What gameplay mechanics to prevent late game boredom/ avoiding just being a map-painting exercise of whole world?

[Zbbts]

And what is the point flipping countries to revolutionary or not? It should at most account for a relationship bonus/remove a relationship malus. If I am strong enough, I am most likely not going to care much about that, unless I roleplay.

If the new or revised systems (control, cultures, etc) will work well in holding you back in the first half of the game (even having vassals will have limits iirc), then by midgame there should be power blocks similar in size to yours (let's be honest, most expansions in EU4 happen in the early game rush, THEN the game gets boring). In situations like this every asset that you can use to indirectly weaken your enemies will come handy, because you will try to conserve your pops (maybe unless you are playing in China). If the game can really hinder serious early game blobbing, I can see a nice balance of power forming in every region by the midgame, where power blocks face each other on a level playing field. Now THAT can make the second half of the game challenging and fun, because you will be forced to use every tool you can to undermine your enemies, unless you want to pay high prices for low returns.

 

[Obeliskkai]

I would think that there would be enough divergences caused by the game running for 413+ years to guarantee any specific end game crisis.

Colonial Nations will exist. Have them become almost unmanagable in the last quarter of the game with events preceeding a Colonial Revolution. To simulate the revolt of the Spanish colonies, have revolutionary fervour in one colony spread to other adjacent colonies.

For THE Revolution, I reckon script it to occur in the most powerful or second most powerful nation (probably European given those nations will end up as powerful even if you start in Asia) and then jack up their bonuses to turn them into an unstoppable military powerhouse. The balance should be that everyone else absolutely hates the Revolution, incentivising them to try and set up revolutionary regimes in other states to gain allies.

In other words, similar approaches to what was done in EU4 but implemented from the get go and a lot more dangerous. THE Revolution has to spawn in a great power for it to be a threat. In my very last EU4 game...it spawned in Savoy. Not good enough for a crisis.

 

[Fawr]

your colonies should definitely destabilise in this time period and it should be difficult to hold onto them.

Apart from the USA, and a horrible mismanaged Spanish colonial empire (impacted by being cut off from the colonies during parts of the Napoleonic wars), the rest of the European countries kept and expanded their colonies into the likely game end dates (and beyond).

Portugal had their African colonies, Macao and Goa, The Dutch had Indonesia, the French in Algeria and a number of islands, the British had India, Australia, Canada, South Africa and were looking at expanding them all, the Danes and Swedes had small African colonies. Even the Spanish kept most of their islands (Philippines & Carribean in particular) and were about to expand in Africa.

Colonial Rebellions are a certainly thing which might happen. But I think historically I think it is clear that it should be easier to expand your colonies or gain new colonies than lose your colonies as the game reaches its climax.

 

[GeneralNoob]

If the new or revised systems (control, cultures, etc) will work well in holding you back in the first half of the game (even having vassals will have limits iirc), then by midgame there should be power blocks similar in size to yours (let's be honest, most expansions in EU4 happen in the early game rush, THEN the game gets boring). In situations like this every asset that you can use to indirectly weaken your enemies will come handy, because you will try to conserve your pops (maybe unless you are playing in China). If the game can really hinder serious early game blobbing, I can see a nice balance of power forming in every region by the midgame, where power blocks face each other on a level playing field. Now THAT can make the second half of the game challenging and fun, because you will be forced to use every tool you can to undermine your enemies, unless you want to pay high prices for low returns.

The problem is: If you can flip large nations to revolutionaries, then you will break the power balance after the first max, 2nd war. If you can only flip small nations, then why bother making them revolutionary, when you can just have a march/vassal?

 

[FleetingRain]

One thing is communication effectiveness. If you ever played Meiou and Taxes, you will be familiar with it. Basically, each location further away from capital get progressively less communication with your capital, lowering incrementally all the yields of that locations.

It means that you can expand, but after a certain distance from capital, your control of the new lands will be zero or whatever low cap it has, meaning you get no tax, no manpower or so little that makes the new lands not worth the effort. Thats one way of stopping endless expansion. (...)

The problem with that is that conquering a faraway land may grant me zero profit, but that will still be better than leaving them to their own devices or worse, to be conquered by another nation that may exploit them more effectively. This means that conquering only stops being profitable if my war machine cannot sustain itself (I probably won't be able to draft pops from the faraway lands so I'll need soldiers from my core lands, and soldiers die a lot).

Unless, of course, those faraway lands can influence the rest of my empire. I may not conquer Japan as Germany if that would mean an empire-wide separatist revolt...

 

[Aquila SPQR]

The problem with that is that conquering a faraway land may grant me zero profit, but that will still be better than leaving them to their own devices or worse, to be conquered by another nation that may exploit them more effectively. This means that conquering only stops being profitable if my war machine cannot sustain itself (I probably won't be able to draft pops from the faraway lands so I'll need soldiers from my core lands, and soldiers die a lot).

Unless, of course, those faraway lands can influence the rest of my empire. I may not conquer Japan as Germany if that would mean an empire-wide separatist revolt...

Unless your control will be so low there you'll almost certainly have large revolts there, risking that your neighbours and rivals will support them and join the war against you, draining your manpower and resources. Will that really be worth it?

 

[Zbbts]

The problem is: If you can flip large nations to revolutionaries, then you will break the power balance after the first max, 2nd war. If you can only flip small nations, then why bother making them revolutionary, when you can just have a march/vassal?

We don't really know anything about in-game revolutions so far, so we can only speculate about it. But imagine if a revolution triumphs in a country, maybe it could mean the isolation of that country (if all the neighbouring countries are for example absolutist monarchies, suddenly becoming a republic with revolutionary ideas probably won't make you the coolest kid in the block). If you are a revolutionist country yourself, helping other revolutions win (even just with monetary contributions, like supporting rebels), could mean that you have a possible future ally in the making, creating a new power block yourself. If you are an absolutist monarchy, supporting revolutions abroad could mean weakening your rival, but maybe you fan the flames so much that it will spread on you as well. Power blocks are cool, but they can change, reshape, break down as time progresses, and a wave of revolution could mean a threat and an opportunity for you or anyone else at the same time. Maybe the revolution you are helping abroad fails even with your help because that country was stable enough to weather it. Maybe you are successful in weakening your rival. Maybe the revolution wins but somehow your rival comes out of it stronger than before. Maybe it will spread on you. If we will have opportunities like this, and the chaotic nature of revolutions will be like a last trial by fire that tests you and what you created before the game ends, I would be content with it. Also it should be possible to break the balance of power, I am not against it, but it should be a long process (like the real life decline of the Ottoman Empire for example), it should require skill from the player, all in all, longer and more difficult then in EU4 for example (not something that is a done deal in 1 or 2 wars).

 

[titan.bevel]

Unless your control will be so low there you'll almost certainly have large revolts there, risking that your neighbours and rivals will support them and join the war against you, draining your manpower and resources. Will that really be worth it?

That + with attrition and war costing pops, I assume a war having NO cost whatsoever for your country will be the exception more than the norm, ESPECIALLY if it is fought very far from your base province.

 

[Metz]

How often did you use the feature of supporting rebellions in EU4?

It's more useful in CK3 than in EU4 because of the way the games are set up or designed, plus the granularity of the map (meaning more smaller countries), and how army size is dependent on holding control. By supporting rebellions in CK3, and in this game that has populations tied to army size, you will be able undercut an enemy's recruiting/supplying capacity.

 

[Rule Britannia]

While I like the idea of keeping the game challenging throughout, I do not like the idea that any great empire will have to face a disaster or other mechanic designed to weaken it or split it up no matter what. It should be possible to avoid this fate if you take care to manage your empire properly. Therefore I would suggest that any such mechanic be linked to other factors. E.g. if you have very low control in certain parts of your empire this should increase the risk of separatist revolts, but there should be effective methods of combatting this with e.g. infrastructure such as roads or ports.

 

[Normannus]

My hope is that they make wars for goals other than conquest worthwhile. Many wars in this period weren’t explicitly for conquering land, but were instead on increasing influence, installing friendly rulers, or simply decreasing the strength of rivals. In EU4 there is rarely a reason to do any of these wars, because conquest is almost always the better option. But hopefully with the mechanics for control, internal strife, etc. it will give us a reason, for example, for the English and French to fight over who will hold the crown of Castille in the 14th century, even without any of the rulers being PUs. I would suggest a mechanic making it so that you can intervene in a succession conflict, and if you win the new ruler is automatically your ally with high relations, making it a quick way to turn a neighbor from hostile/neutral to a friend

 

[GeneralNoob]

We don't really know anything about in-game revolutions so far, so we can only speculate about it. But imagine if a revolution triumphs in a country, maybe it could mean the isolation of that country (if all the neighbouring countries are for example absolutist monarchies, suddenly becoming a republic with revolutionary ideas probably won't make you the coolest kid in the block). If you are a revolutionist country yourself, helping other revolutions win (even just with monetary contributions, like supporting rebels), could mean that you have a possible future ally in the making, creating a new power block yourself. If you are an absolutist monarchy, supporting revolutions abroad could mean weakening your rival, but maybe you fan the flames so much that it will spread on you as well.

Hence the anti-revolutionary power block will break apart in 1-2 wars.

Power blocks are cool, but they can change, reshape, break down as time progresses, and a wave of revolution could mean a threat and an opportunity for you or anyone else at the same time. Maybe the revolution you are helping abroad fails even with your help because that country was stable enough to weather it. Maybe you are successful in weakening your rival. Maybe the revolution wins but somehow your rival comes out of it stronger than before. Maybe it will spread on you. If we will have opportunities like this, and the chaotic nature of revolutions will be like a last trial by fire that tests you and what you created before the game ends, I would be content with it. Also it should be possible to break the balance of power,

If it is RNG for the revolution to take hold (and nations flipping republic so easily is btw a-historical through and through), then it is an even worse idea. So I have to go through a massive war to maybe get a country to like me. Why bother going revolutionary in the first place then?

I am not against it, but it should be a long process (like the real life decline of the Ottoman Empire for example), it should require skill from the player, all in all, longer and more difficult then in EU4 for example (not something that is a done deal in 1 or 2 wars).

Except it wasnt. The Ottomans lost and regarined territory all the time like every other nation. They didnt stop modernizing, nor was their modernization period far off other countries in the region. Not even the amount of rebellions were atypical for a multi-ethnical nation like the Ottomans. It is just that the 1870th in particular were very harsh on the Ottomans (first stock market crash, bankrupting the Ottomans, followed by a famine on the Balkans 1-2 years later, followed by a war-declaration by Russia 1-2 years later). That doesnt mean their decline was a long process. Post 1870th is just a ganking of European superpowers on the Ottomans, which would have turned out similar with any other Empire (take the Polish as an example).

 

[GeneralNoob]

It's more useful in CK3 than in EU4 because of the way the games are set up or designed, plus the granularity of the map (meaning more smaller countries), and how army size is dependent on holding control. By supporting rebellions in CK3, and in this game that has populations tied to army size, you will be able undercut an enemy's recruiting/supplying capacity.

You will only be able to cause rebellions in non integrated pops, which the enemy AI is not getting its manpower from anyways. Whether unhappy albanians rebell or not is not going to harm the Ottoman manpower in any meaningful way (as an example). Causing a rebellion also means you cant get that territory for yourself. So ideally they have unaccepted/non-integrated pops on the opposite side of the border you want. Good luck with that. I would be surprised if rebellions are more than a gimmik in EU5 (as in igniting it on purpose).

 

[Zbbts]

Hence the anti-revolutionary power block will break apart in 1-2 wars.

Maybe it will, maybe it won't. I think this scenario can be situational enough that it doesn't have to happen one certain way every time you play a game. Also if you can help other revolutions as a revolutionary country, I imagine others can intervene on the absolutist side as well. If everyone is dealing with revolutions at the same time (meaning everyone is busy), the first 1 or 2 countries that can resolve their situations could be the dealbreaker for the others (if they have the strength and will to intervene for others in the aftermath).

If it is RNG for the revolution to take hold (and nations flipping republic so easily is btw a-historical through and through), then it is an even worse idea. So I have to go through a massive war to maybe get a country to like me. Why bother going revolutionary in the first place then?

Since so far we don't know anything about how revolutions will work and what is the benefit of going revolutionary, then this conversation is about something that is right now hypothetical, but my guesses to your question are:
-It could give you situational benefits if it fits your playstyle (like new laws, new diplomatic options, new espionage options, different parliament, etc.)
-Roleplay
-If you fail to stop the revolution in your country but doesn't want to start a new game, it could be a challenge (also fun) to adapt to the new situation and try to make the most of it
-Doesn't necessarily have to be a massive war to support a revolution, it could be only monetary contribution, I mentioned it because of the discussion in the second page about supporting rebellions....but yeah, why not? If you are the first one to flip revolutionary, you are probably desperate for allies, IF being revolutionary has isolated you diplomatically in an absolutist environment (speculation, but that is how I would imagine it). Also you could support a rival's revolution to weaken them, and even if the revolution fails (maybe you don't want it to succeed in the first place), it can make a difference, because a bigger chunk of their country will rise up because of you.
-I don't think it will completely be up to RNG. If an AI (or your) country is mismanaged somehow and unrest is big enough, the revolution could be too big to stop (like the French Revolution), but in countries that are stable enough or manage to handle the revolution well, maybe the revolution will fail (or stop after some concessions).
I imagine the age of revolutions as a tug of war, not a switch flipping competition (maybe I didn't phrase myself well if it came out that way), and it could bring some spice to the endgame. I imagine it could put the empires (smaller nations too ofc) existing by the endgame to the test and if you managed your country well it could be a situation that you can manage well too.

Except it wasnt. The Ottomans lost and regarined territory all the time like every other nation. They didnt stop modernizing, nor was their modernization period far off other countries in the region. Not even the amount of rebellions were atypical for a multi-ethnical nation like the Ottomans. It is just that the 1870th in particular were very harsh on the Ottomans (first stock market crash, bankrupting the Ottomans, followed by a famine on the Balkans 1-2 years later, followed by a war-declaration by Russia 1-2 years later). That doesnt mean their decline was a long process. Post 1870th is just a ganking of European superpowers on the Ottomans, which would have turned out similar with any other Empire (take the Polish as an example).

My knowledge can lacking in the subject (very well could be, I never did a deep dive in the subject) but I always learned that after the second siege of Vienna they had a slow but steady stagnation/decline/lagging behind the rest of the continent (maybe with pauses and countermeasures here and there) until the dissolution of the empire. Of course it was still a huge empire (although that made it hard to hold together) which had might in it's own right. But if I was wrong here, maybe the Khmer or Mughal empires are better examples for decline periods.

 

[GeneralNoob]

Maybe it will, maybe it won't. I think this scenario can be situational enough that it doesn't have to happen one certain way every time you play a game. Also if you can help other revolutions as a revolutionary country, I imagine others can intervene on the absolutist side as well. If everyone is dealing with revolutions at the same time (meaning everyone is busy), the first 1 or 2 countries that can resolve their situations could be the dealbreaker for the others (if they have the strength and will to intervene for others in the aftermath).

If it works like EU4 or similar, there wont be "other revolutions".

Since so far we don't know anything about how revolutions will work and what is the benefit of going revolutionary, then this conversation is about something that is right now hypothetical, but my guesses to your question are:
-It could give you situational benefits if it fits your playstyle (like new laws, new diplomatic options, new espionage options, different parliament, etc.)
-Roleplay
-If you fail to stop the revolution in your country but doesn't want to start a new game, it could be a challenge (also fun) to adapt to the new situation and try to make the most of it
-Doesn't necessarily have to be a massive war to support a revolution, it could be only monetary contribution, I mentioned it because of the discussion in the second page about supporting rebellions....but yeah, why not? If you are the first one to flip revolutionary, you are probably desperate for allies, IF being revolutionary has isolated you diplomatically in an absolutist environment (speculation, but that is how I would imagine it). Also you could support a rival's revolution to weaken them, and even if the revolution fails (maybe you don't want it to succeed in the first place), it can make a difference, because a bigger chunk of their country will rise up because of you.
-I don't think it will completely be up to RNG. If an AI (or your) country is mismanaged somehow and unrest is big enough, the revolution could be too big to stop (like the French Revolution), but in countries that are stable enough or manage to handle the revolution well, maybe the revolution will fail (or stop after some concessions).
I imagine the age of revolutions as a tug of war, not a switch flipping competition (maybe I didn't phrase myself well if it came out that way), and it could bring some spice to the endgame. I imagine it could put the empires (smaller nations too ofc) existing by the endgame to the test and if you managed your country well it could be a situation that you can manage well too.

Do you want to be historically accurate or make up how the revolution happened? If we follow history, the revolutionary state should have pretty much everyone against them. Revolutions should also be hard to punch through as it historically usually failed. It required the combined effort of multiple great powers to get it through. A simple "monetary contribution" should most definetly not result in the (succesful) spread of the revolution.

My knowledge can lacking in the subject (very well could be, I never did a deep dive in the subject) but I always learned that after the second siege of Vienna they had a slow but steady stagnation/decline/lagging behind the rest of the continent (maybe with pauses and countermeasures here and there) until the dissolution of the empire.

That is pretty much bs. It is akin to saying that Rome was in a steady decline since 9 AD.

 

[Zbbts]

If it works like EU4 or similar, there wont be "other revolutions".

Then let's hope it doesn't work the same way. Since the developers themselves probably know that EU4 endgame wasn't something people played in the same quantities as the first half of the game, my guess is that they will make it more attractive if they want to address the issue. Fingers crossed until we know more.

Do you want to be historically accurate or make up how the revolution happened? If we follow history, the revolutionary state should have pretty much everyone against them. Revolutions should also be hard to punch through as it historically usually failed. It required the combined effort of multiple great powers to get it through. A simple "monetary contribution" should most definetly not result in the (succesful) spread of the revolution.

I do not wish to make up anything. You say a revolutionary state should have everyone against them, I said diplomatic isolation, which is not so different (guess it's up to the level of hostility, active or passive, and diplomatic isolation can eventually lead to open conflict I guess). Also if revolutions will work in a similar way (gameplay-wise) as rebellions, then money can be a helping factor to the rebelling side, since it can mean more weapons, etc. But let's call it material contribution, and maybe you can send manpower too, if you don't want to be an active participant of the conflict (which would be an option, I didn't want to set the norm for anything, only discussing about things that could be possible gameplay-wise but what is also beliveable). Maybe if one revolution fails, some pops could flee to other countries to keep fighting for other countries' revolutions (as it happened in the 1848 revolutions in several cases). And I never said that sending money to a revolutionary movement would automatically mean an easy win. I was talking about different motives, circumstances, options and outcomes. Even if revolutions mostly failed in real life, wouldn't payrolling someone else's uprising weaken that countries leadership more, if it makes the revolutionaries more effective? It doesn't have to succeed to suit you if it happens with your rival for example.

That is pretty much bs. It is akin to saying that Rome was in a steady decline since 9 AD.

I can accept this. Like I said, I'm not an expert of the subject. There is something to learn every day.

 

[Sutixela]

For me personally what kills a campaign is when you reach a point where no other country or event can make you sweat. There are not other great powers to oppose you, no cataclysm to test your nation, you just become the most powerful entity of the world, it's like a cat in a world of ants, and that is extremely immersion breaking.


Another thing that kills a campaign for me is the total absurdity of the geopolitical situation and the ugly borders. My OCD can't stand seeing countries blobbing without any sense and coherence.

 

[Zbbts]

Another thing that kills a campaign for me is the total absurdity of the geopolitical situation and the ugly borders. My OCD can't stand seeing countries blobbing without any sense and coherence.

 

[GeneralNoob]

Even if revolutions mostly failed in real life, wouldn't payrolling someone else's uprising weaken that countries leadership more, if it makes the revolutionaries more effective? It doesn't have to succeed to suit you if it happens with your rival for example.

They werent effective. That is the thing. They were disruptive for the region, yes, but unless the region got foreign (military) experts and massive financial support, it didnt really account to anything. Greece as an example simply would have not existed in the 19th century, if it wasnt for 3 european superpowers interfiering on behalf of the Greeks.

The legacy of (Napleon's) revolution is much less the change of leadership to republics (something that basically happened post WW1, arguably even post WW2), but the constitutional changes. I dont think EU5 will have an entire proper constitution system, so the entire revolution thing is going to be very abstract. Spreading it with some money/manpower is not really a proper depiction of its effects. The Ottomans as an example initially copied the french constitution in their process of modernization. How would you force this/naturally make it happen? This is Vic territory. Not really EU4/Eu5 territory.

 

[Johan]

I am looking around the various dev diaries, and having various issue with a lot of PDX games when it comes to late stage gameplay, there is often not a lot you can do other than just keep expanding your empire until you painted the entire map in your colours.

So far we've not seen anyone that have expanded that big in internal testing, and some struggling with even getting historical Russia.

Then again, our QA only had on average about 5k hours in eu4 before being hired..