• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
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.
Well that's debatable, but regardless of your view of the Age of Liberty in real life, changing from Absolutism to some form of limited government is a possible player goal in-game. And it's the sort of thing that could realistically be helped by losing wars.
 
Then the game/devs are just punishing them.

I agree with that sentiment. If I've carefully built something for a hundred hours, I don't want an event popup knocking it all down in seconds. It would be like carefully building a large house of cards and then a younger sibling appears and just gives it a hard smack. How could anyone but the most hardcore faithful of the Magna Mundi religion not find a situation like that frustrating?

I agree that the human snowball is a persisting problem in PI games but ruining a player who has done nothing wrong in the game isn't the way to go, tbqh. Stopping the player from snowballing should involve shortened supply lines when getting too far away from the capital or increased maintenance costs for those Breton regiments currently laying siege to Xinjiang.
 
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.
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.

But, it is great to know, that you did read the tread.
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.
Well, both GB and Russia growed into the territory of not so organised and developed states, as in Europe.

Historically, Russia always had troubles facing European countries, and just about never won a war without suffering significantry more cassualties, so
the victories over Sweeden, after quite devastating defeats are a sign of changes, for better.
 
I think the problem is that Paradox is pulled by a player base in three different directions:

1) There are the historical simulation fans (also roleplay fans), who tend to like limitations to blobbing and are okay with those limits being outside player control. These tend to enjoy internal struggles and derive as much (or more) satisfaction from fighting a civil war as they do from gaining new territory. View #1 players tend to be okay with random destructive events because, well, these things happened to real rulers and they had to roll with the punches.

2) There are the hardcore strategy gamers who want the game to be more challenging. They can accept disasters and internal problems, but they tend to balk at random events and feel that they should only experience setbacks as punishment for mistakes. They usually want the A.I. to behave in a more player-like fashion, so they tend not to see ahistorical blobbing as a problem, as those giant A.I. blobs are more of a challenge to defeat.

3) There are pure sandbox players, who don't want the game to be too punishing and want world conquest to be achievable. They tend to consider internal problems to be unfun and want to be able to focus on expansion.

I don't think any new mechanic will please all three groups.
 
I think the problem is that Paradox is pulled by a player base in three different directions:

I don't think any new mechanic will please all three groups.

Good post - you described different kind of fans quite well. From my perspective, paradox should implement more complex stuff (optional for each player - say, only active on hard difficulty level, and maybe not as hard core as Magna Mundi mechanics). Otherwise, it would be just same EU3 with better graphics and some gimmicks. I think that we could expect series to evolve with each iteration, providing more rich gaming experience?
 
I think the problem is that Paradox is pulled by a player base in three different directions:

1) There are the historical simulation fans (also roleplay fans), who tend to like limitations to blobbing and are okay with those limits being outside player control. These tend to enjoy internal struggles and derive as much (or more) satisfaction from fighting a civil war as they do from gaining new territory. View #1 players tend to be okay with random destructive events because, well, these things happened to real rulers and they had to roll with the punches.

2) There are the hardcore strategy gamers who want the game to be more challenging. They can accept disasters and internal problems, but they tend to balk at random events and feel that they should only experience setbacks as punishment for mistakes. They usually want the A.I. to behave in a more player-like fashion, so they tend not to see ahistorical blobbing as a problem, as those giant A.I. blobs are more of a challenge to defeat.

3) There are pure sandbox players, who don't want the game to be too punishing and want world conquest to be achievable. They tend to consider internal problems to be unfun and want to be able to focus on expansion.

I don't think any new mechanic will please all three groups.
Quite wrong.

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.

N2, is just the people who want the AI to be something more that a pushover.

You can satisfy everyone by making the diplomatic&military AI smarter.

The "internal problems" are quite the other thing, and mostly due to lack of major element that tended to cause the problems: the leader of the nation and his own agenda.

While historically, very few leaders were a selfless, humble, and modest champions of the state good, in game, pretty much every player is trying to be the leader similar to Frederic the Great, Peter the Great, Elizabeth I of england, and other great leaders.

Which kinda, in itself brings the problems of "blobbing", that historically happened during the periods of great rullers, but just thurgh out the entire game, since the player is not afraid of assasination, plots, is imune to flattery, lust, misinformation, and always have 100% honest and true information.

So, unless the Human/AI is purposely trying to screw up, the game needs some sort of aditional limitations.

IRL, monarchs tended to not kill their children on the basis that they would become bad rulers. In CK2 and EU3, pretty much everyone does it, on regular basis.
 
So, unless the Human/AI is purposely trying to screw up, the game needs some sort of aditional limitations.

But doing so is acceptable to the N1 and N2 players but unappreciated by the N3 players and this might contradict your first point...:unsure:

Unless you are suggesting making EU4 character based game, and trying to be the almighty controller of state is possible, but the ruler may became proud and ignorant if successful and stressed and wrathful if unsuccessful:rolleyes:
 
But doing so is acceptable to the N1 and N2 players but unappreciated by the N3 players and this might contradict your first point...:unsure:
Hardly.

THe entire assumption of 3 gropus is based on the idea that some part of player base will accept whatever the penalty the devs decide to impose on them, which is wishfull thinking, at best.

Then, there is an assumption that there are players who just wan the WC, and could not care less, why are they capable of doing it. Again, wishfull thinking.
 
Hardly.

THe entire assumption of 3 gropus is based on the idea that some part of player base will accept whatever the penalty the devs decide to impose on them, which is wishfull thinking, at best.

Then, there is an assumption that there are players who just wan the WC, and could not care less, why are they capable of doing it. Again, wishfull thinking.

But I'm now somewhat confused... does your wishful thinking apply to the category(eg. "RPer can accept penalty, WCer can't" is a wishful thinking) or categorizing(eg. assuming players can be categorized to RPer and WCer is wishful thinking)?
 
But I'm now somewhat confused... does your wishful thinking apply to the category(eg. "RPer can accept penalty, WCer can't" is a wishful thinking) or categorizing(eg. assuming players can be categorized to RPer and WCer is wishful thinking)?
"There are the historical simulation fans (also roleplay fans), who tend to like limitations to blobbing and are okay with those limits being outside player control."
"There are pure sandbox players, who don't want the game to be too punishing and want world conquest to be achievable.They tend to consider internal problems to be unfun and want to be able to focus on expansion."

this 3 assumptions, are wishfull thinkig at best.
 
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.
 
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 :)
 
While historically, very few leaders were a selfless, humble, and modest champions of the state good, in game, pretty much every player is trying to be the leader similar to Frederic the Great, Peter the Great, Elizabeth I of england, and other great leaders.
I think most leaders tried to do what they thought it was good for their countries. They just weren't competent enough, or what they thought it was good ended up being bad.
 
I think the problem is that Paradox is pulled by a player base in three different directions:

1) There are the historical simulation fans (also roleplay fans), who tend to like limitations to blobbing and are okay with those limits being outside player control. These tend to enjoy internal struggles and derive as much (or more) satisfaction from fighting a civil war as they do from gaining new territory. View #1 players tend to be okay with random destructive events because, well, these things happened to real rulers and they had to roll with the punches.

2) There are the hardcore strategy gamers who want the game to be more challenging. They can accept disasters and internal problems, but they tend to balk at random events and feel that they should only experience setbacks as punishment for mistakes. They usually want the A.I. to behave in a more player-like fashion, so they tend not to see ahistorical blobbing as a problem, as those giant A.I. blobs are more of a challenge to defeat.

3) There are pure sandbox players, who don't want the game to be too punishing and want world conquest to be achievable. They tend to consider internal problems to be unfun and want to be able to focus on expansion.

I don't think any new mechanic will please all three groups.

I belive you could satisfy both players of the type one and two by a clever implementation of the AI-aggresivity. On a low level, countries don't set high priorities to take provinces of a different culture group unless they have missions, cores, or need them for decisions. Instead they concentrate their war efforts to keep other nations small if they feel threatend by them. So in this setting, Castille won't try to conquer whole North Africa just because it can. It could join an alliance against the Ottomans, though in order to push them back and release other nations as they see them as a threat.

On a high agrssivness level, the AI tries to grow as strong as possible. If conquering a province is possible and the war will be seen as easily winnable, the AI will strike. The AI will try to take land everywhere it can, if it is resonable possible to defend that land afterwards.

I'm not sure if it is possible to adapt the AI to such a behavior easily by just changing some parameters for weighting decisions, or if you basically have to write two completely different AIs. But it would be a very cool feature if this could work.
 
I'm presenting to you: The Atlas Feature




Atlas bears the weight of the sky upon his shoulders, and has become a symbol of endurance. In the game, this would be a way of presenting graphically to the player how well the leader and his government manages to bear all the worries and responsibilities of the realm. The celestial spheres upon his shoulders would actually grow and shrink with the size of the responsibilities, and the size of Atlas would grow and shrink depending on the strength of the government. If Atlas easily manages to bear the weight, he would hold the spheres high above his head, and if it becomes too heavy he would fall on his knees and then be pressed to the ground.

The celestial spheres would consist of three dynamic areas: Military, Economy and Administration. The size of each area would grow and shrink with its specific responsibilities, so that you could see at a glance which area caused the most weight.

The military area would grow with the size of the army/navy, the level of maintenance and the number of reinforcements that was needed. Certain government types, ideas, decisions and advisors would help reduce the area. This will encourage the player to have a leaner but meaner military. And if a player builds his army out of proportion he will have to bear the weight of it. This will reward tactical skill, if you can do the job with a smaller army you will be rewarded.

The economy area would grow with your income. High income comes with high responsibilites. If you have high trade income, you have to worry about protecting your traders, guarding goods, taxing the traders, uphold tariffs. If you have high production income you will have to worry about weather, mining accidents, transporting goods to markets and theft. Your tax income is a lot of worries, with bailiffs, embezzlement and angry peasants. When you have finally collected all your taxes, you will get more worries, what will you do with it, what should you invest in, and then you have corruption and jealousy. For the player, to grow the economy will always be a wise move, but this will underline that you need to grow your goverment and your centralized institutions as well to take full advantage of the riches. Certain government types, ideas, decisions and advisors would help reduce the area.

The administration area will grow with the number and size of your provinces. All provinces need administration, and that is the responsibility of the gorvernment. Some provinces doesn't need much, if they are small in population and doesn't cause problems. Other provinces need a lot of administration, if they have a large population for example, an important city or a trade hub. Then you have provinces that you haven't cored yet, and wrong culture provinces, and wrong religion provinces, these kind of provinces really can cause a lot of worries and comes with a lot of weight. To build certain buildings in provinces would be a way to reduce the size of the area.

These three areas would together form the celestial spheres that Atlas bear on his shoulders. The strength of Atlas would depend on government type, slider position, ideas, decisions and above all ruler competence. An incompetent ruler with an early government type would look like Gandhi, while a competent ruler with a great government would look like Hercules.

The rewards and penalties that come with this should be gradient and multifaceted. When your Atlas can bear your realm easily everything should be a little easier and you should have a lot of ruler points to spend when it comes to war, diplomacy and development. If your Atlas is pressed down to the ground you will find everything a little bit harder to do, and you should have fewer ruler points to spend. The graphic presentation should come with handy information about what you could do to shrink the different areas. For example, reduce the maintenance level of your army, lower taxes, hire a production advisor, send a missionary to Novgorod, build a courthouse in Soumi.

Okey, I got a little carried away with this feature, and I don't know if it will fit in EU4. But there are some new perspectives in here I think, so perhaps it could inspire further discusisons.
 
What if Atlas shrugged?
 
I'm presenting to you: The Atlas Feature
Nice.

This is one of the things I think Vic2 really got right. Having the costs of administration, overseas maintenance, and education scale up really made you question whether that extra colony was worth it.

I imagine the trade system in EU4 will do something similar, too. If a colony isn't directly connected to your homeland via a single traderoute, do you really want to pay for all the merchants/navies you'd need to make it profitable?