The game is too long to offer a challenging experience to a good player all the way until the end

[Lord_Telchar]

It shouldnt be harder. It should stay equally hard. The difficulty for large Empires is to manevour large armies with a limited manpower-pool, which is the reason large Empires didnt scale with their size. You lost 10k troops in the americans as UK? Sucks to be you, you are not replacing them in America. You need to ship troops across the continent. However now you dont have enough troops elsewhere. That is what imo the game should be about.

Magical barriers are simply nonsense and dont add to the fun at all.

not talking about magical barriers, but simulating the reality of things getting harder to manage as they scale up. I think that'd benefit gameplay as well. In EU4, getting another PU, or more territory is always good, the only thing stopping the players are numbers like AE or governing capacity - but it's not actually hard to keep huge swaths of land together. In actual history all empires eventually overstretched and collapsed somewhat, but in the game that never really happens, except scripted disasters like the Ming collapse.
Wouldn't it benefit gameplay if the player had to actually make informed decisions about whether to get another PU or not? For example will this cause more trouble in the long term through uprisings, demand for privileges etc , or will the player benefit from the increase in power, as opposed to just checking whether there's a free diplo-slot.
One thing I hope for is subjects rising up more frequently. In EU4 with high liberty desire they just don't pay any money and don't help in war, but don't actively join the other side, or harm you actively in other ways. Sometimes some rival would support their independence, but I've never had an independence-war declared on me, it'd just be a little annoying having to deal with it.

 

[Monty is staring at me]

I disagree that you should get auto-debuffed for growing. It is survivor bias. Small nations disappeared. Unstable nations disappeared. Large Empires were quite resiliant and long-lasting. Think about UK, France, Austria, Russia or the Ottomans. None of them had a straight rise and fall.

Imo limiting your military backbone should be the nerf you need. Ottoman manpower came from Anatolia. So growing larger didnt result in a bigger army. In the 19th century arabs were included, but the bottleneck shifted to money. Rather becoming more unstable, army cost should simply not be linear, but increasingly expensive.

This is silly.

Firstly, no, this is has nothing to do with survivor bias? Literally nothing to do with anything I've said. Empires aren't countries that have survived a long time, and I think it's totally naive to attribute the main factor in empire formation to the internal characteristics of the state, rather than larger, often external or accidental factors.

Many small countries survived for much longer than long ones.

Large empires haven't been resilient, most start failing or falling apart within 200-300 years. The British Empire, the French Empire, the Spanish Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, while all of these states have existed for very long times, their "empires" only existed for, again, about 200-300 years (in the case of the Ottomans or the Spanish, their empire was essentially in a death spiral within 200-300 years).

Why is this?

Because empire formation is always a temporary thing. Empires form because they are able to exploit some kind of geopolitical opportunity and leverage immense power disproportionate to the size of their "core territories".

However, geopolitical, technological, economic etc. conditions change, and eventually, the empire is simply struggling to maintain itself.

By the 1700s, the Ottomans and the Spanish were just trying to hold on.

By the 1900s, the British and the French were just trying to hold on.

There is a natural limit to empire. You can't expand forever. At a certain point, the marginal costs of empire become greater than the marginal benefits of empire.

That's why world conquests are impossible in the real world, by the way. It's not even close.

I'm not asking for arbitrary buffs for growing. I'm saying that the way separatism, unrest, and AI diplomacy (and diplomacy in general) in EU4 are far too simplistic and too easily allow for infinite player expansion.

 

[GeneralNoob]

not talking about magical barriers, but simulating the reality of things getting harder to manage as they scale up.

I disagree with the notion that there is a linear dependency between managing a larger country and it becoming increasingly harder. You manage a small country the exact same way as you would manage a big country. The difference is simply the amount of workers you require. This in itself could increase corruption, because more people = more varriables, but that is about it.

I think that'd benefit gameplay as well. In EU4, getting another PU, or more territory is always good, the only thing stopping the players are numbers like AE or governing capacity

Which increases your advisor cost (over GC), making tall gameplay less lucrative. It is a nice trade-off.

- but it's not actually hard to keep huge swaths of land together. In actual history all empires eventually overstretched and collapsed somewhat,

Very few, if any non-ABCs collapsed. You required something dramatic to happen like conquest or a massive civil war. Large nations are fundamentally very resiliant, because they have a lot of land and manpower to fall back to. Russia underwent massive wars, civil wars, diseases and famines in the past 200 years, yet it is still among the strongest and largest nations.

but in the game that never really happens, except scripted disasters like the Ming collapse.

And as the game stands, it is not going to be the same in EU5.

Wouldn't it benefit gameplay if the player had to actually make informed decisions about whether to get another PU or not? For example will this cause more trouble in the long term through uprisings, demand for privileges etc , or will the player benefit from the increase in power, as opposed to just checking whether there's a free diplo-slot.
One thing I hope for is subjects rising up more frequently. In EU4 with high liberty desire they just don't pay any money and don't help in war, but don't actively join the other side, or harm you actively in other ways. Sometimes some rival would support their independence, but I've never had an independence-war declared on me, it'd just be a little annoying having to deal with it.

rebels of any kind tear your nation apart. In the very literal sense. What makes you think that blind conquest is the way to go in EU5? Maybe this criticism is warranted, but as of now, we know that rebellions are severe events. I yet dont see a reason to be conerned about it.

 

[$nake.]

I don't know why most of the people in this post only focus on player's gameplay while strong nations controlled by ai are also able to expand repidly and stay stabilized until the end as they keep getting stronger and weaken their rivals. This leds the game not to be more than map painting

 

[Lykus Cerebros]

I don't know why most of the people in this post only focus on player's gameplay while strong nations controlled by ai are also able to expand repidly and stay stabilized until the end as they keep getting stronger and weaken their rivals. This leds the game not to be more than map painting

Because a decent player will massively outpace the AI and strong AI opponents are the only thing keeping a strong player in check. Admittedly having to constantly fight strong AIs for every location will make for very boring gameplay (if we assume EU4 gameplay).

 

[Creamu]

Very few, if any non-ABCs collapsed. You required something dramatic to happen like conquest or a massive civil war. Large nations are fundamentally very resiliant, because they have a lot of land and manpower to fall back to. Russia underwent massive wars, civil wars, diseases and famines in the past 200 years, yet it is still among the strongest and largest nations.

non-ABC collapsed all the time. And generally the bigger an empire, the more enemies and problems it can have. But it does make you more resilient in the fact that you cant get gobbled up in a single war (No one told Alexander that). But as an empire, you would be worried about collapsing and having parts spliter off rather then getting conquered.

Theres also the fact that empires have more to protect. So usually has its military resources are tied up all over the realm. Allowing smaller neighboring forces to actually manage to pick a fight. And it starts becoming a big problem if multiple of these smaller forces start picking a fight. It wasn't uncommon to probe a neighbor to see their response. Now imagine you move away your troops do deal with another territory, and a neighboring realm in that region realizes no ones home.

Basically im saying empires weren't capable of throwing all their weight around. They were more fragile than you might think.

And technically, Russia did collapse. Its empire is almost gone.

 

[Lord_Telchar]

I disagree with the notion that there is a linear dependency between managing a larger country and it becoming increasingly harder. You manage a small country the exact same way as you would manage a big country. The difference is simply the amount of workers you require. This in itself could increase corruption, because more people = more varriables, but that is about it.

Where did you get that idea? It's a quite basic concept in economics, and one of the first things I learned when attempting to manage a project. Things get harder much faster than one would initially suspect, and at least part of the explanation is that more things can go wrong, and multiple things going wrong can collectively make things even worse.
The most efficient countries in the world are all very small countries, and the same goes for any organisation. Increasing scale may reduce cost for a while because the investment cost can be diluted more, but at some point the loss of efficiency by growth will outpace the gain of that cost saving. As someone said earlier, the marginal gain gets lower than the marginal cost.
There's an equilibrium point for anything, infinite growth doesn't exist, at least in our human endeavours. That equilibrium point varies from case to case, but it's certainly well below world conquest in the time frame of the game.

 

[DeadlyPancakes]

Surely the game will have variable difficulty like EU4. Playing EU4 on Very Hard difficulty has fixed a lot of these issues for me and the late game still poses a substantial challenge.

 

[GeneralNoob]

non-ABC collapsed all the time. And generally the bigger an empire, the more enemies and problems it can have.

You could have bothered reading the entire sentance.

But it does make you more resilient in the fact that you cant get gobbled up in a single war (No one told Alexander that). But as an empire, you would be worried about collapsing and having parts spliter off rather then getting conquered.

Alexander was pretty much an ABC. Or General-based-country to be more specific.

Theres also the fact that empires have more to protect. So usually has its military resources are tied up all over the realm. Allowing smaller neighboring forces to actually manage to pick a fight. And it starts becoming a big problem if multiple of these smaller forces start picking a fight. It wasn't uncommon to probe a neighbor to see their response. Now imagine you move away your troops do deal with another territory, and a neighboring realm in that region realizes no ones home.

Basically im saying empires weren't capable of throwing all their weight around.

We are saying the exact same thing.

They were more fragile than you might think.

Limited ressources doesnt make them fragile. By size they have more. Following that logic smaller nations with less ressources should be more stable, which makes no sense. Albania doesnt strike me as a beacon of stability. Nor does Serbia.

And technically, Russia did collapse. Its empire is almost gone.

The point there is: It is still a massive nation. I dont want to argue about semantics here. Despite all the events, it is still big, still powerful. You cant expect that from a small or mid-sized nation. As in: small to mid-sized nations cant go through all these events and come out still powerful. It is just not happening.

 

[GeneralNoob]

Where did you get that idea? It's a quite basic concept in economics, and one of the first things I learned when attempting to manage a project. Things get harder much faster than one would initially suspect, and at least part of the explanation is that more things can go wrong, and multiple things going wrong can collectively make things even worse.
The most efficient countries in the world are all very small countries, and the same goes for any organisation.

Scaling is mostly a money and management issue. Not a society or leadership issue. You are going to govern a small country the same way you would govern a big country. Size is absolutely irrelevant in this context.

And yes, as I have mentioned: More people = more variables, but that doesnt mean that we can assume the worst and pretend it to be the standard. It hurts less when people mess stuff up, when you have a bunch of good people that do their job just fine. Eitherway, this doesnt translate to "harder", but to "more work".

Increasing scale may reduce cost for a while because the investment cost can be diluted more, but at some point the loss of efficiency by growth will outpace the gain of that cost saving. As someone said earlier, the marginal gain gets lower than the marginal cost.

Smaller companies are not more efficent, just because they are small. They can be as much, if not be more ineffcient.

There's an equilibrium point for anything, infinite growth doesn't exist, at least in our human endeavours. That equilibrium point varies from case to case, but it's certainly well below world conquest in the time frame of the game.

No one is talking about infinite growth. Obviously you can overextend your administration, but that is besiedes the point. You should not be hit with an auto-nerf, just because you have reached size x.


We have control, we have administrative buildings and we have culture debuffs. The cost of expansion is a lot of money and manpower investment/risk, after which you have to think for yourself if the investment is worth the trouble. Your backbone is still going to be your primary culture, so all the investment and conquest might not have been worth it at all. It might even suck a lot of money, leaving you with a massive net loss. As of now, we do not know how things will play out at all. So I dont see a reason to speculate and make scenarios about things that may never come true.

 

[Monty is staring at me]

I think it should be stressed that we don't have to be talking about the collapse of large nations, but simply their decline through organic game mechanics, not through scripted disasters or events.

I think that Paradox games depend on growth for their sense of progression, but I posit it might be more rewarding if managing decline and trying to protect your realm as best as you can can provide satisfying game loops as well. It would be nice if we could have more cyclical or non-linear progression in EU5.

 

[Lord_Telchar]

Scaling is mostly a money and management issue. Not a society or leadership issue. You are going to govern a small country the same way you would govern a big country. Size is absolutely irrelevant in this context.

no you absolutely do not govern a small country like a big country, what are you talking about

Smaller companies are not more efficent, just because they are small. They can be as much, if not be more ineffcient.

Where are you getting this from? Like for example data shows that dedicated hiring departments in big companies are worse at hiring good people than in smaller companies without dedicated staff - and that's kinda intuitive, since in bigger companies those that are hiring have less of an idea for what job they are supposed to be hiring.
Idk what to tell you, except both from what I've learnt from political science and economics, and what my own experience tells me, and that's that as projects/organisations etc grow, it gets progressively more difficult to manage.
Surely you have some experience with that as well - have you ever tried to agree on breakfast with 20 people vs just deciding it for yourself?

No one is talking about infinite growth. Obviously you can overextend your administration, but that is besiedes the point. You should not be hit with an auto-nerf, just because you have reached size x.

im not talking about an auto nerf at a cutoff point, but systems simulating things getting harder to manage as the empire grows in size - so for example subjects becoming increasingly likely to be disloyal, etc

 

[GeneralNoob]

no you absolutely do not govern a small country like a big country, what are you talking about

Where are you getting this from? Like for example data shows that dedicated hiring departments in big companies are worse at hiring good people than in smaller companies without dedicated staff - and that's kinda intuitive, since in bigger companies those that are hiring have less of an idea for what job they are supposed to be hiring.
Idk what to tell you, except both from what I've learnt from political science and economics, and what my own experience tells me, and that's that as projects/organisations etc grow, it gets progressively more difficult to manage.
Surely you have some experience with that as well - have you ever tried to agree on breakfast with 20 people vs just deciding it for yourself?

I really dont feel like arguing about off-topic stuff. Agree to disagree.

im not talking about an auto nerf at a cutoff point, but systems simulating things getting harder to manage as the empire grows in size - so for example subjects becoming increasingly likely to be disloyal, etc

I disagree connecting that to size. Subjects didnt become more disloyal, because their overlord became bigger. That is nonsense. The Hashimites stayed loyal to the Ottomans from the early 1500s all the way into WW1. Some tribes even went into WW1 getting pretty much wiped out. That is happening despite the increased size and a metric ton of "f+ck you" from the turkish elite.


By that logic small nations with less ressources auto-generate more loyalty, because magic. The cost of expansion is: less money invested in core areas, manpower loss and risk of subsequent war, future rebellions. And after all of that, the region might not be financially feasable even after thousands of ducats of investment. That is the administrative expansion cost that is already present.

You are arguing that we need more on top of it, which should magically be connected to your size. Trying to generate ressources outside the proximity of your capital is already inefficent. We dont need an extra layer of magic.

 

[Lord_Telchar]

You are arguing that we need more on top of it, which should magically be connected to your size. Trying to generate ressources outside the proximity of your capital is already inefficent. We dont need an extra layer of magic.

again, not arguing for magic, but simulating reality - which is why i think the points above are not off-topic, but serve as examples of constraints on large organisations, which could be simulated in the game to provide challenge to players that outgrew all their rivals around them.

but you're right, we're running in circles, let's not drag this out further

 

[GeneralNoob]

again, not arguing for magic, but simulating reality - which is why i think the points above are not off-topic,

You are mixing your friend group with managing people. If you want to play manager for your friend group, you are not being a friend and if you want to please people as a project manager, then you are not managing people. Yes it is more difficult to manage a lot of people, but you can also just divide people into groups and manage less. It is a self-inflicted problem you are creating here and the size of it is so small that it doesnt even matter in the context of the topic. What does it matter if you have 10 or 100 companies with difficult management. Does it affect you as the president? It might certainly increase your workload, but does it result in less profit or increasing amount of corruption or does it weaken your country? The point you are making is irrelevant to the point I am making or to the problem that is being adressed, namely:

Should a larger nation face debuffs/nerfs/issues?

And my argument here is: No. The "increased difficulty" is already adressed with proximity to your capital. Unlike EU4, you have to build infrastructure to get shit out of the conquered lands. Otherwise your entire investment was for nothing.

but serve as examples of constraints on large organisations, which could be simulated in the game to provide challenge to players that outgrew all their rivals around them.

The problem is already adressed. You conquer a lot -> you thin out your ressources. If you feel like that is not enough: Fair enough, I disagree at least for now (since no game to experience it first hand).


And just to be clear: I am not dismissing your idea, I just think it is too early to think about these things, since what was presented doesnt appear (to me) like an issue. In EU4 you just have magic control with no proximity issue. In EU5 you do have proximity issues and no magic control.

 

[Creamu]

Alexander was pretty much an ABC. Or General-based-country to be more specific.

Dont agree with this at all. The settled country of Macedonia simply got very big very quickly. And the lack of a good successor along with powerful and influential generals eyeing up the prize brought about warlords.

You could have bothered reading the entire sentance.

The entire sentence verbatim was: "Very few, if any non-ABCs collapsed."

Limited ressources doesnt make them fragile. By size they have more.

Not having enough resources to protect yourself on all fronts can make a state fragile.

 

[Kimlin1004]

I've seen there are already multiple threads about the game being too long, but my take is different, I believe. The issue is the game takes 500 years which is a lot longer than Imperator Rome in a time period when rapid and often relatively stable conquests of large areas were quite possible even in places distant from homeland like Spanish conquering much of America in the 16th century while simultaneously getting control of a lot of Italy and Portugal, the British conquering/colonising most of Canada, Australia, South Africa and even all of India in the last century of the game, large rapid conquests in Asia like Timur, although these might be less stable. Even Western Europe did allow for relatively rapid expansion early on with the expansion of the Burgundian state. If the game is to allow historical scenarios it needs to enable such rapid expansion and players will be able to learn how to do it. Now if you allow the player who has learned the game mechanics well to expand like this or even faster (assuming historical Spain and others weren't doing their absolute best) for about 250 years, there is no way they will not build a huge empire that will not face any serious challenges, if they start as a strong nation, and the game will only get easier from there. The game could be made more challenging by making rebellions a bigger issue, but an experienced player will learn how to deal with them efficiently. Some expansion opportunities like personal union integration could probably be made slower. But the point is that a strong nation that would be doing their absolute best (like an experienced player would) would have snowballed way out of control long before the end of the game.

I am not saying that the game is unplayable in the later half because of this. Many people only play about first 150 years of most EU IV games, but I played quite a few until the end date and enjoyed them. Making the game challenging until the end for the very good players would require to make it hyperrealistic in a way, either be making it super complicated, but I wonder how the AI and less experienced players would handle that, or massively increasing the RNG factors, but I doubt many people want this. I think the best solution to this would be to add another start date about half way into the game. I have followed much of Tinto maps so I think I have an idea how much work it could take to make another start date, that is real lot. But I think another start date would almost amount to a new game for quite a few people, who would only rarely reach the content in the second half of the game otherwise.

CK3 is longer and probably one of the easiest games I have played. I still play until the end sometimes but most just play 200 or less years.

I can’t imagine EU5 will be anywhere near as easy as CK3 and it would be impossible for the AI to be as brain dead as CK3.

While I hope the AI is dynamic and able to keep up with the player, even if it’s not that isn’t a reason to shorten the timespan for those who are interested in that long of play through. Just play until it’s not fun for you anymore and then start another game.