The reality of losing.

[Monty is staring at me]

I see a pretty good potential for coalitions here, even when compared to EU4.
The way it is, coalitions are a fail state, if you don't manage your expansion rate well, they will fire and cut you down to size.
But I don't think that should be the case, coalitions should be a natural part of gameplay for anyone aiming for hegemony.
So once you eclipse everyone around you, coalitions should become a constant in your game, and the way you navigate this should determine your overall success.
Basically, eveyone should have their Napoleon moment naturally.

Now, how to make "fun to lose"? Well, I'm of the opinion that if coalitions are an inevitability, players might have a mentality more accepting of situations where they'll just have to cut their losses and bite the bullet, fighting defensively to peace out for the least amount of territory possible, and then building back stronger.

And now that coalitions are an IO, there are even a few things that could be done, like creating phases (similar to CK3 struggles), levels of beligerance per member, special modifiers and events, and many more things I'd like to play with in the future.


Thing about these examples is that they pretty much affect everyone equally, so in the end the player isn't necessarily on a more or less advantageous situation because of them.

I also think players should be incentivized to play for soft power more. Measuring success through diplomatic, economic, cultural and trade influence rather than simple map painting.

The reason why putting realistic, hard limits on long term expansion in EU4 wouldn't work is because the entire game is designed around expansion. There just isn't much more stuff to do than colonize and conquer territory.

EU5 offers more gameplay loops during peacetime, meaning that it's okay that you are prevented from expanding 90% of the time.

In EU4, I spend most of my time thinking of who I'll attack next. In EU5, I hope that I'll spend most of my time planning on how to protect myself from whoever is going to attack me.

 

[GenericType]

Johan said that with the early challenges like the Plague, one goal is to adress that, to teach the player that losing is ok and part of the run

Hopefully it works but I guess players are gonna want their "optimal" run and reload anyway after something they think they could have done way better

And I agree with that!

Looking forward to France losing half of its population to the plague in the middle of -at the time- losing struggle in the Hundred Years' War. It's going to be fcking epic.

- mop want to get their missing achievements, which demands optimal play or cutting a lot of cheese or trying specific strategies. A single ill-timed heir-death can mean a lot here.

And that is what I hated most out of EU4, the coddling. Every time the players whine about something triial because it inconveniences them or god forbid ruins their WC run, the devs readily hands them some sort of magic mumbo jumbo to help them cheese the already cheesy system.

Ran out of manpower? Slacken recruitment! Or choose one of these free manpower buttons!
Heir is bad? Lol, just disinherit them you dummy!
Lack money? How about infinite loans with no repercussions to bankruptcy other than a 5 year turtling? Or how about this debase currency then?

I hope Ceasar stops coddling the players. Let them skin their knees falling down for chrissake.

 

[perceval350]

One other instance where losing would be very fun would be if PC made it possible for you to expand very rapidly, but then certain mechanics would make your large empire crumble in the short to medium run.
That way, you could trick players into thinking they can expand rapidly only for them to irreversibly crumble. After that the player would be able to play one of the breakaway states or a successor state
Basically it would be very cool if PC could dynamically reproduce what happened with the mongols or the timurids. That way, to balance the frustration of seeing its empire crumble, the player would have the satisfaction of continuing his campaign in a world vastly shaped by its passed conquests.
The absolute best for me would be if crumbling empires could even turn into dynamic IOs like the hre or the ilkhanate

 

[Ispil]

My ideal...

I want the game to play like you're juggling a thousand spinning plates. Constantly having to balance the needs of your estates (both the generic "estate" and specific entities within those estates, such as specific noble houses, specific guilds, specific bishoprics), states (vassals, neighbors, your religious head), people (access to goods and the like to meet demands while also fostering growth), economy (managing salt monopolies). Having to compromise between the short term (self-defense after being declared war on, avoiding an immediate civil war), medium term (pleasing the nobles now so you can diminish their rights a little bit without issue in 10 years), long term (ensuring stable succession, gaining a port for better trade and naval access), long long term (putting yourself in an advantageous position so that you can establish overseas colonies), and long long long term (balancing your economy in just the right way that industrialization is prime to take root in your country when the time comes). Dealing with the fact that your goals are not the same as the goals of your estates or your people and that they're acting as much in their own self-interest as you are in yours.

Every single action you take is at the expense of something, whether through opportunity cost or otherwise. The consequences might not be felt for over 100 years, but they will be felt eventually. As your country grows, the number of voices in the chorus of people pulling you in every direction grows. Something will inevitably give, and the plates will come crashing down at your feet. Angered members of your nobility will instigate a civil war. Your economy will languish at the expense of your neighbors, driving you into backwards irrelevancy. Your people, condemned to squalor, will ultimately rise against the state in a bloody revolution.

Losing is inevitable. For you and everyone.

But to me that's the most fun part of all. To lose (the more spectacularly, the better), and to rise from the ashes and make something new and repeat the cycle all over again.