Will EU4 measure my success?

[BandC]

One thing I miss in EU3 is the game doesn't measure my success. I know EU3 is a sandbox game and you're supposed to set your own goals etc. but I also like a game telling me how I did and show me why. There is a world rank in EU3 which is a very mysterious number. The game doesn't tell you why you are ranked that at all. I noticed world rank generally matches prestige rank but I have seen cases where it doesn't exactly match the prestige rank so I am sure that's not the only criterion.

Here's what I want:

1) A ledger page ranking countries according to what the game thinks ranking criteria are and telling me exactly for what reasons I am ranked there (military might, economy, prestige, etc.).
2) A score or some sort of indication on how I did compared to starting conditions of the time and country I control (one province minor among powerful countries to big colonial empire or one province minor to major trading power).

I know MMtG is a sensitive issue around here and Johan indicated there would be no mechanics taken from MMtG but MMtG had a nice country ranking system (at least in the developer diaries) where countries are ranked numerically and also as great powers, etc. using many many criteria. The number of great powers was also a variable which is great so it's not like there can't be more or less than X great powers. There can even be mechanics about this (such as only great powers can do certain things, etc.).

CK2 has the dynasty score, V2 has great and secondary powers plus score so I think a measurement of success should be added to EU4.

Of course, success doesn't necessarily mean the most provinces or the biggest army but it can be measured in many many ways: military, tech, trade, prestige, influence, etc.

What do you think?

 

[Jia Xu]

I wouldn't mind something similar to the Victoria II scoring system. It's easier to stay interested in a game when you have something to compete for. A simple scoring system works well here, I think.

 

[unmerged(463662)]

Military size, empire size, economic wealth, inflation, cultures, it's all in the ledger.

 

[Eh up me duck]

I tend to use national income to measure my success. Trade distorts this of course, but that's a different matter.

 

[Don_Quigleone]

Some kind of score would be nice. Maybe Prestige+Technology+Income?

 

[unmerged(200028)]

This would be a nice feature. Perhaps diplomatic stability could be included?

 

[Nis Baggesen]

A scoring system could be nice, as it could also be a simple way to set goals for yourself, and to compare your game with one OPM with another and so on.

However I would probably be more interested in something like an Achievement system, as it would more explicitly spell out goals for me, and it would invite me to try out new playstyles rather than just honing one specific style to squeeze more points out of it.

 

[unmerged(200028)]

A scoring system could be nice, as it could also be a simple way to set goals for yourself, and to compare your game with one OPM with another and so on.

However I would probably be more interested in something like an Achievement system, as it would more explicitly spell out goals for me, and it would invite me to try out new playstyles rather than just honing one specific style to squeeze more points out of it.

But see I think the point of the scoring system is that it (according to my expectations), doesn't take only one statistic into account. The Golden Horde might be lower in score than a 3 province Hansa with a monopoly in every known CoT, (to use EU3 as an example).

Achievements will most likely be included one way or another, at least as far as I can speculate.

 

[Nis Baggesen]

But see I think the point of the scoring system is that it (according to my expectations), doesn't take only one statistic into account. The Golden Horde might be lower in score than a 3 province Hansa with a monopoly in every known CoT, (to use EU3 as an example).

I would expect that as well - that I would be able to score high based on trade, just as I might score high based on conquest or some other fact. But in a way that was sort of the reason I would prefer an achievement system over a score system. Because with a score system I might 'just' play my Bremen trade empire over and over again to see if I could improve it, and when I might finally try to play the Golden Horde I might be disappointed that my scores didn't match up to the glory of Bremen. Instead an achievement system would reward me for trying these very different playstyles, as there would be one (or more) achievements for doing stuff with trade and others for handling the horde.

Obviously the two systems are not mutually exclusive, I just wanted to express a preference.

 

[unmerged(200028)]

I would expect that as well - that I would be able to score high based on trade, just as I might score high based on conquest or some other fact. But in a way that was sort of the reason I would prefer an achievement system over a score system. Because with a score system I might 'just' play my Bremen trade empire over and over again to see if I could improve it, and when I might finally try to play the Golden Horde I might be disappointed that my scores didn't match up to the glory of Bremen. Instead an achievement system would reward me for trying these very different playstyles, as there would be one (or more) achievements for doing stuff with trade and others for handling the horde.

Obviously the two systems are not mutually exclusive, I just wanted to express a preference.

Hmm, I never really thought about it that way. I guess you're right in that you cannot equalize nations with strengths and weaknesses in different areas. Although, I don't think the point of this would be personal achievement, (though I very well could be wrong), but rather national comparison, or some form of ranking in comparison to the rest of the world.

 

[Fawr]

For me a scoring system has to link into the gameplay. I don't like a scoring system which rewards you for doing things which are bad for your country. Vicky's system where the score made you a secondary/major power and unlocked options was great, and CK2's system of rewarding you for piety and prestige was ok (although often you had enough of them and didn't need any more). EU2's system is what I'd think of as a bad system (because having victory points had almost no impact).