Is map painting a core identity of Europa Universalis?

[Kryndude]

I've always wished for more in-depth and interactive trade/colonization mechanics that provide another layer of gameplay. It can give us something meaningful to do during peace time and at the same time be a legitimate reason for conflict. There's something about the way this game depicts age of discovery that lacks the excitement; too passive and insignificant. Historically, trade was an important motivator for states to fund expeditions and colonization efforts. In this game it's not, because it's better to just conquer your neighbor with that resource. Not just trade but everything else falls under the same logic in this game; what is the most efficient way to paint the map.

This makes me wonder, is that what EU4 is about? I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm sure there must've been good reasons to why the devs made such design choices. But I also think it doesn't properly capture the appeal of history of the eu4 timeline. It's also why I always wanted PDX to focus more on Europe; so that they can develop more content for experiencing European history and its charm. But if map painting is the ultimate goal, then I guess wide but shallow makes sense since it needs to be fun for every country in the world. But I personally think that kind of approach makes the gameplay experience identical and repetitive. I want more content, not a different iteration of an existing one, e.g. more tags, more missions. Those don't enrich the fundamental gameplay.

So I'm basically touching two separate topics.
1. Why, in a game called 'Europa Universalis', is the rest of the world getting unnecessary amount of attention, and why do they play the same as European nations.
2. Is it because the game is, at its core, a map painter?

 

[Zak Preston]

the problem with EU4 in particular is that it tries to mimic a board game that takes roots from EU3 down to EU1. As a result we have a pretty fun map painting game with some serious simplifications like "mana" and all mechanics around it (ideagroups, national ideas, stability and so on). I don't think @Johan looked that far in the future and expected the game to be such a success, so for that time this decision has been pretty decent.

However right now Stellaris and HOI4 showed that people actually like deep simulations, while Imperator: Rome showed a huge distaste for "mana" with "magic", and Victoria's 3 success or fail (which is unlikely) will most likely determine the direction EU5 will follow in the future as a more hardcore simulation or a simplified wargame.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

well, there was a lot of map painting (and repainting) going on at the time, so...

 

[Me_]

Yes, it is.

 

[EarlKonrad]

the problem with EU4 in particular is that it tries to mimic a board game that takes roots from EU3 down to EU1. As a result we have a pretty fun map painting game with some serious simplifications like "mana" and all mechanics around it (ideagroups, national ideas, stability and so on). I don't think @Johan looked that far in the future and expected the game to be such a success, so for that time this decision has been pretty decent.

However right now Stellaris and HOI4 showed that people actually like deep simulations, while Imperator: Rome showed a huge distaste for "mana" with "magic", and Victoria's 3 success or fail (which is unlikely) will most likely determine the direction EU5 will follow in the future as a more hardcore simulation or a simplified wargame.

"The problem" How is that even a problem? Also, EU4 isn't trying to mimic any boardgame or even be a boardgame. Abstraction doesn't equate to boardgame just like minute details doesn't equate to simulation.

I wouldn't categorize neither Stellaris nor HOI4 as simulations; Stellaris is a space builder RPG which combines features mainly from 4Xs ad RPGs while HOI4 is a wargame that, while started out following a very strict model of how a game played, it quickly turned into a modding paradise full of "what-ifs" and memes. I really, really doubt that many people play either of those games and think to themselves "damn, what an amazing simulation this is".

 

[Heiliges Thüringens Reich]

Always has been

 

[Victoria 3 finally]

Look up when the world conquest achievenment was added to find your answer.

 

[Zaddy]

1. Why, in a game called 'Europa Universalis', is the rest of the world getting unnecessary amount of attention, and why do they play the same as European nations.

If you'll believe it, it's because there ARE people who play stuff other than European majors + Brandenburg. If I could only play in Europe and everywhere else was basically an empty void of primitives to be conquered, I would've stopped playing several thousand hours ago.

Your mileage will vary of course.

 

[Beagá]

Cute border porn

 

[Koopatin]

1. Why, in a game called 'Europa Universalis', is the rest of the world getting unnecessary amount of attention, and why do they play the same as European nations.

it is called branding. i mean why can you play tails in a sonic game? he is no hedgehoge.

and i am fine with eu being a glorified risk meets (every) worker placement game. I would not want to see another kind of game in eu5. But I could see and would like another game in the same timeframe that is more on the realistic side. However, i have bad memories for the last game that wanted to do that under PD publishing. The eu3 mod that wanted to be more. what a "game", so realistic, so boring, so forgettable i only remember the phrase "the game has to be punishing" and not the name...

 

[Beagá]

Was It Magna Mundi the mod?

 

[Koopatin]

Was It Magna Mundi the mod?

oh yes. it was. to be fair, i was a bit "funny" in my reply. still, i think the game (mod) was too niche, and being punishing seems to be a bad sales pitch (sure dark souls of grand strategy could be something but... meh)

 

[Junuxx]

Using "map painting" as a criticism of the game is a reductionist fallacy in disguise.

In the end every game comes down to manipulating some numbers in computer memory. By itself that is not fun (to most people, not judging). It's the combination of rules, limitations, mechanics and flavor that make it enjoyable to spend hours in front of your screen manipulating those numbers, painting that map.

Map painting in Paint can be a fun hobby (hello /r/imaginarymaps), but is pretty trivial as a game. But map painting could very well be the core identity of a deep geopolitical simulation. It just means that territorial expansion is the main goal, not how hard or complicated it is to achieve or maintain that.

 

[Johan]

I wouldnt say so.

 

[The Norman Yoke]

I've always wished for more in-depth and interactive trade/colonization mechanics that provide another layer of gameplay. It can give us something meaningful to do during peace time and at the same time be a legitimate reason for conflict. There's something about the way this game depicts age of discovery that lacks the excitement; too passive and insignificant. Historically, trade was an important motivator for states to fund expeditions and colonization efforts. In this game it's not, because it's better to just conquer your neighbor with that resource. Not just trade but everything else falls under the same logic in this game; what is the most efficient way to paint the map.

This makes me wonder, is that what EU4 is about? I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm sure there must've been good reasons to why the devs made such design choices. But I also think it doesn't properly capture the appeal of history of the eu4 timeline. It's also why I always wanted PDX to focus more on Europe; so that they can develop more content for experiencing European history and its charm. But if map painting is the ultimate goal, then I guess wide but shallow makes sense since it needs to be fun for every country in the world. But I personally think that kind of approach makes the gameplay experience identical and repetitive. I want more content, not a different iteration of an existing one, e.g. more tags, more missions. Those don't enrich the fundamental gameplay.

So I'm basically touching two separate topics.
1. Why, in a game called 'Europa Universalis', is the rest of the world getting unnecessary amount of attention, and why do they play the same as European nations.
2. Is it because the game is, at its core, a map painter?

Not of the eu series, but a staple of eu4 development

 

[The Norman Yoke]

Using "map painting" as a criticism of the game is a reductionist fallacy in disguise.

In the end every game comes down to manipulating some numbers in computer memory. By itself that is not fun (to most people, not judging). It's the combination of rules, limitations, mechanics and flavor that make it enjoyable to spend hours in front of your screen manipulating those numbers, painting that map.

Map painting in Paint can be a fun hobby (hello /r/imaginarymaps), but is pretty trivial as a game. But map painting could very well be the core identity of a deep geopolitical simulation. It just means that territorial expansion is the main goal, not how hard or complicated it is to achieve or maintain that.

Map painting is a critique at the lack of internal mechanics, vic2 won't let you blob that much because of infamy and constant jacobin revolts then later crises about your ethnic minorities

 

[Junuxx]

Map painting is a critique at the lack of internal mechanics, vic2 won't let you blob that much because of infamy and constant jacobin revolts then later crises about your ethnic minorities

Yes I suppose that's the intended criticism, but my point is that calling this "map painting" is not very accurate or descriptive of the problem.

It is entirely possible to have a game with intricate internal mechanics, where the primary goal is still to gain more territory, rather than stack more factories/prestige/sphere of influence members etc.

In the same vein I could derisively call Vicky 2 a factory stacker game, or a pop clicker game or something, to critique its lack of focus on military expansion. But I don't think that would be a particularly helpful characterization either

 

[grommile]

vic2 won't let you blob that much because of infamy and constant jacobin revolts then later crises about your ethnic minorities

My experience of playing PRU-NGF-GER is not consistent with your description of the game.

 

[Chaingun]

Using "map painting" as a criticism of the game is a reductionist fallacy in disguise.

In the end every game comes down to manipulating some numbers in computer memory. By itself that is not fun (to most people, not judging). It's the combination of rules, limitations, mechanics and flavor that make it enjoyable to spend hours in front of your screen manipulating those numbers, painting that map.

Map painting in Paint can be a fun hobby (hello /r/imaginarymaps), but is pretty trivial as a game. But map painting could very well be the core identity of a deep geopolitical simulation. It just means that territorial expansion is the main goal, not how hard or complicated it is to achieve or maintain that.

Yupp. A great thing about EU always was that you (or your friend, in the rare case you have one) could stare at the screen and say "wow that's a big France/Russia/Byz/Ulm/whatever" - there's instant visual feedback there. Getting to that point of superior blobhood is fun (well, subjectively speaking) and it truly feels like an achievement. Saying "just a map painter" because of that strong point is incredibly simplistic and dismissive.

In practice it's thus a phrase can be safely disregarded because at best it veils more accurate criticisms. If someone says EU sucks because it's a map painter then you should ask them describe their thoughts in more detail.

 

[Nikoleis]

A core identity gained by the fact that war and conquest is the most involving gameplay loop the game has to offer. Trade is pretty much automatic, diplomacy outside of a couple cases is fire and forget be it with other countries or your estates, religion and rebels is one Humanist idea away of being a problem almost universally, technology is linear... the only other part requiring semi constant decision making is random events. So map painting is what people remember the most because it is simply the one thing you have to think about the most during your campaign