Declining Powers

[InnocentIII]

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.

One way to make expansion harder is to make conquering new lands somewhat counter-productive.

One thing I'd like to see taken into consideration is when the technologically advanced player snaps up vast tracks of the world where people lived in mud huts. I see the risk of making this Vicky-lite, but I think players would accept the fact that grabbing "backward" parts of the world would have an adverse effect on tech progress by adding other costs, or reducing the effectiveness of tech spending. For example, how could someplace become a "core", and the equal to all the other possessions of a country, if people were still living in their mud huts? To advance your possessions you should have to expend money which might have otherwise pushed you further along in the tech race.

Imagine a player country consisting of one rich province in Europe and hundreds of captured provinces (not colonies) in poor parts of the world? Why is that country a technologically advanced one, just because it started in Europe? Fifty years later I make European-quality soldiers out of primitive tribesmen with no cost or effort? It's not game breaking, we've been doing it all along, but I think people would accept a different way of handling this. Granted, this is not the same slowing mechanism that the OP was talking about, or the same challenge, but if we're talking generally about how to limit the player's growth in ways that people will accept as legitimate, slowing tech progress when you capture low-tech provinces would seem to work for me.

As for the OP's idea, perhaps there could be an event series which permitted the player to go down that road if that's the challenge he wanted. One branch perhaps offers the player greater control over his leaders, but with the declining country trouble the OP described (the other branch goes down the normal path). Giving me a list of twenty potential rulers might make it worth dealing with a declining country if that's what I was in the mood for, and a country in decline would have stability problems which could easily explain how any one of twenty people could have taken charge. If I'm the source of quasi-revolutionary upheavals, it also prods my neighbors to attack. Some players view the EU civil war event as a challenging bit of fun. Most I think viewed it as the game randomly hitting them with a frying pan ("I think this game of solitaire would be more challenging if I stabbed myself with a fork!").

Make it an option, complete with with tempting gameplay bonuses, and I think everyone would be happy.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Some sort of "Westernise province" decision perhaps?

 

[ANO1453]

Granted, this is not the same slowing mechanism that the OP was talking about, or the same challenge, but if we're talking generally about how to limit the player's growth in ways that people will accept as legitimate, slowing tech progress when you capture low-tech provinces would seem to work for me.

Didn't that happen already in EU3? Conquering low value provinces lowered your tech rate.

 

[Merrick Chance']

This could be helped a lot by adding an administrative efficiency mechanic similar to MMtM. It meant that if you wanted to conquer a ton of territory (especially wrong-culture, wrong-religion, non-cored territory) you had to 'spend' a national idea on something like Bureaucracy or Viceroys which wouldn't really help you in anything other than administering your whole country. It meant that when I played a Tuscany->Italy game for example I had a huge empire (including Egypt) but my troops/ships couldn't fight worth a damn and I couldn't trade outside of my CoTs.

 

[nOxr]

What if Atlas shrugged?

He would then be free to fulfill his true potential. And then die in a fight with Godzilla.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

Didn't that happen already in EU3? Conquering low value provinces lowered your tech rate.

But the effect is pretty mild after you start to snowball, as the tech cost modifier of 100 provinces is only twice of 34 provinces, so it isn't such a big deal on top of that nationalism stops giving RR after 30 years.

 

[Junuxx]

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.

Maybe some of these events (or other mechanisms) could be exclusive to Hard/Very Hard difficulty?

That way you can properly challenge players who are up to it, and yet there will be less frustration for people who prefer a smooth ride (and presumably play on Normal by default).

 

[Dogia]

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.

Please include it then, make it the difference between Easy and very hard levels.

 

[Secret Master]

What if Atlas shrugged?

Then he gets some free slider moves towards free trade and plutocracy? Perhaps some moves towards free citizens and decentralization? Maybe Ayn Rand gets spawned as a free advisor?

 

[fenwayb]

(I know this a bit deep in this thread now, I kind of forgot that I made the comment)

I don't think he (and me and others) ask for a historical simulator

"Realism>Gameplay" Kind of says differently, doesn't it?

I...

...

I think all of you missed my point. The concept of "realism>gameplay" is so inherently against the point of making your medium a video game instead of a book/movie/what have you (which, even then, realism really shouldn't take first place unless it's a documentary). Gameplay should always trump realism in a video game. The comment about just going out to the real world was simply a way of saying that realism needs to have its boundaries in something like a video game, otherwise, it'd be real life. I'm all for wanting this to be as historically accurate as possible, but *never* at the sacrifice of making the game play well.

 

[1alexey]

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`m not sure. Quite often the personal agenda was more importaint. Making sure your friends/relatives have means to exist, that you yourself will not get deposed

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.

Ok,

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

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.

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

IMO, it is pretty wrong, since it gives too much emphasis on the blobbing borders aspect of the game.

 

[zedyue]

What if Atlas shrugged?

Laughed hard.



On topic;
The reasons people don't want to accept defeat vary, but in my case I would find it much MUCH easier to accept defeat if the AI was a little more reasonable in some cases. In EU3 I was basically taught to NEVER LOSE, because other than in a few very rare cases, the AI would accept nothing less than total victory or total defeat. The AI only will give you a province if you are occupying most of their territory and have wasted their armies, at this point you might as well fully occupy them and take as much as you want. In the reverse situation, the AI will NEVER peace out with you for anything less than as many provinces it can take below BB limit. If the AI was more reasonable about what it actually wanted in a war then it would be easier to just give them what they want when you are losing. In EU3 if you are losing, there is a high likelihood everyone near you will attack you at once.

Also what would be neat is if the old nation trust modifiers could affect this kinda stuff. Two nations could be on relatively good terms, but have a small war of disagreement over a small territory; or two nations could HATE EACH OTHER and have massive wars for large amounts of territory. But when each war risks your entire country being destroyed, something is wrong.

 

[ANO1453]

I`m not sure. Quite often the personal agenda was more importaint. Making sure your friends/relatives have means to exist, that you yourself will not get deposed

Well, if you are a Republic, then you are quite right. You NEED friends/relatives in the good places.

I was thinking more in the lines of say, John III, who instituted Inquisition in Portugal, or even king Sebastian that went on a suicide campaign into Africa. That may seem the king's caprices, but one can see how someone could think that would be good for the country.

 

[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.

 

[Secret Master]

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.

Haven't seen King or Johan hanging out in this thread, so the real power has been quiet.

Although, in fairness to King, Johan, and Darkrenown (and a few others), they can be quite opinionated when they want to be. I know this because King, when talking about Vic2 during development, referred to himself as one of Thatcher's children. Now THAT was an interesting discussion about why gameplay was modeled in certain ways that also made no one happy, developer or forumite.

 

[Sleepyhead]

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.

Disastrous is not the proper wording for Sweden, if by Sweden we mean more than the king. The Age of Liberty made the country shift gears entirely. The entire militarisation idea that had been so prominent earlier was scaled back, vast areas of lands were settled, mines were sought out and opened, the agriculture was modernised in many places etc. Science and culture got a clear upswing, as it usually does in defeated countries. Sweden and the Caps instituted the Freedom of the Press Act, the first modern legislation ever to protect freedom of speech. The Swedish East India Company was founded as trade got a higher priority. The Hats were btw driven to a great extent on revanchist sentiments in regards to Russia.

 

[InnocentIII]

Didn't that happen already in EU3? Conquering low value provinces lowered your tech rate.

And its true many provinces in low tech areas were low value, not all of them were, and it never seemed to slow me down all that much. Certainly not enough to make up for the benefits from owning large areas and having a steady stream of new cores.

But the effect is pretty mild after you start to snowball, as the tech cost modifier of 100 provinces is only twice of 34 provinces, so it isn't such a big deal on top of that nationalism stops giving RR after 30 years.

Right.

If the tech level of the provinces isn't taken into account in some way, then you effectively spread tech effortlessly as you expand. This might be better than introducing VickyPops into the game, but it seems to me that something between the two ought to be possible. Perhaps simply extending the time it takes for a province to become a core based on the tech level of a province (or a stand-in like culture group). Something should better represent the problems of incorporating vastly different populations into a worldwide empire than simply core/culture. Every area of the world should not be the same as every other area (except you get a bit less money) once it's incorporated into that empire. Some would require more time, or the expense of buildings to speed up the process of assimilation.

I think restraints based on this type of issue could be used to slow down conquest in a way which the players would understand and accept.

 

[Niptium]

In short, for the extremely patient and capable player, it should be possible to do a full world conquest and full conversion of the entire world with a OPM.

I disagree

 

[ANO1453]

If the tech level of the provinces isn't taken into account in some way, then you effectively spread tech effortlessly as you expand. This might be better than introducing VickyPops into the game, but it seems to me that something between the two ought to be possible. Perhaps simply extending the time it takes for a province to become a core based on the tech level of a province (or a stand-in like culture group). Something should better represent the problems of incorporating vastly different populations into a worldwide empire than simply core/culture. Every area of the world should not be the same as every other area (except you get a bit less money) once it's incorporated into that empire. Some would require more time, or the expense of buildings to speed up the process of assimilation.

If we just use - Oh, OK, you're in a low tech area so the province doesn't use the tech you use, because it is full of people that are not used to the tech, we can end up with colonies, the same culture and all, delaying you just because they are in a low tech area. Culture group and religion would be a better approach...
... but isn't this what the game already does? Isn't just a question of aggravating the penalties for it?

 

[1alexey]

Well, if you are a Republic, then you are quite right. You NEED friends/relatives in the good places.

I was thinking more in the lines of say, John III, who instituted Inquisition in Portugal, or even king Sebastian that went on a suicide campaign into Africa. That may seem the king's caprices, but one can see how someone could think that would be good for the country.

Well, i do not dispute that the kings could, and often would think, that they act for the benefit of the state, but in game it happens way, way more often and in way more competent manner than IRL, which leads to the "golden age" that countries had with very good monarchs/leaders to pretty much always, uniform and for eveyone at the same time, in game.

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.

Thanks.