Stop Complaining About Paradox "Watering Down" Titles!

[DiplomaticIntrigue]

Honestly CK3 is kind of crappy. I tried to like it, several times, and CK2 is still way better than CK3. So I just hope EU5 doesn't follow the same path than CK3.

What many, but not all, veteran CK2 players wanted was to take CK2 and improve UI and a little for graphics, add great modding, maybe improve map, and fix a couple major systems that people really hated, and then add cool new mechanics. They did not do that at all. They added an entirely new character portrait/model system, a bunch of 3d map building models and artifact models, added the very annoying confed-part spam, and ripped out a bunch of stuff. The game is not *quite* as completely a different gameplay loop as V2->V3 was but still. They didn't follow the famous Civ 33/33/33 model at all. Unfortunately plenty of people were happy with the new CK3 model and the majority, but like 70% not 100%, of CK2 players were left out. That's why CK2 still has 20% the active players of CK3.

Someday maybe we'll get a CK2+++ style game from someone else. CK3 probably isn't going to go there.

 

[StixRus]

Ironically EU4 was actually built upon EU3 with all expansions, with a few features removed to be replaced with other mechanics. You could argue that it took a while to get some new Daimyo system for EU4, but the one in eu3 was rather bad.

Here's a DD i wrote 11 years ago on the topic.

Europa Universalis IV dev diary 2 –The purge & all cards on the table

Welcome to a new development diary about Europa Universalis IV where we talk about the purge the game is undergoing. So what is a purge when it comes to creating a sequel? Purging is when we remove features that simply are not good enough...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

What part of EU III had magic mana points? I’m saying this as a fan of EU III.

 

[Brynjar]

What part of EU III had magic mana points? I’m saying this as a fan of EU III.

Ignoring the fact that EU4 doesn't have magic mana points, how is that relevant to what you quoted? Built upon does not mean it's identical.

 

[anyoneatall]

What many, but not all, veteran CK2 players wanted was to take CK2 and improve UI and a little for graphics, add great modding, maybe improve map, and fix a couple major systems that people really hated, and then add cool new mechanics. They did not do that at all. They added an entirely new character portrait/model system, a bunch of 3d map building models and artifact models, added the very annoying confed-part spam, and ripped out a bunch of stuff. The game is not *quite* as completely a different gameplay loop as V2->V3 was but still. They didn't follow the famous Civ 33/33/33 model at all. Unfortunately plenty of people were happy with the new CK3 model and the majority, but like 70% not 100%, of CK2 players were left out. That's why CK2 still has 20% the active players of CK3.

Someday maybe we'll get a CK2+++ style game from someone else. CK3 probably isn't going to go there.

Civ 33/33/33?

 

[EarlKonrad]

Civ 33/33/33?

Thats one of Sid Meier's (creator of the civilization series) game design rules. A sequel should be a third of established mechanics, a third of improved mechanics and a third of new mechanics. Thus, 33%/33%/33%.

 

[Lord Lambert]

Ignoring the fact that EU4 doesn't have magic mana points

Seems like someone is ignoring the fact that it does...

 

[DiplomaticIntrigue]

Seems like someone is ignoring the fact that it does...

A lot of people are just really invested in not understanding what the actual meaning of "ruler mana" is. And I say that as someone who doesn't have a huge problem with it, in EU4 specifically. Total no go for Imperator or ideally any other Pdox game. EU4 "ruler mana" is a perfectly legitimate gameplay mechanic for some kinds of games. But it is a gamey abstraction and oppositional to a simulation focused game.

 

[ero_sk]

Don't tell me what to do.

 

[Tomray94]

Clunky magic?

The mystique of the world. This doesn't apply to supernatural events or other such phenomena explicitly, just to be clear. It has to do with the atmosphere of the game producing a certain larger than life, highly immersive and enchanting feeling for the world.

 

[Brynjar]

But it is a gamey abstraction and oppositional to a simulation focused game.

What makes EU4 a simulation focused game? I really struggle to see any simulation focus from the moment I unpause the game. Military, warfare and AI is simply too far from attempting to simulate anything for such a description to fit.

Seems like someone is ignoring the fact that it does...

Most enjoyable fantasy rpg games I have played have "magic mana" mechanics which are much more similar to the money systems in Paradox games than to ruler points, but for some reason people insists money isn't "mana" (at least those who wants to get rid of "mana"). The way the term is used by most Paradox players just makes it seem like they never played games with "magic mana".

The fact that you'll get so many different answers to what makes a game resource "mana" or not, and why/when it is bad, should be a good enough reason in itself to avoid using the term instead of more accurate descriptions in a discussion about what kind of game mechanics you want.

 

[Kovax]

Most enjoyable fantasy rpg games I have played have "magic mana" mechanics which are much more similar to the money systems in Paradox games than to ruler points, but for some reason people insists money isn't "mana" (at least those who wants to get rid of "mana"). The way the term is used by most Paradox players just makes it seem like they never played games with "magic mana".

The fact that you'll get so many different answers to what makes a game resource "mana" or not, and why/when it is bad, should be a good enough reason in itself to avoid using the term instead of more accurate descriptions in a discussion about what kind of game mechanics you want.

The critical difference between "money" and "ruler mana" is that there are numerous ways of significantly increasing the availability of money, whereupon something else becomes your new limiting factor. "Ruler mana", not so much.

 

[Brynjar]

The critical difference between "money" and "ruler mana" is that there are numerous ways of significantly increasing the availability of money, whereupon something else becomes your new limiting factor. "Ruler mana", not so much.

Just like any good mana system in RPGs. The problem isn't "mana", it is how it implemented. "Mana bad" doesn't address the actual issues at all.

The lack of interesting ways to influence mana generation is your own very specific problem with "Ruler mana" though. It is extremely easy to find posts where people claim their most important issues with "Ruler mana" are different aspects of "mana". Be it how it can be saved up for instant tech ups, development or the randomness of how it is generated.

 

[Lord Lambert]

The fact that you'll get so many different answers to what makes a game resource "mana" or not, and why/when it is bad, should be a good enough reason in itself to avoid using the term instead of more accurate descriptions in a discussion about what kind of game mechanics you want.

I find that the only people misunderstanding what is and isn't considered mana in PDX games tend to be people who are wielding their misunderstanding as a weapon. Like the clowns who call money and manpower "mana" don't actually believe that it is, and they are well aware that the people saying they dislike mana are not talking about money or manpower, but I guess it gives them a little power trip in a tips fedora kind of way when they can say "wELl aCkcHUAlly YOuR defInITiOn Of mana InCLuDEs monEY anD MaNPOWer, TAke tHAT liBEral aTHEists!"

It's stupid and entirely ignorable. In EU4, ADM, DIP and MIL are mana. It is even referred to as such BY THE GAME ITSELF. That there is no universally agreed upon, solid absolute definition for mana in PDX games does not mean that we do not recognise it when we see it.

Can you recite off by heart the mathematical proofs of why an equilateral triangle is what it is? Probably not, but you know it when you see it.

 

[Brynjar]

It's stupid and entirely ignorable. In EU4, ADM, DIP and MIL are mana.

Why is mana a fitting description? And why does it not fit for money? Why isn't piety and prestige in ck2 mana? If it is, why did it not recieve as much vocal hate as "mana" in EU4 or Imperator? Why did people like Vic 2 where mana mechanics where such a big part of the game, and the game's best feature according to Johan?

Would replacing ruler point costs with money costs solve most of the current problems with "mana"? It would certainly remove the "critical difference between money and ruler mana" as stated by Kovax. I don't see the game getting any better with such a change though.

 

[Tomray94]

Why is mana a fitting description? And why does it not fit for money? Why isn't piety and prestige in ck2 mana? If it is, why did it not recieve as much vocal hate as "mana" in EU4 or Imperator? Why did people like Vic 2 where mana mechanics where such a big part of the game, and the game's best feature according to Johan?

Would replacing ruler point costs with money costs solve most of the current problems with "mana"? It would certainly remove the "critical difference between money and ruler mana" as stated by Kovax. I don't see the game getting any better with such a change though.

Piety and prestige isn't mana because it represents the aggregate, well, piety and prestige your character has accumulated through their pious and prestigious actions respectively.

The fact that there isn't a more concrete way to represent piety and prestige is not the fault of the developers, but of reality. What's pious or prestigious in any given time and place is entirely down to subjective human experience and subject to differing opinions, whereas manpower or money can be tied much more directly to actual tangible numbers.

 

[Brynjar]

Piety and prestige isn't mana because it represents the aggregate, well, piety and prestige your character has accumulated through their pious and prestigious actions respectively.

That's an extremely generous description of those mechanics. You can gain large amounts of those resources passivly based on actions by characters who are long dead, and some from in born fairly randomly distributed stats.

Monarch points also represents the aggregate administrative, diplomatic and military capacity of your ruler and your country in general. You can even get a more reliable supply of them through the actions of your country than you can from randomly distributed monarch stats.

Since you also seem to think the way a resource is generated is what makes it mana or not I would love to hear your answer to my previous question:

Would replacing ruler point costs with money costs solve most of the current problems with "mana"? It would certainly remove the "critical difference between money and ruler mana" as stated by Kovax. I don't see the game getting any better with such a change though.

If the way "mana" is gained is the core of the issue, using money for coring, instantly increasing stability, instant tech ups, instantly turning desert wastelands into the most developed place in the world etc. should be fine since mana is gone?

 

[Cuke]

It is even referred to as such BY THE GAME ITSELF.

Where?

It's stupid and entirely ignorable. In EU4, ADM, DIP and MIL are mana.

It's stupid and entirely ignorable. In EU4, ADM, DIP and MIL are monarch power points, not mana.

 

[trewajg]

While I don't think money and manpower are mana, I think piety and prestige are a little bit less mana mana than adm mil and dip points. I think the core thing here is that mana in the context of pdx games should be a thing represented by a numerical value with a limited and less interactive generation, which are then used as a coin for a lot plenty of interactions. The term comes from actual mana from rpgs, where in a combat encounter: mana is represented by a numerical value; mana is the currency used to cast spells; mana outside of potions couldn't be gained trivially; mana has a fixed generation which outside of potions couldn't be easily altered.

Manpower is not as used as much as mana as the other resources, it is mostly used on the actual wars as actual manpower instead of a currency.
Money fits the description quite well except for the limited and less interactive generation part. You as a player have a very big influence on your money generation, be it positive or negative. Not only that, but also your flux of money is important by itself and also very much interactible.
Adm, mil and dip are very much mana. Your mana generation is hardly interactive and quite limited. You pretty much get a ruler and are fixed with that mana generation rate for a while with very little influence in aquiring more points. Events where you get more mana and not very common and even more common are ones where you lose points, and these events are quite random. Not only that but also these points are used for pretty much everything and gate you from doing most of the important mechanics of the game.
Prestige and piety, fit everything except the way you interact with it. There a lots of ways to influence how much you generate it, and also events to gain more of them are very plentiful. I guess it is less interactive and dynamic than money and could be viewed as a sort of grey area of mana.

I think these are good criterea to analise how much mana-like is a certain resource, and I think putting my definition in a better context will remember you all the most mana-like resource of all pdx games: release imperator political influence! It was similar to mil adm and dip, but it was like a super mana, in a sense that it was the single resource you used for 99% of all game interactions, it generated at a fixed rate and there was little to do to generate more of it. I think that was the mana that truly gave mana a bad name in pdx games.

 

[Cuke]

There is no mana in this game. This is historical (alternative) fiction, not fantasy, and therefore mana doesn't exist here (as it doesn't exist IRL). What people tend to confuse with mana is ruler points, which is a classic mechanic from a boardgame.

 

[trewajg]

There is no mana in this game. This is historical (alternative) fiction, not fantasy, and therefore mana doesn't exist here (as it doesn't exist IRL). What people tend to confuse with mana is ruler points, which is a classic mechanic from a boardgame.

Mana in this context is a term used to represent a type of resource in a game, it is not literal magic mana. Nobody here means it that way. Nobody here is confusing anything. Just you.

That's like saying that this website isn't a Forum. That is a roman building, not an internet website. A Forum is a roman public square and romans didn't even have internet (as it didn't exist IRL). What people tend to confuse with forum is internet public discussion messaging boards, which is a classic type of website from the internet.
Or that a paradox is a logically self-contradictory statement or a statement that runs contrary to one's expectation, and none of the discussion here in this public discussion messaging board is about paradoxes, but about virtual games.
How any clown even managed to name this Paradox Forum I have no clue. They have no idea of the meaning of these words.