Europa Universalis - Development Diary 4th of February 2020 | Page 9

dm99 · Feb 4, 2020

The idea looks nice, but at first, second and even third glance it suffers from a lack of balance. Maybe I'm very wrong, but ...

For fun, I looked at my game. For 1680, the total world income is 4 000, the total world force limit is 4 100, but the total world naval force limit is only 3,000. Perhaps in 100 years these numbers will increase by 25%. Those, the whole world can earn 5 000 coins and build a 5 000 army and only 3 800 fleet. Perhaps in the MP these figures are slightly larger, but certainly not at times.

An army consisting only of infantry looks somehow strange, i.e. 500 infantry requires another 500 artillery. Those. you must have a force limit of 1000.

The fleet consisting of only Heavy, looks not just strange. Even half of the fleet inspires me with fear, but let's say. Those, you must have a force limit of 2000. And you must also have an army of 1000.

In fact, only 5 can dispute hegemony in the economy or the military. But only one can be the hegemonic in the navy. Of course, in my opinion the number of possible candidates for the hegemonic throne should be 10, but 5 is not as bad as 1. Without asking the question why you need so much heavy, if there is actually no one to fight, it simply seems to me that based on the figures given, the necessary number of heavy should be reduced to 400.

And this is not even touching the economic component. It makes no sense to introduce some kind of innovation, if initially no one will use it.

Vohen · Feb 4, 2020

Kaosorer said:
I like the idea of promoting an arms race to see who gets the title of Hegemon, but I'm not sure how it would fit with the current loss of hegemony status, unless it just puts them out of the running; e.g, if 2nd place wins against the 1st place, the 1st place is out of the running until the modifier expires.

Yeah, a timer would be useful.

MaNUZID · Feb 4, 2020

Its a pitty that any of this hegemonies impacts aggresive expansion, reduces coring costs or gives you more claims automatically, since the only thing I play for the endgame or play the endgame at all is if I want to expand like crazy.

lolada · Feb 4, 2020

I like the idea of the feature - especially of decreasing tedium and helping up the player to finish the game. I'll start with the good stuff.

- Base bonuses look good - war exhaustion reduction and power gain to finish of the game. Spy defense in mp thing i suppose. More admin efficiency would be awesome.
- It should be hard to get Hegemons which is as is should be. This is not well balanced currently in my opinion.
- They can't ally each other. Great. I'd go step further - they have to rival each other - would increase challenge a bit in SP.. not sure if that would screw your MP games somehow.

Economical Hegemony
A Great Power with a monthly income of 1000£ can proclaim this Hegemony.

This is legit to get. Bonuses seem to promote merc play to finish the game and even more money. Not sure how mercenaries work exactly.. but i presume this rich you could spam mercs everywhere and do whatever you want to do. Do we lose hegemon if we go over >1000 shortly click it and drop to lower income?

Naval Hegemon
A Great Power with 1000 Heavy Ships can proclaim this Hegemony

Now this looks stupid. I hope you meant 100? Why would anyone build 1000 heavy ships - its huge money drain, they don't even fight all we have combat width.. it takes ages to build them actually . There's achievement to build 500 heavies i think and its a pain to build them.. and you have no use for them anyway. Even in MP games this is stupid.
Bonuses are also all naval based.. - basically you'll win width your bonuses and 1000 ships and blockade easily. With 1000 ships you don't even need this bonuses.

I think nobody will ever pick this. Maybe someone once in a MP if others hegemons are already taken. Even if it would be 100 heavy ships i'd not build them for this bonus until late and it would be annoying to build them anyway. I'd like to see something changed here.. 1000 any ships.. maybe even 500? There's no reason not to add second requirement.. 500 ships with minimum 100 heavies looks way more reasonable.

How about some juicy bonus here - like free coastal barrages and permanent +1 to coastal sieges. Thats some tedium reduced. And maybe add more of those marine guys. This could be done instead of sailor scaling bonus - let the player build docks if he wants sailor - building is mostly useless anyway.

Btw do you lose hegemon status if you delete ships once you click it? -_-.

Military Hegemon
A Great Power with 500 Infantry Regiments can proclaim this Hegemony

Click to expand...

This can also be gamed.. i build 500 inf with my 500 FL.. then delete 100 and build artillery instead? Or i can build even over force limit i suppose.
I like the bonuses they are great to help finish the game off. They might be actually too strong for MP, you want to give other people fighting chance to win vs this hegemon.

I'd also suggest to auto-lose hegemon status if you don't fulfill requirements for 24 months. Safety thing.

Jochirin · Feb 4, 2020

I think the hegemonies should have bonuses that enables them to take on one another and the world otherwise the military one is just the only one that is going to be relevant. I liked the concept of unique bonuses that was brought up earlier my suggestions for each hegemony.

Economic hegemony:I suggest allowing them to invest money into decreasing the income of other countries, pay money to increase corruption and/or pay money to increase inflation. maybe combine this with having more spies and require spy network for these actions? Also how about increasing their ability to fund revolts in other countries? I imagine them going to war with the military hegemony and just sinking crazy amounts of money into making rebels appear in that country and just wrecking their economy so they cant afford their armies to even out the odds.

Naval hegemony: some one suggested earlier to increase diplomatic relations slots and i think that is a good start, on top of that how about making your vassals a loyalty bonus and also a boost to the tax/goods/trade efficiency and force limit of those vassals making them stronger?

Military hegemony: i think some military bonuses makes sense, but for unique abilities how about expanding their abilities of military diplomatic actions. For example make them able to intervene in any war, and maybe give them the ability to declare guarantees without using dipplo slots?

Becoming a hegemony should come with negative effects and i would suggest that here is no stability impact for declaring war on one, so every one that is not a hegemony can truce brake and attack them (make sure the ai gets this and also make sure you can join coalitions against a hegemony even if there is a truce). And feel free to add more negative effects on top of this one.

Denkt · Feb 4, 2020

Denkt said:
In the end it is just a rich get richer mechanic which is perhaps not a good thing. Like now the military superpower can press a button and get even more superpowerful. Infantry is the cheapest regiment so it don't make too much sense to base the military hegemony just upon them, the navy atleast need the most expensive ship.

Somebody care to explain why they dislike this? I don't want to read through all 9 pages.

Zak Preston · Feb 4, 2020

The game becomes super easy at the point when you fulfill any of these criteria, and you decide to make it even easier? Why?

Kit_EA · Feb 4, 2020

Why do you still follow patterns of launch state IR and Spanish dlc?
I don't think that many people like pushing buttons for insta benefits and being extremely overpowered...

Isn't the fun coming from overcoming challenges?

Badesumofu · Feb 4, 2020

Denkt said:
Somebody care to explain why they dislike this? I don't want to read through all 9 pages.

i didn’t dislike your post but I disagree that rich get richer mechanics are a bad thing in cases where the rich is already dominant.

Anti snowball mechanics are good to the extent that they delay the point where you are invincible. They are bad beyond that point. Pro-snowball mechanics are desirable at that point to speed up the end game. They are even more desirable if they come with a side of everyone dogpiles you to keep things interesting.

Denkt · Feb 4, 2020

Badesumofu said:
i didn’t dislike your post but I disagree that rich get richer mechanics are a bad thing in cases where the rich is already dominant.

I ment to the people who agree with the post I posted, they probably somehow dislike the content in the DD. Like alot of people don't seems to want the content in this DD.

Badesumofu said:
Anti snowball mechanics are good to the extent that they delay the point where you are invincible. They are bad beyond that point. Pro-snowball mechanics are desirable at that point to speed up the end game. They are even more desirable if they come with a side of everyone dogpiles you to keep things interesting.

Yes it is true that it reduce the grind which is why I wonder why people dislike the content in the DD.

arosenberger14 · Feb 4, 2020

I like the idea of making lategame more dynamic, but this is not the right way to go about it. A more dynamic lategame would be helped by mechanics that make it easier for blobs to break up (via internal or external pressure) and form while adding new subject mechanics. CN's should develop rapidly in the last century and start getting uppity (a 'la USA), the peasants should start revolting once the enlightenment rolls around, and massive wars break and form empires like how the British formed theirs in a few decades while France became ascendant and then rapidly went downhill after Russia.

Grab God · Feb 4, 2020

As it stands now being a hegemony is only possible for a player or Russia/Oto/Ming ect at late late game. I think that Hegemony shouldn´t be just for 1700 + but also for amazing empires that are dominant at their age and with their influence they post thread to others.
What it means to have Hegemony:

Administrative : You have a big empire that you are running well And you are supper developed and prosperous.
Diplomatic: You maintain great relations with everyone, you are extremly prestigous have a great reputation , influatel, and in case of conflict in area of your interest you succesfully intervine
Military: You have an unbeatable and great army. You are the conqeuror of worlds and every nation trembles in fear.

How could you get it:

Admin: being an empire/, having 70 % (chose number) of Goverment thingy as full cores, and 50 % of it being 100% prosperous and less then 30% autonomy. No loans and year with a monthly surplus of XXX (X is 10 ducets + 0.5 for every year )

Diplo: empire (or even kingdom?) have 80 + prestige. Have succesfully enforced peace and intervine in great power war in last XXX years. Have YYY dip rep and 10,15 non-allie non-vassal non-tributary states at 150 + relations and steering trade to you.

Military: Have 85% of your forcelimit as units, Top 8/5/3 in force limit. Won 3 wars in last 10 years (and lost none). 80 + army tradition, Top 8/5/3 in max morale, Top 8/5/3 in discipline. And sum of YYY combat ability. and few 3 star generals.

being a Hogemony should bring great power but also make other nations realize that unless something change drasticly country having Hogemony will dominate and get all nations around into them.

How having it threads other nations?
Administrative: You have an economic powerhouse that can buy whatever they want want (mersc, land, ship, our things)
Diplo: everyone likes them and they quitely spread their influance so they will make everyone bow to they will and not even know it
Military: They would kill us all and destroy and pl
Military: They would kill us all and destroy and plunder:

Drawbacks:
Higher Agressive expanstion, and negative opinion penalities from actions and events. Nations under xxx opinon set to threaten or hostile and all other nations get:
a military bonus to fight you (morale and war exhoustion) and hostile countis can create an "Anti Homogeny coalition"

How to lose the homogeny:
Lose a war, your capital is sieged down or not being a great power

or uniquely
Admin: 10/15 loans and monthly deficit of 20% of your income - your economy has been crushed
Diplo: negative prestige or diplomatic reputation, not honoring call to arms
Mil: 0 manpower and army size is 20% or less of your forcelimit (your army was crushed)

So Bonuses:
You are a greatest country in the world and now it time to ennact your plans whatever it takesand show othres that your way is only way

Basic: -0,1 monthly exhaustion, +25 % spy construction speed (not defence)
Scaling: missionary strenght, culture conversion cost

Admin:
Basic: reduce coruption
Scaling: Avaible mercs, global tradepower,
End:???

Diplo:
Basic:???
Scaling: diplo anex cost
End: can garantee every neighbour for free, cb that enforce them to become your goverment type (monarchy, republik ect) and put your dynasty on throne

Military: attrition reduction
Scaling: man power recovery, looting speed
Finisher: You are great: Discipline, morale, and one more

LakeWobegon · Feb 4, 2020

@Johan You say your goal was to make WC less tedious but after the feedback of all the forum "WCs" you decided to remove the only thing that would help achieve it: -10% all power costs and +10% administrative efficiency. The last few DDs promised to increase the busy work for ppl that like to do world conquests and in return we get this. Another fine display of the understanding of your own game and its play styles. What happened to you people? Since patch 1.25 90% of your balance/mechanic decisions are just plain bad when it used to be the other way around.

Denkt · Feb 4, 2020

arosenberger14 said:
I like the idea of making lategame more dynamic, but this is not the right way to go about it

The thing is that there are likely less difference between the Roman Empire and a 1800s nation than there is between a 1800s nation and today's nations, EUIV greatly exaggerate things for gameplay reasons. More economic growth in absolute terms happened during 1960-2020 than rest of human history combined to get an idea.

Rikissa · Feb 4, 2020

It doesn't seem the right way to make the large nations even stronger, considering how difficult it is to break up large nations

Ottomans + Military Hegemon will just be a new level of frustration

DominusNovus · Feb 4, 2020

Forgive me if this has already been mentioned, but I didn’t see it while skimming:

The entire concept of hegemony in reality is largely about diplomatic power (due to economic or military might). And at the moment, the only penalty is diplomatic. That feels wrong.

If the goal is anywhere near having three super powers at the end of the game, then the diplomatic aspect should be re-examined. I expected something like power blocs, with each hegemon being able to bring other nations into their orbit more easily.

As a quick proposal, each hegemon could get:
- Extra diplomatic relations slots (1-3)
- A relation boost with allies/subjects
- A small relationship penalty to neutrals (maybe)
- A medium relationship penalty with allies/subjects of another hegemon
- A large relationship penalty with the othef hegemons.

Just spitballing.

covya · Feb 4, 2020

Have you considered adding new subject types for each of the three hegemons? Perhaps the military one could get something akin to a super march, with even more force limit contribution to the overlord, and buffs to the subject. The diplo one could get vassals that don't use diplo slots, or something that provides naval buffs if you really want to stick the with naval theme rather than making it overall diplomacy focused, and I'm not sure for the admin one

Aldaron · Feb 4, 2020

I don't usually comment DDs, but after reading several posts in this thread I would like to give my opinion to @Johan:

1- Pressing a button and receiving a candy features are bad and boring. It just does not add any agency to the player.
2- Making snowballing even easier is bad and boring. It simply makes the challenges go away. If anything, being an Hegemon should do things even more complicated.
3- Giving already existing bonuses over already owned bonuses is bad and boring. Bonuses should be unique, pretty much as Global Power does. Actually, expanding GP features by being an Hegemon combines finely and makes things more interesting.
4- As it has been suggested, dynamic requisites should be the way to go: like owning a percentage of the total military forces, owning a percentage over world's economy, etc... it makes the goal to be alive and makes the competition a thing, because the goals change all the time.
5- I would suggest that becoming an Hegemon creates a coalition-like thing against you. It simply makes sense from a historical/gameplay point of view. Simply giving a CB won't do much if nobody can beat you. Besides, some kind of defensive coalition would make things more difficult to the Hegemon to expand, as people unite out of fear.

Just my two cents.

Kit_EA · Feb 4, 2020

Aldaron said:
5- I would suggest that becoming an Hegemon creates a coalition-like thing against you. It simply makes sense from a historical/gameplay point of view. Simply giving a CB won't do much if nobody can beat you. Besides, some kind of defensive coalition would make things more difficult to the Hegemon to expand, as people unite out of fear.

This is a very good idea btw.
I remember that in history when Venice were becoming dominant power in Italian region most other Italian states and even some outside big states like France run a coalition against them to stop their dominance.
The same with Ottomans when many Europeans power saw that this is a valid reason to unite for a brief time to pull Ottomans back.

durbal · Feb 4, 2020

I'm almost scared to point out that the numbers make no sense because then you'll misinterpret that the problem is with the numbers. In reality, the win-more mechanic is fundamentally flawed and completely not fun. It's just one more heavily abstracted gamey mechanic disconnected from the rest and seems borne of dev MP sessions.

First Lieutenant

Field Marshal

Recruit

Field Marshal

Recruit

Left the forums permamently

Zakharia

Captain

Field Marshal

Left the forums permamently

Major

Corporal

Private

Left the forums permamently

Lt. General

Field Marshal

Genocidal Crusader

Rex Vasconum

Captain

Field Marshal