Here's why this happened in EUIII:
1-No balance of power - Historically states made alliances of convenience to keep a balance of power so that no state can dominate the rest. Diplomacy mechanics in EUIII did not support this, states made alliances purely on the basis of religion which is unwieldy and unhistorical.
2-War exhaustion - It had no long term effect on the economy, all it meant was that you had to go chasing rebels around your country for a year or two depending on how large your country is. War exhaustion should have a larger effect on the demographics and economy of the state, losing entire armies and having your territories constantly pillaged should actually do something.
3-Sliders are meaningless - Managing a large multicultural empire should be be difficult, it should require as little social upheavals as possible. That means no massive social reforms. In game terms that means emphasis on serfdom, centralization, aristocracy, traditionalism etc. But in EUIII sliders barely make an impact on your state and are easily altered. Modernization should also be a lot more difficult.
4-Cultural and Religious assimilation - It was way too easy to pull off, this ties in with the third point. Another thing, accepting cultures should be much more difficult and less common.
5-Administrative capabilities - This is a no brainer really, you shouldn't be able to go on a conquest spree and be able to consolidate all that territory easily. I mean, world conquest? Really? Governing so much territory should be a drain on your treasury rather than be a bonus once you overextend, and this should depend on the efficiency of your bureaucracy and what not.
And I really don't understand the gameplay vs realism argument, with good implementation you can make realism = gameplay. Realism can be fun, make decline something you can reverse, add challenges throughout the entire game instead of just having them in the first century or so and the rest becoming a cakewalk as you steamroll the entire world. I really do not understand the appeal in snowballing, I personally found it extremely boring and I quit many many games half way because it no longer involved any challenge what so ever. So really, it's about implementation, if Paradox wants to make the game both relatively realistic and fun they can easily do it. And if some players prefer a casual game without too much of a challenge well that's what the difficulty modifier is for.
1-No balance of power - Historically states made alliances of convenience to keep a balance of power so that no state can dominate the rest. Diplomacy mechanics in EUIII did not support this, states made alliances purely on the basis of religion which is unwieldy and unhistorical.
2-War exhaustion - It had no long term effect on the economy, all it meant was that you had to go chasing rebels around your country for a year or two depending on how large your country is. War exhaustion should have a larger effect on the demographics and economy of the state, losing entire armies and having your territories constantly pillaged should actually do something.
3-Sliders are meaningless - Managing a large multicultural empire should be be difficult, it should require as little social upheavals as possible. That means no massive social reforms. In game terms that means emphasis on serfdom, centralization, aristocracy, traditionalism etc. But in EUIII sliders barely make an impact on your state and are easily altered. Modernization should also be a lot more difficult.
4-Cultural and Religious assimilation - It was way too easy to pull off, this ties in with the third point. Another thing, accepting cultures should be much more difficult and less common.
5-Administrative capabilities - This is a no brainer really, you shouldn't be able to go on a conquest spree and be able to consolidate all that territory easily. I mean, world conquest? Really? Governing so much territory should be a drain on your treasury rather than be a bonus once you overextend, and this should depend on the efficiency of your bureaucracy and what not.
And I really don't understand the gameplay vs realism argument, with good implementation you can make realism = gameplay. Realism can be fun, make decline something you can reverse, add challenges throughout the entire game instead of just having them in the first century or so and the rest becoming a cakewalk as you steamroll the entire world. I really do not understand the appeal in snowballing, I personally found it extremely boring and I quit many many games half way because it no longer involved any challenge what so ever. So really, it's about implementation, if Paradox wants to make the game both relatively realistic and fun they can easily do it. And if some players prefer a casual game without too much of a challenge well that's what the difficulty modifier is for.
Last edited:
