech, but you might also "learn" how to get stronger rebels.

True.

 

[unmerged(75409)]

I don't know how I missed that part of your post. It was well thought out and makes an excellent point.

Less predictable. Less controllable. I'm trying to think how I would do it Vic2, and I can't think of how I would do it. Make the UH grant a random reform to relieve militancy upon losing a war so you can't cherry pick? Boost soldier POPs upon losing a war (if you weren't cut down to size)? Enable tech stealing upon a loss (the Prussians have awesome artillery, let's copy it since they kicked us around last time)?

In CK2, it is can be very easy to bounce back thanks to claims on titles and internal bickering. I've literally been deposed as king and ten years later, boom! I depose the usurper with the help of some of his friends. (My ruler came of age and they all hated how he was running the kingdom.) But that doesn't work in EU games because there really isn't any internal fighting to be done.

The key to making things "less controlled" is, IMHO, to make those things trigger on a random basis. Have it sometimes trigger almost immediately, sometimes only after years. For the upper house, for example, you have the elections which shift the faction strengths and they roll around in a predictable manner. The election outcome isn't known exactly beforehand, but you more or less know the direction in which it will move. If power shifts were to happen on a MTTH basis, and the only thing you could see would be the indicator which faction is currently "under pressure" and which is "on the way up", it would all become fairly difficult to really control this. Sometimes the reactionaries in the UH would hold out for years, sometimes they would be toppled mere weeks after you lose the war. It would stop being something that you can "rely on" and you might actually find yourself hoping for a Jacobin uprising to rid yourself of those bungholes who just won't budge.

In EU4 you might not have an upper house, but you could f.ex. have a General Estates or a Standing Parliament which would be somewhat comparable to the UH in Vic2. You would want them to pass a decision (a policy shift, a raising of the force limit, a higher tax level etc) but their decision would be something that happens on a MTTH basis. Imagine yourself in the shoes of Oliver Cromwell - you you want the Rump Parliament to pass certain laws that you proposed to them (new constitutuion, more efficient taxation etc) but the buggers just won't stop debating. (In-game: Their decision is a MTTH-based event) So you have a choice, do you wait until they are done debating? Or do you dissolve them and assume dictatorial powers? Each choice has its consequences and you too can delay making a decision about it (which would be a decision in itself, LOL). It would be fun if EU4 put such choices before you, too. Leave the player with imponderables. In one game parliament may come to a decision quickly, in another it might take years. Don't make it a bean counting game, leave the player with some residual doubt about whether he made the right choice.

 

[Drakken]

That is historical, and that would make sure that the loss is not just a catastrophe, but an opportunity.

What new, incredible opportunities did Spain or Sweden obtain during their respective decline? You seem to confuse it with mere military defeat.

The only opportunities these two obtained with decline was even more opportunities of marginalization and transformation into a medium to small power. The definition of a decline, is that it would take tremendous amount of work and luck to even curb it and put a stop to it.

 

[unmerged(75409)]

What new, incredible opportunities did Spain or Sweden obtain during their respective decline? You seem to confuse it with mere military defeat.

The only opportunities these two obtained with decline was even more opportunities of marginalization and transformation into a medium to small power. The definition of a decline, is that it would take tremendous amount of work to even curb it.

The Spanish suffered lots of defeats in the 18th century, yet as late as the Napoleonic wars, the British still feared facing their fleet together with the French fleet. In EU3 this never happens, you kick the Spanish down once or twice and that puts them into the debt and inflation death spiral. The opportunities they got? They reformed their government and military several times in the 18th century, and pretty much kept up with the other powers until the Napoleonic wars broke them totally.

Sweden admittedly wasn't much to write home about, yet they still had fun. Their royal house may have died out but whaddayaknow, they snagged one of Napoleon's Marshals as their next king. Who knows to what greatness they could have rebounded under human control instead of AI

Not every opportunity is seized. Not every road taken. Not every defeated nation will rise again, after all if we are to have winners we also have to have some losers in the end. The point is that sometimes great opportunities will present themselves, following crushing defeats, and this will motivate players to hang on.

It's not about automatic rewards, as in, "poor little player, you lost Finland, here's a lollipop and +1 base tax to all your provinces." It's about giving the player light at the end of the tunnel, showing him that even if some doors close, others open, and if he manages to make his way through them the nation will get a chance to recover in some other way.

 

[Jaol]

What new, incredible opportunities did Spain or Sweden obtain during their respective decline?

Constitutional government? The Swedish Age of Liberty never happens without military defeat.

 

[Me_]

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.

But if you slow down expansion please give us something to do in the meantime. This is the biggest failure of Ming Faction system in DW. It limits blobbing but at the cost of constant speed 5 (that is playing on highest speed because there iis nothing to do - events don't count as usually they cannot make any dent in the monolith that is Ming so you can just let the game choose the option for you).

 

[1alexey]

What new, incredible opportunities did Spain or Sweden obtain during their respective decline? You seem to confuse it with mere military defeat.

The only opportunities these two obtained with decline was even more opportunities of marginalization and transformation into a medium to small power. The definition of a decline, is that it would take tremendous amount of work and luck to even curb it and put a stop to it.

How about Brandenburg that was ravaged in 30years war, and than rose in power, to form Prussia, and win the 7-years war?
How about Prussia, that lost, horebly to Napoleon, but managed to recover, and hit the nail in the tomb of his state, and the 100 days?
How about Russia, that was defeated many times by Sweden, but learned from it, rather fast?
How about same Russia that survived WW1, revolution, industrialisation, WW2, to be one of the world`s strongest countries?

The decline, is by no means irreversable.

Sweden didn`t quite decline. Sweden just always was a country, that is small in population, due to climate. So, it was eclipsed in power and importance by more populus countries, but it didn`t quite declined.

Spain, didn`t quite declined, it was badly battered so many times, you would surprise how strong and durable they actually were.

Not to mention Spain always had relativly small population, smaller than France, GB, Russia,..

Right untill Industrialisation and carlists hit, Spain was still a large powehouse, and it still was in top 8 at the start of Victoria 2.

Not every opportunity is seized. Not every road taken. Not every defeated nation will rise again, after all if we are to have winners we also have to have some losers in the end. The point is that sometimes great opportunities will present themselves, following crushing defeats, and this will motivate players to hang on.

It's not about automatic rewards, as in, "poor little player, you lost Finland, here's a lollipop and +1 base tax to all your provinces." It's about giving the player light at the end of the tunnel, showing him that even if some doors close, others open, and if he manages to make his way through them the nation will get a chance to recover in some other way.

+1, that is what i want to see.

 

[Drakken]

Constitutional government? The Swedish Age of Liberty never happens without military defeat.

That's an opportunity only for those interested in twisting power in favour of their own interests. Bot the Caps and the Hats governments were disastrous for Sweden as a power in the European balance, as a tool of either Great-Britain or France to protect them against Russia.

There were no Golden Age for Sweden during the Age of Liberty.

 

[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.

 

[Andy_Dandy]

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.

That's an intention well recieved. I think this is one of the most important factors where for the EU-series can evolve. Hopefully some good game mechanisms can be made. One can't please everyone. Just make it a good game true to the series, your intentions and dreams, and roaring success will be guaranteed.

 

[vanin]

Interesting discussion this has become, enjoying reading it.

I wonder how hard it would be for Paradox to create a dynamic system that causes slow decline and slow rise, and also rapid decline and rapid rise. The Ottomans are a prime example of this, their speedy rise from a regional, if powerful, power in the Balkans and Anatolia to a powerhouse controlling the eastern Med with an iron fist didn't happen by chance, and neither did their slow decline that caused it to be called the "Sad man of Europe", unable to keep territory from rebelling Bulgarians, Serbs and Greeks. What caused the rise and what caused the decline, if those factors can be shown in the game in such a way that the player understands them and can react to them, but also have some sense of randomness in them that the system can't be "gamed" at every opportunity, would be thoroughly awesome.

 

[Robmel]

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

Forming Prussia was more of a luck than anything. Last Ansbach Hohenzollern line duke of Prussia was mentally incapable and didn't produce any male offspring, which led to the inheritance by Brandenburg Hohenzollerns. This is essentially a CKII-esque situation.

How about Russia, that was defeated many times by Sweden, but learned from it, rather fast?

Russia was defeated by Sweden?? Some battles maybe, but not wars.

 

[vanin]

Forming Prussia was more of a luck than anything. Last Ansbach Hohenzollern line duke of Prussia was mentally incapable and didn't produce any male offspring, which led to the inheritance by Brandenburg Hohenzollerns. This is essentially a CKII-esque situation.

Russia was defeated by Sweden?? Some battles maybe, but not wars.

We did get Ingira nad Kexholm somehow.

Edit: Ah here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Stolbovo

Misguided national pride aside, I'd put Russia and England in the basket of two countries that didn't have any outright decline through the time period of the game. Yes they had troubles, the War of the Roses can't be shrugged of and Russia had its fair share of difficulties, but both grew consitently century after century, while the other great powers like France, Spain and Portugal suffered worse fates as time went on even if they didn't lose relevance.