Is map painting a core identity of Europa Universalis?

[TheMeInTeam]

Maybe some people use it as an excuse. Although I feel if people want to they could watch enough world conquest runs by now and copy most of the meta used for world conquest if people have the patience for it.

If you're thinking in the context of you or I, or players with similar experience, then sure.

When I watch other players who are relatively less experienced, I realize that it's easy to forget just how many small optimizations good players do automatically/seem obvious, that are clearly not to the < 1000k crowd in most cases. I also realize that there are many I'm still not doing, because I never put in the effort to learn/internalize them.

These things add up immensely, and they don't turn up in most guides. A random person attempting to follow a guide can quickly find themselves on 0 manpower and struggling with finances, frustrated that other players talk about how much money there is in the game.

I either have to slow down and pause every few seconds to micro

When I watch players who put up the most impressive times/feats, this doesn't start being a thing in "late game". It's a thing almost immediately. It scales up as they grow of course, but they also grow at well over double the rate compared to even most experienced players. Or since they attain very early WCs, I guess you could say they start the "late game" almost immediately in a sense.

"Ahistorically large" wasn't brought in, that was already the implicit context of the discussion. You brought in WC and moved the goalposts.

The thread title is about what EU 4 is at its core identity. WC is an intentional part of that identity. "Ahistorical" being a legitimate criticism by itself is not.

Regular, non-world-class players saying that conquest is too easy are not making claims about early one tag world conquests.

Claiming that conquest is too easily while expanding like a snail/acting in a way that removes most of the challenge of conquest doesn't make sense. If they want it harder, the game offers plenty of ways that will give them a more optimal position sooner, if only they were to face more difficulty. They choose not to. They don't get to (reasonably) say a game is too easy while intentionally making it easy.

You are calling such players "dishonest" and "deceiving themselves", but that's just based on misrepresenting or misunderstanding their opinions in the first place.

I obviously can't generalize to everyone, because every individual is different. But yes, the baseline for a player who has never done WC claiming that it's "easy but tedious" is that it's likely not an honest position. There might be exceptions to that of course, but the vast majority of players that meet both criteria are deceiving themselves about some elements of their play as it relates to EU 4.

Your and their views on the ease/challenge of conquest are compatible, we all just need to be more specific and explicit about what scope of conquest we're talking about.

Excepting a couple edge cases, the slower one expands, the easier it is. Numerous design choices the game makes reinforce that reality. Corruption/unrest/rebels/AE/monarch point cost/diplo relations/diplomat time etc all become more strained the faster you go, and that's not an all-inclusive list. It gets to the point where you also can strain manpower, especially if not micromanaging properly. But that's tedious and whatnot, right?

 

[Marcin6669]

EU4 is a survival horror.

Yeeees, it's always after new DLC xD

 

[PenitusVox]

In my mind, EUIV is best described as a resource management puzzle game. Mana, gold, AE, time, etc. are all resources that you have to manage as you play. Map painting is more or less just the method in which you interact with the game. It's the best and most satisfying progress meter that you have.

There's also the web of alliances that you can pull apart but you could argue that that's just more resource management. Trying to save on additional AE, manpower loss, etc.

Flavor is nice and all, as is seeing your pretty expansive empire, but ultimately I've come back for nearly a thousand hours due to the mechanics. Managing them, pulling them apart, figuring out their intricacies. That's not painting a map, that's figuring out a difficult puzzle. That's also why the early game is the most interesting to people and why people rarely reach the last year of the game. It's no longer mechanically interesting at that point, even if you were struggling to stay afloat for the first couple hundred years.

 

[st360]

1. Why, in a game called 'Europa Universalis', is the rest of the world getting unnecessary amount of attention

God I wish this stupid argument would die allready

 

[Machiavelli83]

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?

I think that the problem with this, and almost all Paradox games (with the exception of maybe Stellaris), is not the concept of map paint in itself.
The problem is how they apply and develop this concept that is structural in the gameplay that they want or not. Map paint is structural part of Paradox games.
And the problem with that is that A.I. do not paint maps....so u as human grow a big empire and u are mid to late game in a situation where u face enemyes less powerfull so the game get obviously boring, u sit down and eat a contry after another, cause the aim of the game is to grow in power, is structural and is structural in all strategic games core gameplay.
So the problem is the simulation part of Paradox games that wants to mantein the great historicall realism, and the I.A. mantein their borders and powers. Well he remains not historicall since the human will conquer a lot!
So the solution is to become aware of and take note of this fact, and if they don't want that one or 2 nations of I.A. get empire and try conquer the world at least create an alternativew mode that u can activate and play like that.
So the end game u are a big empire and in the world will be litle nations and at least one or 2 big empires that who contend with you for total world domination.
Thats why Civilizaion is more exciting in the late game but also more replayable in every sense and more more long-lived at the end of the story. Civ ha same structure ONE game and his there from 1990. Paradox create plenty of games full of contents that get boring.
They need to fix this and is easy i think if they dont want change the core game they can create an alternative mode.

 

[Machiavelli83]

God I wish this stupid argument would die allready

is not a stupid argument. Is a structural problem, not caracteristic, of all Paradox games. You can have a map painter game is ok (all strategics games are), but Paradox are the only ones where while you grow and become big the A.I. countries stay there sleepping and wait you in late game to eat em in a boring not purpouse game. They must take aware that their games are historically set yes, they are kinda simulators, but the core of the game is strategic! and this is a fact because, in fact, all players, or at least the 80% want to paint the map after mid game (cause this is the gameplay), and even if they can't, they try to do this, and is not a mistake, is the obvious and normal gameplay of a strategic games like this. Well, so why don't make A.I. countries, at least one or two, get great power and try conquer the world? At least mid and late game will be full of fun, replayable and their games be more long - lived and played. Is all about this, then i don't mind of endless Dlc, is ok.
But they have to fix the core gameplay. After that, you lose some historical realism??? well the game aniway is,nt histoprically realistic when you paint even 30% of the world map. So they must get aware of this and easy fix it, at least with an alternative mode like world conquer.

 

[EarlKonrad]

I think that the problem with this, and almost all Paradox games (with the exception of maybe Stellaris), is not the concept of map paint in itself.
The problem is how they apply and develop this concept that is structural in the gameplay that they want or not. Map paint is structural part of Paradox games.
And the problem with that is that A.I. do not paint maps....so u as human grow a big empire and u are mid to late game in a situation where u face enemyes less powerfull so the game get obviously boring, u sit down and eat a contry after another, cause the aim of the game is to grow in power, is structural and is structural in all strategic games core gameplay.
So the problem is the simulation part of Paradox games that wants to mantein the great historicall realism, and the I.A. mantein their borders and powers. Well he remains not historicall since the human will conquer a lot!
So the solution is to become aware of and take note of this fact, and if they don't want that one or 2 nations of I.A. get empire and try conquer the world at least create an alternativew mode that u can activate and play like that.
So the end game u are a big empire and in the world will be litle nations and at least one or 2 big empires that who contend with you for total world domination.
Thats why Civilizaion is more exciting in the late game but also more replayable in every sense and more more long-lived at the end of the story. Civ ha same structure ONE game and his there from 1990. Paradox create plenty of games full of contents that get boring.
They need to fix this and is easy i think if they dont want change the core game they can create an alternative mode.

And that's why I never get it when people complain about Ottomans being silly strong. Sure it makes starting near the Balkans a (potential) pain but it also presents you somewhat of a challenge when going up against them in the mid to late game, something they is almost entirely abscent on the rest of the map.

A reason why so, so many runs die when the seventeenth century comes around is that no AI (unless you are playing on VH) can present you a challenge anymore if you are a half-decent player.

 

[Machiavelli83]

And that's why I never get it when people complain about Ottomans being silly strong. Sure it makes starting near the Balkans a (potential) pain but it also presents you somewhat of a challenge when going up against them in the mid to late game, something they is almost entirely abscent on the rest of the map.

A reason why so, so many runs die when the seventeenth century comes around is that no AI (unless you are playing on VH) can present you a challenge anymore if you are a half-decent player.

yes i think the reason is this. I am not a EU player. I try play but i didn't because i start play maybe 2017 and at that time for me the UI i don't like is too heavy make me the game unplayable, and same thing Victoria, but i explored the game, and i played a lot CK3.
I think this is the big theme about the game. Changing this mechanic will make the game a lot different and a lot good i think.
I don't know in very hard..but i know that a.i. there get a lot of bonusses. And this thing of bonus work same in the Civilization series...i start think that the question that cause this problem (of "stupids" a.i.) is not a question of game design (so a design choice) but an impossibility to code the a.i. in a way more like of a good human player.
I still have the doubt about what is the reason of the problem, but in my mind is evident that the problem is that. And i am sure that if they can somehow fix that problem (by a choice of gamedesign or by a code - programming possibility) Paradox games will gain an exponential value. Exponential. And we all could be happy as players and they could be happy selling more undoubtedly. For me CK3 become so sad after i understood and see this every game..now i wait Royal Court expancion, i hope that with the new culture mechanics and the Grandeur meccanic this will give another sense to the game....but i have serious doubt....cause the game is a strategic, there is a map, you can conquer and conquer gives you power and a heat and....well i expose the problem before aniway i say that even if is hard for me to take the world in CK3 the game seems to me kinda fake, cause i know that if i play very good, and the i.a. play very good i will not have to face a mega empire but a of nearly defenseless nations....is kinda unfair, unrealistic and i lost immersion before i loose the sense of the heat and progression.

 

[MatthewP]

is not a stupid argument. Is a structural problem, not caracteristic, of all Paradox games. You can have a map painter game is ok (all strategics games are), but Paradox are the only ones where while you grow and become big the A.I. countries stay there sleepping and wait you in late game to eat em in a boring not purpouse game. They must take aware that their games are historically set yes, they are kinda simulators, but the core of the game is strategic! and this is a fact because, in fact, all players, or at least the 80% want to paint the map after mid game (cause this is the gameplay), and even if they can't, they try to do this, and is not a mistake, is the obvious and normal gameplay of a strategic games like this. Well, so why don't make A.I. countries, at least one or two, get great power and try conquer the world? At least mid and late game will be full of fun, replayable and their games be more long - lived and played. Is all about this, then i don't mind of endless Dlc, is ok.
But they have to fix the core gameplay. After that, you lose some historical realism??? well the game aniway is,nt histoprically realistic when you paint even 30% of the world map. So they must get aware of this and easy fix it, at least with an alternative mode like world conquer.

I don’t think it’s this simple. Let’s say you somehow manage to get a couple of AIs to reliably expand like a player each game. Then the late game becomes huge wars between continent-spanning empires. In the abstract that might sound fun. But in EU4 it would be tedious and unfun. The warfare system, like the peace deal system, like the rest of the game, is not designed for this. Sure, you would stop players from conquering the world - who would sign up to siege down all of Asia 50 straight times to fully conquer superblob Ming?

 

[Zaddy]

Yep, the issue is that as the game proceeds, the scale of wars tends to grow (ie the amount of troops and enemies you're fighting) while the challenge declines. The scale of wars increasing also mostly directly increases the amount of micromanagement and pausing required to win wars, ESPECIALLY if you're trying to play optimally and fight wars on multiple fronts. It becomes work instead of fun. I would probably rather do my actual job for free rather than try to efficiently fight some late game EU4 wars.

 

[Machiavelli83]

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.

I think that the problem is not the map painting in itself but how they manage the map painting structure that is in the game (and is not a bad thing in itself).
The core game is a strategic, is not a pure simulator. So the game must have an aim, and the aim is the grow. In EU and CK this grow is by territory and military. I don't know Vic2 (is too old the interface to start now) but leet's se if they found a game design way to translate (a miracle will be imho, cause i think the conquest of the land is structurally involved in the caracter of the strategic genre in a map) the aim and purpouse of territory grow in another kind of grow and domination...let's see.
But, aniway, i think they can solve the problem, because imho this is a problem, to create an I.A. that act as a human, and so conquest other nations and expand their boarder in a not historicall way. That will solve the problem. Because i think that the problem of all Paradox games (except Stellaris and a little HoI4) is that while you conquer tonns of land, and mid to late game become a giant empire, the I.A. will not, and stay there wait you to eventually eat em. And so the game become boring and lost the sense of heat and progression.
The problem is not the map painting in itself, it could be a great core funny part of the game (and it is but it is not funny), problem is how they manage map painting. is unfair and get boring to have a bifg empire and face with single nations that u can easy eat mid and late game. it will be very good if the I.A. at least one or 2 nations act as a strong hman, so conquer lands and get big. That will be fair, immersive and the game will gain fun , heat immersion, and will be replayed much more.

 

[Machiavelli83]

I don’t think it’s this simple. Let’s say you somehow manage to get a couple of AIs to reliably expand like a player each game. Then the late game becomes huge wars between continent-spanning empires. In the abstract that might sound fun. But in EU4 it would be tedious and unfun. The warfare system, like the peace deal system, like the rest of the game, is not designed for this. Sure, you would stop players from conquering the world - who would sign up to siege down all of Asia 50 straight times to fully conquer superblob Ming?

Ok but maybe they can change the war and peace conditions to make u can do fast war, maybe with multiple core territories to claim when u reach the double condition to attack a great empire and to be a great empire.
But even without this mechanic (that they can do) imagine the situation that u describe. I think is good enaugh, a big improvement aniway. Because you have that the purpouse of the game doesn't remains the word paint, but you have that u are big and u dont have micro nations to stomp. You vae two giant empires as u are, and maybe yoo paint the rest of the map or yoy try to take some territoryes to em. At the end of the game you reachalmost the same situation where you conquer and conquer, but this conquer race is not without purpouse as now, is not boring: because you have almost ultil the end two, or tree big giants as you and you see the limit that is the impossibility to take all, and is more imersive, is less automatic, and is more fair: in the end you have the same aim to map paint but with competitors. When the game ends you watch what you have, how big you are, the condition of your people ecc (im not a EU player, i am a Stellaris and CK player), and you compare your strenght not with micro and unrealistic countries compared to a giant empire, but you have two or 3, 4 giant empires as you. At the end the problem with this is only the not realism, where Paradox games and EU make of realism a great caractaristic. But is realisttic even now when all players try to map paint (cause the game bring you to that and is normal is a strategic game) and have a mega giant empire? No, is not realistic but in the alternative mode you have a more funny, challanger and immersive gameplay ultil the last year of the game.

 

[MatthewP]

Ok but maybe they can change the war and peace conditions to make u can do fast war, maybe with multiple core territories to claim when u reach the double condition to attack a great empire and to be a great empire.
But even without this mechanic (that they can do) imagine the situation that u describe. I think is good enaugh, a big improvement aniway. Because you have that the purpouse of the game doesn't remains the word paint, but you have that u are big and u dont have micro nations to stomp. You vae two giant empires as u are, and maybe yoo paint the rest of the map or yoy try to take some territoryes to em. At the end of the game you reachalmost the same situation where you conquer and conquer, but this conquer race is not without purpouse as now, is not boring: because you have almost ultil the end two, or tree big giants as you and you see the limit that is the impossibility to take all, and is more imersive, is less automatic, and is more fair: in the end you have the same aim to map paint but with competitors. When the game ends you watch what you have, how big you are, the condition of your people ecc (im not a EU player, i am a Stellaris and CK player), and you compare your strenght not with micro and unrealistic countries compared to a giant empire, but you have two or 3, 4 giant empires as you. At the end the problem with this is only the not realism, where Paradox games and EU make of realism a great caractaristic. But is realisttic even now when all players try to map paint (cause the game bring you to that and is normal is a strategic game) and have a mega giant empire? No, is not realistic but in the alternative mode you have a more funny, challanger and immersive gameplay ultil the last year of the game.

Well, I agree with you that in the abstract a huge war against a genuine competitor does sound fun. But you have not convinced me it would actually be fun with EU4 game mechanics. If you want to solve the problem of players quitting at a certain point, I think your solution would actually make the problem worse. Once only the great powers are left, players would win at max one war against them quit every time because of the immense tedium of fighting those huge wars over and over. And if you remove that tedium by allowing the player to take much more territory, all you've done is streamlined world conquest.

 

[Metz]

What EU5 needs is a motive to slow down and evaluate your long-term actions for the upcoming decades. This could be done using the pop system from Victoria 3 mixed with cultural elements from CK3 that help define civilizations and their comparative advantages. Add some flexibility and realistic expansionism and you have an improved game in the franchise.

 

[moscal]

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.

Why in game "Hearts of Iron" we cannot make artificial hearts using iron bars?
Why "Poland" isnt land of Po?
Why in game "Baldurs Gate 2" we havent access to city Baldurs Gate?
Why Paradox corporation have name "Paradox" if they dont made new paradoxes?
Etc.

Name is only name. Not more, not less. Here is lack of ideology, grand concepts etc.

 

[JKiller96]

Why in game "Hearts of Iron" we cannot make artificial hearts using iron bars?
Why "Poland" isnt land of Po?
Why in game "Baldurs Gate 2" we havent access to city Baldurs Gate?
Why Paradox corporation have name "Paradox" if they dont made new paradoxes?
Etc.

Name is only name. Not more, not less. Here is lack of ideology, grand concepts etc.

I think people forget the Universalis part.

 

[Imiona]

2. Is it because the game is, at its core, a map painter?

 

[Secuter]

EUIV is a map painter. The primary goal of the game is to paint the map in your own color. There are very little to do outside of that. Does that mean that you can't do anything but map paint? Of course not, but the core mechanics of the game revolves around war and expansion, everything else just supports that. Consider how much you can do outside of war, which doesn't almost immediately become boring.

Anyway, my point is that, that once you are done with the very brief and light empire management you will pretty much immediately prepare for war. That is also what the game intends. Do internal stuff ---> nothing more to do ---> war, rinse repeat. The problem I see is that it often becomes an endless circle of nothing to do---> war---> nothing to do--->war, because there's so little to do outside of war. I think the game would benefit a lot from adding some meaningful peace time mechanics.