-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
This is not true. POPs in Victoria 3 are very complex because of market simulation.
EU5 can have POPs simplified because it doesn't to simulate such a complex market simulation.
- 4
- 3
- 1
isn't the lag caused by the stratification of pops? in your pop system im assuming there will be different classes, religions and cultures a pop can belong to; so the issue remains...
- Dec 14, 1999
- 21.788
- 241.754
Why would pops cause lag?
I've made the design and the software architecture for 4 different pop systems, in Vicky1, EU: Rome, Vicky 2 & Imperator.
There are a few rulers you would need to follow to avoid performance issues.
I've made the design and the software architecture for 4 different pop systems, in Vicky1, EU: Rome, Vicky 2 & Imperator.
There are a few rulers you would need to follow to avoid performance issues.
- Limit the amount of splitting of actual pops to as a few factors as possible. Type, Culture and Religion is probably the maximum. If I had redesigned Victoria 2 with my knowledge now, I would probably have removed religion as an indentifier and treated it like the Ideology data.
- Process some data on the amalgation of the pops instead of on individual pops.
ngl, i never played any of those 4 games, but if performance isn't affected then im indifferent on whether pops exist or not.
I'd hope so.
Even the most corrupt of cardinals might cavil at burning a ten year old child for heresy
Nothing that a
This is where a disease system would be really helpful as certain pops would get immunity to some diseases, while others (the Indigenous Americans) would get none.
For me I think 1444 works reasonably well right now, if it had to be moved I'd it 1450, after the end of the Council of Florence (the last ditch effort by the Byzantines to get support for another Western Crusade and to mend the schism). As it stands now, there is no mention of the Council of Florence in the game, despite the enourmous political, religious, and cultural ramifications that it had on the Balkans, the Byzantines, and Eastern Orthodoxy.
- 2
- 1
- 1
- 1
Did actually religion have any use/effect in Victoria 2?
I don't remember religion having any impact on any of my Vic2 games.
Religion does have some impact. If a pop is in a country that has a different religion than their own (you can't see this in game but every country has a religion tied to it) those pops will get a boost to their militancy, and maybe their consciousness. That only applies however if that country has moralism as their religious policy, if a "wrong" religion pop is in a country that has secularism or atheism then their religion will have no impact whatsoever. Other than that I don't know of any other effect religion has.
I think Byzantium is the reason it is 1444 in EU4 to begin with. People have a fondness for the Byzantines and many people like the idea of trying to save them from the almost inevitable. Placing the start date at 1444 allows that.
Were it not for the affection for Byzantium, and given the time period EU4 deals with, I think the devs would have gone with the 1st January 1454 as the start date, the start of the year following the fall of Constantinople which some historians treat as the end of the medieval period and the beginning of the period EU4 focuses on.
The Medieval period is covered by CK after all, and the further back you go from 1444 the more you tread into CK's timeline. 1444 is a toe back into the past, not far enough that it compromises EU4's historical setting or goes too much into CK's, but it allows you that last chance to save Byzantium. That's why I think 1444 is likely to be the start date for EU5, just as it ticked all the boxes for EU4, it still does for a hypothetical EU5. And they've all that research they've done of the world in 1444 now, meaning they won't have to start again.
- 2
- 1
I choose 1419. The Hussite Wars is a historical event that cannot be ignored. This event means the decline of the medieval knight class and the church. The declining Byzantine Empire also ushered in a new emperor.
At the same time, in East Asia, the Ming Dynasty and Korea were under the rule of the best monarchs. The Japanese pirates are constantly plundering the coastlines of China and Korea based on the Tsushima.
Another possible option is 1436-1836. In 1436, the golden age of the Ming Empire ended, and an emperor with only (1, 1, 1) ascended the throne. The successor of the Japanese shogunate was born in this year. This future shogunate general will lead Japan into serious chaos.
In Europe, France made progress in the Hundred Year's War, while Bohemia ushered in a new king. But, Sigismund and the Luxemburg dynasty are coming to an end. The Ottoman Empire will invade Hungary on a large scale in the next few years.
At the same time, in East Asia, the Ming Dynasty and Korea were under the rule of the best monarchs. The Japanese pirates are constantly plundering the coastlines of China and Korea based on the Tsushima.
Another possible option is 1436-1836. In 1436, the golden age of the Ming Empire ended, and an emperor with only (1, 1, 1) ascended the throne. The successor of the Japanese shogunate was born in this year. This future shogunate general will lead Japan into serious chaos.
In Europe, France made progress in the Hundred Year's War, while Bohemia ushered in a new king. But, Sigismund and the Luxemburg dynasty are coming to an end. The Ottoman Empire will invade Hungary on a large scale in the next few years.
- 4
- 1
I find that it's not the snowball effect that is unhistorical.
It's the fact that you're not Sisyphus.
History has numerous amounts of examples of small starts blobbing out massively in short periods of time, like Mongols, Timurids, Seljuks, Alexander, etc.
History also shows that very, very few survive at their greatest extent past a century.
Most of them collapse from internal forces that rend them apart, whether it be exhausting the treasury, splitting the inheritance, claimant wars, and such. Or get get weakened by said forces until some new conquerer can snowball and meet the same fate.
The larger the nation gets, the stronger these internal fracturing mechanics get and the more time a nation spends dealing with it than expanding outwards further (or risk fracturing.)
In a lot of Paradox games however this Sisyphean struggle is never fully implemented. It's ignored so much that it becomes easier to manage a realm the larger you get.
The need for player progression in a moderately sandbox game is the main sin here in these strategy games, present in here, Civ, Total War, and many other series. Devs design games under the assumption players never want to experience loss, and so it's all ever bigger external threats (Ming, Ottomans, Spain, Russia, etc) until there's not enough on the map to engage the player and we abandon the campaign centuries before the end date.
There's no real internal threats that keeps blobs (including the player's) churning up, down, or into and out of existence.
- 7
- 2
I advise July 17, 1402, i.e. the day Zhu Di began his reign.
Any earlier and we're right back at 1399 when Ming's first priority is whether you back the incompetent idiot Jianwen or the rebel princes. The problem is that Zhu Di's victory was so impossible under game mechanics that even novelists dare not write anything so stupidly plotted.
A couple years later, and Timur will have died of old age, which would be booed by the community.
This also happens to be during a peace in the hundred years' war so people have flexibility in what to do.
Or you could have 13 August, 1424 i.e. the day after Zhu Di died, with a looming disaster known as Zhu Qizhen (who should really be a 0/0/0 while Qiyu was something like 3/1/4) whose parents had already married. This would, however, put the hundred years' war as being actively fought at this time.
Any earlier and we're right back at 1399 when Ming's first priority is whether you back the incompetent idiot Jianwen or the rebel princes. The problem is that Zhu Di's victory was so impossible under game mechanics that even novelists dare not write anything so stupidly plotted.
A couple years later, and Timur will have died of old age, which would be booed by the community.
This also happens to be during a peace in the hundred years' war so people have flexibility in what to do.
Or you could have 13 August, 1424 i.e. the day after Zhu Di died, with a looming disaster known as Zhu Qizhen (who should really be a 0/0/0 while Qiyu was something like 3/1/4) whose parents had already married. This would, however, put the hundred years' war as being actively fought at this time.
Last edited:
- 2
Well explained.
When I was talking about the snowball effect I was including inside that the lack of what you call "Sisyphus effect".
The question is: how can the "Sisyphus effect" be implemented in EU5 (and other PDX games)?
The question is not "how can it be implemented?"
It's the much, much harder "how can it be implemented in a way that doesn't make the player feel like they are being punished?"
I started a thread on this exact problem yesterday: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...lling-can-be-curtailed.1566055/#post-28737567
Basically, Empires collapse because of or elites abusing the Malthusian pressure cooker too much, or elites getting upset at being kept on a tight leash. The detailed mechanics are discussed in that thread I made.
It can't. If you want to do something no one pulled off in real life for an IMPOSSIBLE rated achievement, be ready to have a hard time.
I used to primarily play on Crusader Kings, so I had it based on more demanding factions. Having vassals that grew more like you do (and hence more unruly) would have been an excellent way to naturally limit the constant expansionism seen in most strategy games. Say for example king level vassals should step up their chances of rebelling, naturally as they're kings. Blobbing Empires *eventually* need to start making them to keep under the vassal limit. I have more detailed proposals in the CK forum.
In contrast I am fairly new to EU4 and don't fully grasp the game mechanics yet. Merely that I can identify the same design philosophy baked into these types of strategy games. The developers want to design games for player progression and are loath to implement mechanics strong enough to legitimately undermine that, even in a sandbox game. As such only way to keep up with the constant expansion of the player is to have the AI expand and provide an external challenge to the player, but the problem there is twofold. One, typically requires giving the AI unfair advantages, like VH (Paradox), Legendary (Total War,) or Diety (Civ) difficulty, and two, more importantly, eventually there's not enough resources on the map to keep up with the player. Beat the 70% of the world with 30% of yours and the next war is 69% vs 31%, changing from a challenge to a grind. Offering external threats always ends up running into this wall, and a frequent abandonment of the campaign.
I am currently not good enough to expand so fast as to feel bored with the campaign and abandon it before the end date. But I was with CK, and am certain that's the case here eventually. I am certain some of you are already at that level, given the suggestions already.
In contrast I am fairly new to EU4 and don't fully grasp the game mechanics yet. Merely that I can identify the same design philosophy baked into these types of strategy games. The developers want to design games for player progression and are loath to implement mechanics strong enough to legitimately undermine that, even in a sandbox game. As such only way to keep up with the constant expansion of the player is to have the AI expand and provide an external challenge to the player, but the problem there is twofold. One, typically requires giving the AI unfair advantages, like VH (Paradox), Legendary (Total War,) or Diety (Civ) difficulty, and two, more importantly, eventually there's not enough resources on the map to keep up with the player. Beat the 70% of the world with 30% of yours and the next war is 69% vs 31%, changing from a challenge to a grind. Offering external threats always ends up running into this wall, and a frequent abandonment of the campaign.
I am currently not good enough to expand so fast as to feel bored with the campaign and abandon it before the end date. But I was with CK, and am certain that's the case here eventually. I am certain some of you are already at that level, given the suggestions already.
Last edited:
- 1
- 1
True, but its also the Age of Sail and the Age of Discovery. I'm hoping that navies in EU5 would have a greater influence on trade, warfare, colonization and exploration then their current iteration in EU4.
For the most part, navies, naval doctrines, and Naval/Maritime ideas can be ignored in EU4. I hope to see that change, so your navy can be just as important as your army, especially for overseas colonizers.
- 4
Dunno why, but 1421 sticks out in my mind. Earlier in the century in my opinion preferably.
Pops, Don't associate it with EU, but if done right. Well I'd be intrigued.
Pops, Don't associate it with EU, but if done right. Well I'd be intrigued.
- 2
Also the Discovery of the best place ever! Madeira Island!
I would prefer January 1415, just a little bit before the conquest of Ceuta. Kicking off the official Age of Discovery.
- 2