Has power creep become an official dev policy for EU4?

[Mindel]

So many things about EU4 were once difficult and challenging, but now they are easy.

In early patches, England had to fight the Hundred Years War without any allies, and nowadays you can just call in Aragon and Burgundy to smash France while watching passively across the channel. Mission trees hand out permanent claims and union CBs like candy. They even help you shortcut the integration of PUs. Apparently France even has a mission which lets you just instantly inherit Burgundy and bypass all of the complications of dealing with the HRE emperor while you're at it. Honestly, what is the point of such a mission, if not just to give out free stuff?

This has been brought up in the forums before, and we always hear some noncommital thing about devs looking into it. But frankIy, I have seen zero signs that they have, or plan to, do anything to turn this trend around. I don't even see any sincere interest in doing so.

Has power creep become the official policy of EU4? It feels like the development is working on the principle that easier games will attract larger audiences, so each DLC should make the game even easier so that it can get more people to buy into EU4.

 

[nuurori]

In theory the power creep should benefit AI as well, as long as it is capable enough to utilize them. At least AI korea managed to dev the shit out of their peninsula, making it a significantly harder opponent to conquer than before.

I would perhaps rather speak about balance shift. Some nations have received buffs while others have not, not unlike in a moba game some champs get buffed after a round of patching.

But there is one thing though, also addressed before by others too. Since missionse were introduced, and after that, even more, that playing a specific nations have been systematically herded toward a certain direction, like railroaded. The more powerful mission rewards are, the more you are inclined to follow them.

I remember time before missions at all, and at that time you'd only organically look around in the environent around and act accordingly. Now you can do the same, but you should still first take all of the Aegean Islands to get the claims on balkan!

National ideas have also been blamed about forcing nations to molds "you can, but should not play maritime prussia". I see that point also, but ideas only adhere to playstyle, not act as a navigator telling where to turn next, at least. And Personally I do like different nations having different set of abilities, like characters in a RPG.

Back to original point: Yeah, It seems to me that devs are trying to make EUIV experience more controlled. When a player picks England, player maybe expects to have The England Experience catered to him. I dont think all players expect that, but I think PDX things that this picky kind of player is the one they should cater to. maybe because that way the game feels more accessible?

There are still nations I have not played left so I Guess that would not be that big of a problem, though, if the big mission trees were somewhat readable

 

[Allahui]

Powercreep has been in since country specific dlcs ala rule britannia, the ship has sailed

 

[Militantti Talitintti]

It always has been even before the shift to Tinto, DLCs only pile on more and more modifier bonuses

 

[Banedon Runestar]

As England you could always pull one or more of Castile, Aragon, Burgundy, or Austria, that’s not power creep.

France and Austria are set as historical rivals. And at game start there’s only a handful of nations that France can rival. Many of them tend to be neighbors, and are tactically and strategically useful for England.

 

[colinljx]

Welcome to the world of modern gaming, we will keep you entertained with powerful stuff to make your feel superior than everyone else, as long as you keep buying and paying. The Asians may have been the pioneer in pay-to-win games, but Paradox has been learning over the years and is determined to surpass them eventually.

 

[Zaddy]

Basically all expansions have brought power creep to the game.

National Focus
Trade Companies
Disinheriting
Razing
Great Power system
Consorts
Golden Ages
Professionalism
Monuments
Innovativeness
Curry favors

In this respect there's nothing new under the sun. What's different is that instead of giving new game-wide systems to players, they're tied to certain tags. I think there's a few reasons for this:

1) I presume it's easier to create mission trees as opposed to new mechanics.
2) I think it's an effort to make tags feel more differentiated.
3) Presumably players like them and buy them, or else they wouldn't keep making them.

 

[Mindel]

As England you could always pull one or more of Castile, Aragon, Burgundy, or Austria, that’s not power creep.

France and Austria are set as historical rivals. And at game start there’s only a handful of nations that France can rival. Many of them tend to be neighbors, and are tactically and strategically useful for England.

In the old patches, England started the game at war with France, and no one will ally you until the war is over. So England had to fight the HYW completely alone.

 

[Shinkuro Yukinari]

But there is one thing though, also addressed before by others too. Since missionse were introduced, and after that, even more, that playing a specific nations have been systematically herded toward a certain direction, like railroaded. The more powerful mission rewards are, the more you are inclined to follow them.

I remember time before missions at all, and at that time you'd only organically look around in the environent around and act accordingly. Now you can do the same, but you should still first take all of the Aegean Islands to get the claims on balkan!

National ideas have also been blamed about forcing nations to molds "you can, but should not play maritime prussia". I see that point also, but ideas only adhere to playstyle, not act as a navigator telling where to turn next, at least. And Personally I do like different nations having different set of abilities, like characters in a RPG.

Back to original point: Yeah, It seems to me that devs are trying to make EUIV experience more controlled. When a player picks England, player maybe expects to have The England Experience catered to him. I dont think all players expect that, but I think PDX things that this picky kind of player is the one they should cater to. maybe because that way the game feels more accessible?

There are still nations I have not played left so I Guess that would not be that big of a problem, though, if the big mission trees were somewhat readable

Determinism you say?

 

[EarlKonrad]

In the old patches, England started the game at war with France, and no one will ally you until the war is over. So England had to fight the HYW completely alone.

How old are we talking here? There are no war declarations before a month has elapsed. This has been the case, as far as I know, since the game's release.

 

[Mindel]

How old are we talking here? There are no war declarations before a month has elapsed. This has been the case, as far as I know, since the game's release.

There was no war declaration involved. England and France started the game with the war ongoing.

Also, it is not true that there was a restriction on DOW in the first month since game release. This was added later to prevent players from attacking the AI on day one, before it can get any allies.

 

[Travis_Bickle]

They even help you shortcut the integration of PUs. Apparently France even has a mission which lets you just instantly inherit Burgundy and bypass all of the complications of dealing with the HRE emperor while you're at it.

Yeah France can do that, but they're also locked to kingdom rank meaning they'll be horrendously over governing capacity and suffer harsh penalties. A lot of the "buffs" actually also have drawbacks. Castile's opening disaster is way worse now too.

 

[Mindel]

Yeah France can do that, but they're also locked to kingdom rank meaning they'll be horrendously over governing capacity and suffer harsh penalties. A lot of the "buffs" actually also have drawbacks. Castile's opening disaster is way worse now too.

Being fixed to kingdom rank is a completely separate thing from mission tree power creep. And GC problems are, in part, consequences of this power creep. Calling this a drawback is like saying conquering land is bad because then you have to deal with unrest.

 

[Austregisel]

The same thing happened with CK2 at the end of its life, but in EU4 they multiplied it.

 

[nuurori]

Determinism you say?

I suppose im not saying that, if you are implying to the "railroading", a term used more in role-playing game-scene. Maybe in broaders sense, but here, i think when ppl talk about determinism, its vs. rng, meaning that A consistently leads to B. Thats my impression anyway.

Original poster was talking more about power creep, but I think what he too really meant was that the problem with the fast food approach is that games become railroaded - and yeah, i guess you could say its determined where it leads, or you could call it predestined. Its not a hard boundary, more like a golden cage, yoke that you want to wear, because of the power creep you'll otherwise entirely miss.

This same phenomenonen has caused also problems in the diplomacy, btw. These days your trusted ally of 200 years suddenly becomes sworn enemy with swirly eyes, just after completing some mission and desiring 200 provinces you control. Its not ony player that is being railroaded.

 

[HypnoSkales]

In theory the power creep should benefit AI as well, as long as it is capable enough to utilize them. [...]

It's not. Austria has a PU cb on Bohemia, but they never use, despite how easy it is for a player to gain.

Ottomans have basically a subjugation cb on Mamluks, but they don't use it since the devs literally disabled them from doing so (I actually checked it in the code myself)

etc.

The AI is usually not capable of using the OP mission trees that they have.

 

[Pbhuh]

I think PDX just needs a new policy for what form of Power should be prioritized and what type of Power leads to unwanted Power Creep.

Personally I think that the game needs just 1 patch where every single value ingame is rebalanced, especially events and missions. They also need to be more flexible with values.

I think bonuses like 5% Discipline should be Idea Groups, National Ideas, Government Reforms, and missions, events, ruler personalities should at most be things like 2.5% Discipline.

This way the game doesn't emphasize RNG and modifier stacking too much, but still allows for it to exist.

Colonizing speed is I think the biggest victim of this problem however, with half the world being clonized in 1600.

Then again, the game is kinda fun with more rewards and more content currently. Sure it is Overpowered, but being reasonably overpowered is fun.

 

[Zaddy]

How old are we talking here? There are no war declarations before a month has elapsed. This has been the case, as far as I know, since the game's release.

There were a few nations that began the game at war. From what I recall this included Albania v. Ottomans and England v. France. They've been removed for years, since probably 2016 or so.

 

[nuurori]

Ottomans have basically a subjugation cb on Mamluks, but they don't use it since the devs literally disabled them from doing so (I actually checked it in the code myself)

Can't say this is a very good design. Then again, with said power creep many nations could be out of hand, Like with Ottos subjugating mameluks.

But one could consider it as a hidden player aid, making game easier. Hidden, because player assumes that AI also enjoys similar benefits. I did. Missions being disabled from AI was news to me, but makes sense.

I would rather have player just choose easy difficulty. Normal is already too easy, but it's for the achievements, and while hard is more challenging, it gives this by giving buff to AI, which feels unfair, and i would prefer an even playing field. Now with asymmetric mission rewards (player vs ai), very hard could be more justified, but still feel wrong, like a mess. yuck.

 

[klingonadmiral]

There are no war declarations before a month has elapsed.

This has only been a thing since 1.15