Too Powerful for Rivals

[Jockee707]

I ran into a problem last time I played last time I played as Russia. After conquering... well alot, I suddenly got a popup about "Too many generals". Turns out that because I was too powerful to rival any country in the game and therefore wasn't(and hadn't been) gaining PP.

It obviously doesn't make sense that being too powerful would make you project less power so I think this needs to be changed. Please give nations in this situation a way to gain PP, either a flat increase per month or for beating up the others in line depending on world status.

(Mongolia, Afghanistan and Wallachia as vassals) (4 colonial nations in NW NA)
(Note that france is so powerful they actually beat me in score, if I won a war against them shouldn't that give PP?)

 

[3ishop]

yeah PP has been a bit messed up for a long time but it's also been pointed out it's a slight balancing feature, you are already hugely powerful so don't need extra bonuses.

 

[MuscovyPeasant]

yeah PP has been a bit messed up for a long time but it's also been pointed out it's a slight balancing feature, you are already hugely powerful so don't need extra bonuses.

But this doesn't make sense. Becoming huge shouldn't make the game harder. If someone thinks it's too easy they should increase the difficulty in settings.

About PP - should at least remove the confusing name. "Beating up rivals (not available for strong nations)" suits it better

 

[3ishop]

yeah I know, it's annoying callin it "rival" when most of the choices aren't rivals. My current Spain game I can only choose 2 current Rivals, France and Austria who just happen to be allies and I can't even blockade Austria so it's werid how me and they are rivals.

 

[cub298]

I would say that you should be able to have rivals but once you can no longer rival anyone it should be bumped up to the hardest difficulty (or be able to chose so) where you would be able to rival other/any country again.

 

[BrokenSky]

But this doesn't make sense. Becoming huge shouldn't make the game harder. If someone thinks it's too easy they should increase the difficulty in settings.

About PP - should at least remove the confusing name. "Beating up rivals (not available for strong nations)" suits it better

Shouldn't make the game easier though. Assuming this, you need to have something to balance out difficulty loss due to being stronger (though I prefer using internal stability, rebels etc to do this; less external threat -> more internal threat).

Wrt power projection though, it is utterly insane that a nation too strong to have rivals should get no power projection. IMO, you should get +0.1 monthly PP up to a max of +5, +15 and +30 PP from "no eligible rivals" for 1, 2, or 3 unfillable rival slots respectively while having over 150 development. (To stop you getting the bonus by being to weak to rival anyone.
this should get you over the 25 mark, but not the +50, which I think is probably fair? Would have to check with play-testing though.

You should also get power projection by being able to project power (e.g. having a large empire over different bits of the world, helping out allies in their wars, having protectorates etc.)

 

[shihongyi88]

No, PP represents the dynamism of having enemies. If you have no real enemies your empire stagnates and becomes decadent.

 

[MuscovyPeasant]

No, PP represents the dynamism of having enemies. If you have no real enemies your empire stagnates and becomes decadent.

How it stagnates when in fact I'm annexing more and more territory? 2.5k development now, 3k some years later, how is this stagnation?

 

[zyxx]

While getting no mp seems fair - as one is too powerful - having only 2 slots for generals despite having a huge empire is just not practical, forcing you to beam your generals to and fro. Maybe one could get a leader slot per 800 to 1000 development

 

[BrokenSky]

No, PP represents the dynamism of having enemies. If you have no real enemies your empire stagnates and becomes decadent.

Then they should change the name.





And implement actual power projection.

 

[cub298]

How it stagnates when in fact I'm annexing more and more territory? 2.5k development now, 3k some years later, how is this stagnation?

I would say it is stagnation because without a rival or some common big enemy, officials become corrupt, people begin to band together for freedom, and any other decent military force in the game could try to spark your downfall. Take the Romans in history, the huge Chinese empires, or even the vast British one. All of them thought they were on top of the world with no one to be able to hurt them from anything but ended up being their downfall as to being too large and too many different influences in the country.

 

[MuscovyPeasant]

I would say it is stagnation because without a rival or some common big enemy, officials become corrupt, people begin to band together for freedom, and any other decent military force in the game could try to spark your downfall. Take the Romans in history, the huge Chinese empires, or even the vast British one. All of them thought they were on top of the world with no one to be able to hurt them from anything but ended up being their downfall as to being too large and too many different influences in the country.

If the game included every single aspect of real world then it would be unplayable.

Simple name: power. projection. We are not talking people desire of freedom, corruption or whatever. Hugest territory and army and 0 PP while some OPM who just humiliated another OPM has at least 40.

 

[BrokenSky]

I would say it is stagnation because without a rival or some common big enemy, officials become corrupt, people begin to band together for freedom, and any other decent military force in the game could try to spark your downfall. Take the Romans in history, the huge Chinese empires, or even the vast British one. All of them thought they were on top of the world with no one to be able to hurt them from anything but ended up being their downfall as to being too large and too many different influences in the country.

This should be modeled by corruption I think?

(it isn't of course. Why would over extension be to do with the amount you can effectively govern - states + territories; why would power projection be about how strongly you can exert influence when it can be about being one of several equals; why would corruption be about how a large an unchallenged empire can stagnate when it can be a punishment for recent conquest? Of course the best way to get power projection is to never get too powerful! Of course the best way to beat corruption is to remain stagnant! Why would it be anything else? I'm starting to suspect that paradox has a serious problem where they try to implement one feature, have it change into something different while implementing + balancing, and forget to give it a new name, more accurate to what it actually does.)

 

[DDRJake]

Thanks for the suggestions on lategame PP.

 

[Orange1861]

Thanks for the suggestions on lategame PP.

Oh, what have you interpreted from this thread?

 

[magnusvejby]

I think the whole problem in this is that the rival system is broken. Some time ago I saw another suggestion that proposed that, would make rivalies much more dynamic. I don't remember it in detalis but it said something about that the nations you attack becomes your rivals over some time, and you would get more PP if the nations was at your size, and less if they were stronger.

So I would rather have the whole rival system reworked (again) so it becomes much more dynamic. That said this rival system is much better than the old oneso im happy with these changes, and I don't think it's urgent to change it, but I would like it to happen somewhere in the future.

 

[Chief of Staff]

Thanks for the suggestions on lategame PP.

I'm confused... what suggestions? o.o

 

[3ishop]

I'm confused... what suggestions? o.o

Maybe for the next gameplay mechanic to improve? *fingers crossed*