We need very strong opponents

[Al-Khalidi]

This is true about pretty much every paradox game. When no one can actually threaten you anymore, the game gets less interesting.

Given the timespan discussed for this project is so long, the need for stronger opponents becomes even greater.

At the same time, while looking at the map, I'm quite concerned that the world situation will not produce actual monsters like French or Ottomans in Eu4, but that the world will remain full of smaller or mid-size countries. Later EU4 had good mechanisms for empires forming and countries generally tending to unify their region. I'm not necessarily arguing for everything happening historically, but I very much hope that we will see the formation of large, plausible empires, like, say, Golden Horde taking the rest of the steppe, unification of Iran by some power, England becoming an economic naval power, major power in HRE dominating central europe, etc.

At this point it would be very interesting if they released some screenshots of what the world looks like after, say, 100 years

 

[The Goldfinch]

Yeah despite early in development, would be great to see some timelapse screenshots just to have overall idea how the world behaves. Historical plausibily of AI behavior is my biggest unknown for now

 

[GeneralNoob]

I am not sure if it will be necessary at all to have very strong opponents. War works fundamentally different. You will fight over local provinces and you would want to get them with as little manpower loss as possible. There are also supply lines. The AI could just cut your supply line off and starve your units or the attrition itself may reduce your superior forces (in numbers) to equal the size. You might as well end with a situation, where you lose a sizeable size of your pops to gain a region that you cant keep under control anyways. What we need is smart opponents that play with a variety of stratgies instead of numb meat-grinders. I am also fairly sure that there will be a difficulty slider, buffing army size for the AI.

At the same time, while looking at the map, I'm quite concerned that the world situation will not produce actual monsters like French or Ottomans in Eu4, but that the world will remain full of smaller or mid-size countries.

Why? The game already starts with massive countries. The Ottomans are also expanding rapidly. By the reign of Süleyman, we are already talking about a nation with a sphere of influence from Morocco to Hungary to Crimea to Georgia to Yemen/Adal. These massive nations will have their own internal struggles and issues.

At this point it would be very interesting if they released some screenshots of what the world looks like after, say, 100 years

Based on the coring time: Not fundamentally different.

 

[rasakblood]

Personally i think/hope players will find war actually killing pops to be a significant challenge. How many wars have you had in eu4 where hundreds of thousands have died but after 5 years all sides have fully recovered? That should be a thing of the past. Massive casualty's will impact your economic base and the ability to field the same amount of troops next war.

It also means that even smaller conflicts need to be taken more seriously as loosing troops is PAINFULL. Chaining wars on truce cd will be riskier. Mistakes have long term cost and not just minor annoyance of rebuilding regiments.

This makes fighting larger powers even harder then in eu4. Pushing your nation to the brink of collapse to win the war is now FAR more impactful. Unless you gain a large amount of high pop core culture land you might even end up weaker after.

And this is before you have to deal with any rebels overextending might cause. Mindlessly slaughtering rebel stacks is no longer free. You effectively hurting your own tax base every time you do it. Not to mention how it is another drain on your core culture pop numbers.

Other things to consider is also all the direct military changes that have made war at least seem a lot more involved and deep.

In eu4 you need monster tags in order to be challenged. Hopefully that need will be less in PC. But hey perhaps pop growth makes was losses hardly an issue we just have to wait and see.

 

[Al-Khalidi]

I am not sure if it will be necessary at all to have very strong opponents. War works fundamentally different. You will fight over local provinces and you would want to get them with as little manpower loss as possible. There are also supply lines. The AI could just cut your supply line off and starve your units or the attrition itself may reduce your superior forces (in numbers) to equal the size. You might as well end with a situation, where you lose a sizeable size of your pops to gain a region that you cant keep under control anyways. What we need is smart opponents that play with a variety of stratgies instead of numb meat-grinders. I am also fairly sure that there will be a difficulty slider, buffing army size for the AI.


Why? The game already starts with massive countries. The Ottomans are also expanding rapidly. By the reign of Süleyman, we are already talking about a nation with a sphere of influence from Morocco to Hungary to Crimea to Georgia to Yemen/Adal. These massive nations will have their own internal struggles and issues.


Based on the coring time: Not fundamentally different.

1. Well, it's not just about challenging wars. In Victoria 3 I rarely engage in wars but having strong countries that I'm trying to eclipse in terms of gdp, standard of living, population, etc. is just as, if not more important. I just loose part of my interest in continuing the game if I'm becoming the strongest nation by far.
2. How do you know about Ottomans expanding rapidly in game? I'm actually concerned that with the current coring mechanics and all (good) stuff about war, it will be very hard for AI controlled countries like Ottomans, Safavids and Timurids, Mughals, Qing, etc. to expand even remotely as rapidly as historically.
3. Right, so, say, after 200-300 years.

 

[Al-Khalidi]

Thats a fair point. Actually I'm VERY happy with this change. It totally should be like that powerful Ottomans might simply fail to capture tiny Malta due to logistics and all. This will indeed make the game more enjoyable even as very powerful nations. But, like in the previous comment, I'm not making it just about warfare, I just need to see powerful empires that I'm constantly trying to eclipse in order to fully enjoy the gane.

Personally i think/hope players will find war actually killing pops to be a significant challenge. How many wars have you had in eu4 where hundreds of thousands have died but after 5 years all sides have fully recovered? That should be a thing of the past. Massive casualty's will impact your economic base and the ability to field the same amount of troops next war.

It also means that even smaller conflicts need to be taken more seriously as loosing troops is PAINFULL. Chaining wars on truce cd will be riskier. Mistakes have long term cost and not just minor annoyance of rebuilding regiments.

This makes fighting larger powers even harder then in eu4. Pushing your nation to the brink of collapse to win the war is now FAR more impactful. Unless you gain a large amount of high pop core culture land you might even end up weaker after.

And this is before you have to deal with any rebels overextending might cause. Mindlessly slaughtering rebel stacks is no longer free. You effectively hurting your own tax base every time you do it. Not to mention how it is another drain on your core culture pop numbers.

Other things to consider is also all the direct military changes that have made war at least seem a lot more involved and deep.

In eu4 you need monster tags in order to be challenged. Hopefully that need will be less in PC. But hey perhaps pop growth makes was losses hardly an issue we just have to wait and see

 

[UziiLVD]

I'm not making it just about warfare, I just need to see powerful empires that I'm constantly trying to eclipse in order to fully enjoy the gane.

Fair point, but I'm also hoping that the reverse will happen: Holding a large empire together should be challenging in itself, and small tags exploiting your instability should be threatening as well as invasions from large empires.

 

[GeneralNoob]

1. Well, it's not just about challenging wars. In Victoria 3 I rarely engage in wars but having strong countries that I'm trying to eclipse in terms of gdp, standard of living, population, etc. is just as, if not more important. I just loose part of my interest in continuing the game if I'm becoming the strongest nation by far.
2. How do you know about Ottomans expanding rapidly in game? I'm actually concerned that with the current coring mechanics and all (good) stuff about war, it will be very hard for AI controlled countries like Ottomans, Safavids and Timurids, Mughals, Qing, etc. to expand even remotely as rapidly as historically.
3. Right, so, say, after 200-300 years.

1. That's all relative. As of now we dont know much about how far you can push army quality. You can have a massive army, but sh*t tier quality to the point that half your size can beat the crap out of you or maybe the enemy has extremally strong defences and your entire army just melts away at the forts. Maybe you have S tier army quality but a tiny army. Which one of these are making you "the strongest"? You will also reach a geographic limit regarding expansions. There is no infinite expansion and control like in EU4.

2. I dont. I am assuming. It is very likely that they will have special mechanics. Otherwise the Ottomans will just be A nation, not among THE nations. You have to ignore the historic frame of the Beyliks and any kind of historic accuracy to make them to a random tag and not to an expansionist one. The devs already confirmed that Timur will have special mechanics and he is by far less relevant than the Ottomans. Afaik the devs also confirmed that most of the times, the Ottomans will come out as the big beylik conqueror.

3. You could in theory conquer the entire continent. You still wont have control over it. Even if we ignore rebels. The vast majority of your territory would be useless (my point: large nation wont translate to power, hence it doesnt matter if you see lots of large nations). So we yet have to see how that will turn out for the game itself. Maybe the game works great, maybe not. However +300 years into the game is a reasonable amount of time to see Empires everywhere, as it did irl. You had the Mughals in India. The Ming in China. The Ottomans in the middle east, the spanish in the Americans, a large Habsburg, etc. You will likely have lots of larger nations. Likely: Big beylik, big chinese dynasty in China, big random mongol/turkic tag, likely big russian tag, big french/british tag, big iberian tag, big maghreb tag, big Poland/Bohemia.

 

[GenericType]

Yeah. I want to see an AI that can cut the supply lines of my overextended army. I like to see an AI bring in a bigger AI as a surprise ally to wreck me in a war. I want an AI to prevent me from buying their goods on the markets. I want an AI to form defensive pacts around me if I try anything funny. I want an AI that can force me to focus inwardly instead of outward if I became too strong and too active.

 

[P.Quirinius]

1. Well, it's not just about challenging wars. In Victoria 3 I rarely engage in wars but having strong countries that I'm trying to eclipse in terms of gdp, standard of living, population, etc. is just as, if not more important. I just loose part of my interest in continuing the game if I'm becoming the strongest nation by far.

OK, but if you reach levels of GDP, standard of living or population that were not achieved in real life in the time period, do you want AI to keep pace with you or should it mostly only be able to achieve approximately what nations achieved historically? I think that if you learn the game well enough that you can reach levels of power or riches that are ahistorical you should just accept that you will eclipse the AI, otherwise less experienced players would be oppressed by OP AI nations. Systematically ahistorically strong nations should be limited to some sort of hard difficulty option.

 

[Al-Khalidi]

Fair point, but I'm also hoping that the reverse will happen: Holding a large empire together should be challenging in itself, and small tags exploiting your instability should be threatening as well as invasions from large empires.

Absolutely! That's just how it should be. This will equally contribute to making game more fun and realistic, as I think those internal struggles shaped the world just as mach as external ones

 

[Al-Khalidi]

Yeah. I want to see an AI that can cut the supply lines of my overextended army. I like to see an AI bring in a bigger AI as a surprise ally to wreck me in a war. I want an AI to prevent me from buying their goods on the markets. I want an AI to form defensive pacts around me if I try anything funny. I want an AI that can force me to focus inwardly instead of outward if I became too strong and too active.

I agree apart from the line about bringing in stronger allies. This was absurdly exploited in eu4 and should be balanced especially now that wars seem to be WAY more costly. I think big countries should intervene mostly if the side requesting it becomes their subject of some sort.

1. That's all relative. As of now we dont know much about how far you can push army quality. You can have a massive army, but sh*t tier quality to the point that half your size can beat the crap out of you or maybe the enemy has extremally strong defences and your entire army just melts away at the forts. Maybe you have S tier army quality but a tiny army. Which one of these are making you "the strongest"? You will also reach a geographic limit regarding expansions. There is no infinite expansion and control like in EU4.

2. I dont. I am assuming. It is very likely that they will have special mechanics. Otherwise the Ottomans will just be A nation, not among THE nations. You have to ignore the historic frame of the Beyliks and any kind of historic accuracy to make them to a random tag and not to an expansionist one. The devs already confirmed that Timur will have special mechanics and he is by far less relevant than the Ottomans. Afaik the devs also confirmed that most of the times, the Ottomans will come out as the big beylik conqueror.

3. You could in theory conquer the entire continent. You still wont have control over it. Even if we ignore rebels. The vast majority of your territory would be useless (my point: large nation wont translate to power, hence it doesnt matter if you see lots of large nations). So we yet have to see how that will turn out for the game itself. Maybe the game works great, maybe not. However +300 years into the game is a reasonable amount of time to see Empires everywhere, as it did irl. You had the Mughals in India. The Ming in China. The Ottomans in the middle east, the spanish in the Americans, a large Habsburg, etc. You will likely have lots of larger nations. Likely: Big beylik, big chinese dynasty in China, big random mongol/turkic tag, likely big russian tag, big french/british tag, big iberian tag, big maghreb tag, big Poland/Bohemia.

Yeah, I genuinly hope so.

 

[Al-Khalidi]

OK, but if you reach levels of GDP, standard of living or population that were not achieved in real life in the time period, do you want AI to keep pace with you or should it mostly only be able to achieve approximately what nations achieved historically? I think that if you learn the game well enough that you can reach levels of power or riches that are ahistorical you should just accept that you will eclipse the AI, otherwise less experienced players would be oppressed by OP AI nations. Systematically ahistorically strong nations should be limited to some sort of hard difficulty option.

That's fair. In ideal world it should be super difficult for the player himself to reach vastly ahistorical levels of power. As for less experienced players, correct me if I'm wrong, but I guess those playing paradox games are more often experienced ones, and even if they aren't, they quickly become ones, through fire and blood and oppression by AI

I would be ok with difficulty levels if they simply make AI stronger, but not do dumb handicaps

 

[Aquila SPQR]

Yeah despite early in development, would be great to see some timelapse screenshots just to have overall idea how the world behaves. Historical plausibily of AI behavior is my biggest unknown for now

That's exactly what I was going to ask for in the next Tinto Maps Feedback/Tinto Talks. Let's spam them with it.

 

[P.Quirinius]

As for less experienced players, correct me if I'm wrong, but I guess those playing paradox games are more often experienced ones, and even if they aren't, they quickly become ones, through fire and blood and oppression by AI

I mean, if the game is balanced so that the players that have thousands of hours of experience struggle to create an empire that is significantly larger than the British empire by the end of the game playing as France or England, than it may be too difficult for the less experienced ones. My first paradox game was EU IV and after my first three games as Foix, Toulouse (extended timeline) and Siena when I gave up very quickly because I did not understand some base game mechanics and because it was almost impossible to break free from France without DLCs, I played Florence and was able to create a relatively weak Italy by the end of the game. I would be OK if it is a bit more difficult in PC, but having an average experience in EU IV and Victoria 3, I would like to be able to do something similar in one of my first games as say Milan. After about 100 hours I would like to be struggling to figure out how to defeat the Ottomans as Byzantium or how to break free from France as Foix and unite the area, not to be stuck with figuring out how not to lose the hundred years war as France or how to conquer Granada as Castile. I believe that more experienced players should just accept that they will be able to become ahistorically strong playing as the strong nations and play weak nations if they want a challenge.

 

[Dongerino]

I don't like the arguments about scaring off newcomers. The premise of the game is that people will play it for hundreds of hours and buy lots of DLCs. Therefore it needs to be challenging. The newcomer problem can be solved with a good tutorial and an easy mode that puts limits on stuff like AE and AI alliances. People new to the game should be encouraged to use the easier mode with a warning that the regular game is difficult. That way we don't need to inject artificial difficulty by giving the AI huge modifier buffs.

 

[Signthe]

Any overextending empire knows: the strongest opponent is yourself

 

[Álvaro Núñez de Lara]

I don't like the arguments about scaring off newcomers. The premise of the game is that people will play it for hundreds of hours and buy lots of DLCs. Therefore it needs to be challenging. The newcomer problem can be solved with a good tutorial and an easy mode that puts limits on stuff like AE and AI alliances. People new to the game should be encouraged to use the easier mode with a warning that the regular game is difficult. That way we don't need to inject artificial difficulty by giving the AI huge modifier buffs.

This!! If you want to start playing A GRAND STRATEGY GAME that you're going to spend thousands of hours on paying as Foix that is your porblem, no the devs. If you are new you are supposed to play an easy county. England, Castille, France.

You are going to spend thousands of hours, there will be time to get better and play Ulm or Foix.

Pdx need to stop the failed strategy of appealing to the lowest common denominator because thats how they kill thier games, replayabilty and people just get bored quickly.

Start with an easy country, learn the rope, progress, get better and you will be able to play more difficult countries. Its the beauty of the game, different tags have different difficuties.

You cant dumb down the game so you can play your first campaign ever sucessfully as Iceland, Ulm, or some tiny african tribe.

 

[P.Quirinius]

This!! If you want to start playing A GRAND STRATEGY GAME that you're going to spend thousands of hours on paying as Foix that is your porblem, no the devs. If you are new you are supposed to play an easy county. England, Castille, France.

You are going to spend thousands of hours, there will be time to get better and play Ulm or Foix.

Pdx need to stop the failed strategy of appealing to the lowest common denominator because thats how they kill thier games, replayabilty and people just get bored quickly.

Start with an easy country, learn the rope, progress, get better and you will be able to play more difficult countries. Its the beauty of the game, different tags have different difficuties.

You cant dumb down the game so you can play your first campaign ever sucessfully as Iceland, Ulm, or some tiny african tribe.

Well, I admit the choice of Foix for the first game in EU IV was not ideal, but I knew another GSG so I imagined that EU IV would be way easier than it was (but I believe that the point that as Foix or almost any other subject nation it was way too difficult without DLCs and it is way too easy with DLCs stands, by the way). But I still think that thousands of hours to learn the game well is too much. I think you should be able to have success as a mid country like Milan, Naples, Bohemia, Austria or Venice after one or two or three failed attempts when you make some inevitable mistakes. But after spending let's say 100 or 200 hours with these easier games, I think you should be able to start studying the starting situation of a difficult nation and after studying the necessary mechanics and a few failed attempts, you should be able to figure out how to survive, this is what I am saying.

 

[Álvaro Núñez de Lara]

Well, I admit the choice of Foix for the first game in EU IV was not ideal, but I knew another GSG so I imagined that EU IV would be way easier than it was (but I believe that the point that as Foix or almost any other subject nation it was way too difficult without DLCs and it is way too easy with DLCs stands, by the way). But I still think that thousands of hours to learn the game well is too much. I think you should be able to have success as a mid country like Milan, Naples, Bohemia, Austria or Venice after one or two or three failed attempts when you make some inevitable mistakes. But after spending let's say 100 or 200 hours with these easier games, I think you should be able to start studying the starting situation of a difficult nation and after studying the necessary mechanics and a few failed attempts, you should be able to figure out how to survive, this is what I am saying.

Well thats fair enough. And certainly all of us with thousands of hours will have not too many problems in our first game as Napoli, Bohimia or Milan.

But there is not such a thing as "learn the game". I think learning the basics is easy in most PDX games, especially if you play any country. But you are going to be learning things for thousands of hours playing the game.

Hell i still learn new things about eu4 12 years later and thats fine. In EU5 a new player will need several games, a few hundred hours playing easy games before jumping to more difficult ones. And that is fine and thata what makes these games playable for years. If they are so easy that we can crack the hardest countries in 500 hours, what else is there to do?.