Will there be more monuments?

[bokorthedust]

Who said that? Because it has been stated quite the contrary. The Mount Fuji monument represents the complex of shrines and temples all around the mountain.

The Great Barrier Reef could represent the complex phenomenon of coral bleaching from the Indonesian volcanic activity the beginning of climate change from Industrialization, since both are represented in some form in-game

 

[AirikrStrife]

It would be fine monuments only existed as historical flavour, but that's not how they're implemented in-game. A nation's armies getting a morale bonus because they have a *particular* castle in their borders, or reduced monarch power costs because they happen to own a *particular* monument/temple is an incredible stretch.

I'm sure monuments as-implemented are fun for players that prefer a more powergamey playstyle, but I personally think that it's yet another game design choice that leaves fans of historical simulation/verisimilitude in the dust.

The whole game is a massive abstraction to break it down as people who likes monuments don't like history is ignorant. I'm a big history gamer and I love monuments because they add history to the game.

After all the whole game is a massive abstraction, I don't see monuments being the wrst offender. Idea groups, national ideas, the westphalian state concept model, the way colonies work, the way religion and culture works etc are abstractions. If you don't think monuments are fun or nice from a game balance perspective it's one thing but monuments are not the dividing line between power gamers and history gamers

 

[Word_Smith]

The whole game is a massive abstraction to break it down as people who likes monuments don't like history is ignorant. I'm a big history gamer and I love monuments because they add history to the game.

I never made that assertion.

After all the whole game is a massive abstraction, I don't see monuments being the wrst offender. Idea groups, national ideas, the westphalian state concept model, the way colonies work, the way religion and culture works etc are abstractions. If you don't think monuments are fun or nice from a game balance perspective it's one thing but monuments are not the dividing line between power gamers and history gamers

Monuments aren't a mere abstraction. What are they abstracting? What changes in government or society are abstracted by a province with a particular cathedral changing hands? The reverse is also true: what significant national-level changes could possibly manifest merely because a state gave up a particular castle in Iberia?

If you want to see abstraction done correctly, look to Victoria 2. New mining tech gives you increased iron and coal output. New firearm tech increases infantry combat ability, but increases maintenance (i.e. industrial infrastructure) required to field an army. The mechanics are abstracted, but there's a clear connection between the input and output here.

Heck, even look at EU3. Sliders were an excellent example of abstraction. State becomes more narrowminded? Tech costs increase, but state ideology is easier to enforce. State becomes more centralized? You receive more tax income, but unrest grows.

Every game requires some level of abstraction. But monuments aren't abstraction- there shiny bonuses that have little to no logical connection to the social developments they're supposedly representing.

 

[csward53]

There's too many monuments already and they're too powerful or worthless with little in between. It's nice to have another gold sink, I suppose. They don't have any impact when it counts since you're only going to build these once you have a large income, which means you're already dominating. This is another "glad it's there for those that want it" feature they added. No one asked for it though. They surveys we filled out are pointless, apparently.