Abomination #34 from the upcoming DLC

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

It just makes no logical sense whatsover to have a single building give you these modifiers, there is literally no plausible explanation for this, it's arbitrary and completely unjustified.
If the goal was to make Zoroastrianism more viable just give Zoroastrianism viable religious mechanics, having magical buildings that turn your soldiers into the Terminator is ridiculous.

 

[Mommy]

Honestly, I think a lot of people are overreacting about something that likely will barely come up in any of their games.

Personally the only monument that seems broken to me is Alhambra(though, unless it was shown in the recent stream I feel it was likely toned down by now) and possibly Angkor Wat.

I feel the only change needed for Angkor though is make it require you to be in the Dharmic or Buddhist groups, the tech bonuses Angkor Wat provide are roughly on par with the tech bonuses of being an Islamic nation, so not allowing them to stack would be perfectly fair imo

 

[Maxxie42]

I also agree that this is a lot more outrage than this topic deserves, but still, the Alhambra one, come on. I have to believe the numbers on this are gonna get changed before release, because 15% admin efficiency being unbalanced is the understatement of the year. It's so out of any reasonable ballpark in fact, that I don't understand how it even made it so far into the prototype. Surely the devs realize how strong admin efficiency is by now, and how high a figure 15% is, right ?

 

[Arizal]

Tbh, I don't care at all about monuments. If I could rip them out of the DLC and still have the "grow tall" mechanics and the favor-oriented ones, I would do it. It would even be better, in my eyes. Maybe it's time for rules like in CK2...

Frankly, I'm not excited at all about the next DLC/patch. I don't like the new nations, and how they seemingly break the colonial game by adding a bunch of dev, I don't like how monuments are just shiny bonuses rewarding strange playstyles. The regency options are useless as long as we can't declare war while in regency.

I'm not sure the grow tall mechanic and the favors outweight all the cons I see. I might do like Golden Century and not buy it on release.

Actually, to me this expansion is about to take the same route than Golden Century. It's not even because it's half baked like GC was, it's because I fundamentally disagree with many of the orientations the developpers are taking with the game.

 

[love sweden]

I wouldnt compare Leviathan to Golden Century since Leviathan is atleast being honest with it being just random stuff thrown in. Golden Century meanwhile was just complete false advertising where the devs sold a North Africa and Pirate Republic dlc as a dlc about Iberia.

 

[Bayes]

I was already considering disabling monuments, I guess that decides it.
Which is a shame ,monuments with about 25% of the effectiveness could have been interesting.

 

[EarlKonrad]

I also agree that this is a lot more outrage than this topic deserves, but still, the Alhambra one, come on. I have to believe the numbers on this are gonna get changed before release, because 15% admin efficiency being unbalanced is the understatement of the year. It's so out of any reasonable ballpark in fact, that I don't understand how it even made it so far into the prototype. Surely the devs realize how strong admin efficiency is by now, and how high a figure 15% is, right ?

Also, let's not forget that in 1.30 global ADM. Eff. Was cut down by a whopping 10% and Leviathan is now adding a monument that gives you a whopping² 15% ADM. Eff. There is something clearly wrong here.

 

[iClipse]

Also, let's not forget that in 1.30 global ADM. Eff. Was cut down by a whopping 10% and Leviathan is now adding a monument that gives you a whopping² 15% ADM. Eff. There is something clearly wrong here.

For all we know the devs want to change admin efficiency more to a bonus you have to 'earn' instead of getting it magically through tech and absolutism. Which imo would be a good evolution.

In general, I feel like there wouldn't be this much outrage if the wonder gave +5 admin efficiency, but we kept the +10 admin efficiency from absolutism, but in essence it's the same thing but available for fewer nations.

 

[WishPig]

For all we know the devs want to change admin efficiency more to a bonus you have to 'earn' instead of getting it magically through tech and absolutism. Which imo would be a good evolution.

In general, I feel like there wouldn't be this much outrage if the wonder gave +5 admin efficiency, but we kept the +10 admin efficiency from absolutism, but in essence it's the same thing but available for fewer nations.

That's kinda the issue, they're just taking away modifiers and slapping them on a random province which incentivises people to conquer that random province for no reason other than owning it makes your administrators brains grow by 15%.

It doesn't feel natural and the game revolving around a load of provinces around the world that you need to snake to ASAP just isn't interesting.

 

[Sete]

This is going to be an interesting patch to say the least...

 

[BlazeKnight_]

The game was never balanced and never intended to be though. Starting as France versus starting as Ulm is a big difference. Even in MP where they try to pick in a balanced fashion, it's never inherently balanced. Which is actually something that makes this game great, because it allows you to challenge yourself to different degrees.

This monument might even shake things up. Currently it's all about changing religion to Orthodox anyway because of the extras it provides.

"Balance" does not mean France and Ulm should be at the same starting strength.

Giving overpowered modifiers to a single monument in a single province is absolutely stupid. It encourages rushing and snaking those provinces and is arbitrary as hell. If the goal is to buff weaker religions then just give buffs to those weaker religions, or how about not having such a massive gap in power between most religions and stuff like Muslim, Shinto, and Orthodox?

Actually, to me this expansion is about to take the same route than Golden Century. It's not even because it's half baked like GC was, it's because I fundamentally disagree with many of the orientations the developpers are taking with the game.

Chinese Vietnamese Chinese Vietnamese

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

For all we know the devs want to change admin efficiency more to a bonus you have to 'earn' instead of getting it magically through tech and absolutism. Which imo would be a good evolution.

In general, I feel like there wouldn't be this much outrage if the wonder gave +5 admin efficiency, but we kept the +10 admin efficiency from absolutism, but in essence it's the same thing but available for fewer nations.

I would agree with you but having a specific building in a specific province isn't the answer, all it does is feeding into wacky meta-playing.

Had they tied administrative efficiency with, for example, number of town-halls built, just like army tradition depends on active forts, then yes, it would be a very interesting mechanic in my view.

But why should owning a specific palace among all palaces warrant such an insurmountable advantage?

 

[Kimbole]

I also agree that this is a lot more outrage than this topic deserves, but still, the Alhambra one, come on. I have to believe the numbers on this are gonna get changed before release, because 15% admin efficiency being unbalanced is the understatement of the year. It's so out of any reasonable ballpark in fact, that I don't understand how it even made it so far into the prototype. Surely the devs realize how strong admin efficiency is by now, and how high a figure 15% is, right ?

Focus is understandably on a couple of pretty crazy sets of numbers (of which this is one and yeah hard to see it lasting too long), but after skimming through the full set, most of the other bonuses seem pretty okay to me.

It just makes no logical sense whatsover to have a single building give you these modifiers, there is literally no plausible explanation for this, it's arbitrary and completely unjustified.
If the goal was to make Zoroastrianism more viable just give Zoroastrianism viable religious mechanics, having magical buildings that turn your soldiers into the Terminator is ridiculous.

In terms of single buildings providing a big advantage, I guess I see that more as powerful nation builds monument, rather than monument brings power. People building stuff to show off how great they are seems fairly common to me? What gameplay effects it will have for monuments to exist on a province level is a slightly different matter but I think I’ll just treat them as nice flavour rather than going hunting them especially.

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

People building stuff to show off how great they are seems fairly common to me?

Then it would make more sense if the player was able to build their own wonders wherever they like, giving whatever bonuses they like don't you think?

 

[Kimbole]

Then it would make more sense if the player was able to build their own wonders wherever they like, giving whatever bonuses they like don't you think?

I guess, but the game imposes rules on what can and can’t be done in lots of places for lots of reasons. I‘m totally alright with monuments being tied to their real locations.

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

I guess, but the game imposes rules on what can and can’t be done in lots of places for lots of reasons. I‘m totally alright with monuments being tied to their real locations.

I am in favour of monuments to be historical and tied to their real locations too, but in that case they shouldn't be this strong.

If they are supposed to be this strong for gameplay purposes of reflecting the success of their builder, then it should be something flexible and dynamic that all successful empires should be able to build, regardless of who or where they are.

 

[gronak]

That's ridiculously op. It's going to make every campaign feel the same - grab those same provinces to get the monuments. At least let these monuments be built anywhere if they meet certain conditions for it to have been plausible, and nerf them.

 

[Battlex]

The game was never balanced and never intended to be though. Starting as France versus starting as Ulm is a big difference. Even in MP where they try to pick in a balanced fashion, it's never inherently balanced. Which is actually something that makes this game great, because it allows you to challenge yourself to different degrees.

This monument might even shake things up. Currently it's all about changing religion to Orthodox anyway because of the extras it provides.

France has to contend with England burgundy and Spain. Ulm is heavily insulated within the hre and a free city, the only way for it to be attacked is to have an ally who's war you join

 

[iClipse]

France has to contend with England burgundy and Spain. Ulm is heavily insulated within the hre and a free city, the only way for it to be attacked is to have an ally who's war you join

It was meant as a joke that I took those specific two countries. All I'm saying is: there is not a single country that's truly equal to another country. Ideas are unique to each country, as are institutions, tech groups, development and access to trade goods.

The design of this game was never with winrates or balance in mind like it is in Starcraft or other competitive strategy games where if race/faction X has more than say 52% winrate it's a big issue. Now of course, that doesn't mean you should give country X +15% discipline just because. Which, granted, is what happens here with the info we have currently available.

This game has always had specific things that are considered overpowered though. If it's the Shogan vasal swarm, or the Mughals Diwan mechanic, those aren't 'balanced' as well.

I do feel that people are overreacting with the info we have though. For all we know is the Alhambra wonder tied to Sunni religion and Andalusian main culture and is it not shown in the tooltip because those parameters are already fulfilled. Would that be so different than forming the Mughals, which has easy access to 10 admin efficiency as well (and had it in 1.29 before the Admin efficiency nerf)?

Is having that admin efficiency so overpowered, ever since you could already stack to that max limit anyway, using formables like Sardinia-Piedmont and Prussia's mission tree?

Will it make it easier to get? Yes, of couse. Does it break the game? Well, it certainly might, but I'm reserving judgement until I can actually play the game instead of rioting here.

Does it warp multiplayer? Well, will it warp it more than Orthodox Religion? Or forming Prussia? Or Russia and their Cossack estate? Or even Ming which is usually banned? Now we have a lot of wonders that will be worthwhile going for and if your opponents let you, the fault is there. Or you can add another houserule, like there are already so many.

 

[Arizal]

Especially for monuments which were created during the period, I don’t see at all why they should be tied to one province in particular, and even less why they should give gamey bonuses.

Before someone tells me that everything in this “game” is “gamey”, I’m just going to say that I don’t see it that way. The physical world, the placement of ports and of ressources, the number of development each province has, while not a perfect reflection of reality, some historical basis. The way military bonuses scale (outside NIs, missions and unique government forms) allow strategic choices and reflect how countries can focus their efforts.

Monuments come from nowhere. There is no reason why spending money to build a particulier building should give you the bonuses they tied to them. If that was supposed to be a big selling point, they completely missed the point with me and, it appears other players.