1.4 - Westernisation Changed

[SweetHalcyHS]

I'm just pissed not becaus it's tied to a ruler, but more because it bogs you down to inaction for literal decades. Either the new westernisation system, or the complete dependence on MP for everything has to give out, or else everything outside of Europe is going to be real shitty.

 

[joak]

Yay... instead of 20 years of watching the paint dry we only get 10... how... merciful.

As opposed to having a sucky regency for 15 years or waiting out a bad coalition? The games full of pauses, doesn't seem obvious to me this one is worse.

 

[Dr. Dan]

As opposed to having a sucky regency for 15 years or waiting out a bad coalition? The games full of pauses, doesn't seem obvious to me this one is worse.

Just because something "is" does not mean it "ought" to be there. One boring pause does not make a good argument for another. Logical fallacy, etc.

 

[BossAsianMafia]

Just because something "is" does not mean it "ought" to be there. One boring pause does not make a good argument for another. Logical fallacy, etc.

There's also not been a coherent argument on why such pauses are bad though.

 

[zodium]

There's also not been a coherent argument on why such pauses are bad though.

Because dropping a player's behavioral degrees of freedom to one (SEND IN THE DIPLOMATS!) with respect to the game's objective of controlling more base tax does not make for good gameplay.

 

[BossAsianMafia]

Because dropping a player's behavioral degrees of freedom to one (SEND IN THE DIPLOMATS!) with respect to the game's objective of controlling more base tax does not make for good gameplay.

I think of it as an exercise in the optimization in timing though. The point of a game is to shape a player's behavioral degree of freedom (e.g. rules) so not sure what your point is...

 

[zodium]

I think of it as an exercise in the optimization in timing though. The point of a game is to shape a player's behavioral degree of freedom (e.g. rules) so not sure what your point is...

Unlike westernization, you have no behavioral control over when you'll get a regency council. There is no way to influence it and no way to utilize it for other advantage, which is what's bad.

 

[BossAsianMafia]

Unlike westernization, you have no behavioral control over when you'll get a regency council. There is no way to influence it and no way to utilize it for other advantage, which is what's bad.

I was referring to the point on westernization and diplomat travelling time where there is scope for optimization.

 

[BossAsianMafia]

Unlike westernization, you have no behavioral control over when you'll get a regency council. There is no way to influence it and no way to utilize it for other advantage, which is what's bad.

The point of regency council is to simulate unlucky circumstances that might happen to any empire in history (though it can be mitigated by having more royal marriages). It's largely irrelevant to the topic at hand,which is that people are hating pauses in their conquest spree due to a process that they have some control over the timing of.

 

[zodium]

I was referring to the point on westernization and diplomat travelling time where there is scope for optimization.

I suppose I was ambiguous about whether I meant westernization or regencies. Apologies, I meant regencies, since they were brought up.

The point of regency council is to simulate unlucky circumstances that might happen to any empire in history (though it can be mitigated by having more royal marriages). It's largely irrelevant to the topic at hand,which is that people are hating pauses in their conquest spree due to a process that they have some control over the timing of.

You asked for a coherent argument on why such pauses in the game are bad, and I gave one: having zero or one degree of freedom makes for boring gameplay, because there is no game. When df is zero or one, there is no choice, and hence there is no strategy. Since EU4 does not have a motor component to supplement the decision making/strategic aspect of the game, that implies for the period where df is zero or one, there is effectively no game to be played. To say that a game is bad during periods where it ceases to have any game elements seems both coherent and uncontroversial.

I think the picture is more complex for westernization, especially under the new rules, but it holds completely for regencies. It makes no difference how accurately it simulates something historical if it makes no gameplay sense, much like it doesn't matter how much gameplay sense something makes if it's ahistorical nonsense.

 

[BossAsianMafia]

I suppose I was ambiguous about whether I meant westernization or regencies. Apologies, I meant regencies, since they were brought up.



You asked for a coherent argument on why such pauses in the game are bad, and I gave one: having zero or one degree of freedom makes for boring gameplay, because there is no game. When df is zero or one, there is no choice, and hence there is no strategy. Since EU4 does not have a motor component to supplement the decision making/strategic aspect of the game, that implies for the period where df is zero or one, there is effectively no game to be played. To say that a game is bad during periods where it ceases to have any game elements seems both coherent and uncontroversial.

I think the picture is more complex for westernization, especially under the new rules, but it holds completely for regencies. It makes no difference how accurately it simulates something historical if it makes no gameplay sense, much like it doesn't matter how much gameplay sense something makes if it's ahistorical nonsense.

That's the thing though. You're only thinking about your degree of freedom from the point of view of conquest. But regencies also confer the chance to build infrastructure, wait for AE to die down and my favorite: change governments. Admittedly it's less things to do compared to when a king/queen is on the throne, but I think you are exaggerating a tad by saying there's no game during regencies. And frankly, how often are you under regencies anyway?

 

[zodium]

That's the thing though. You're only thinking about your degree of freedom from the point of view of conquest. But regencies also confer the chance to build infrastructure, wait for AE to die down and my favorite: change governments. Admittedly it's less things to do compared to when a king/queen is on the throne, but I think you are exaggerating a tad by saying there's no game during regencies. And frankly, how often are you under regencies anyway?

I've given a number of analyses as to why base tax controlled growth is the objective of the game. To put it concisely, everything, from conquest to buildings to prestige, flows towards growing base tax controlled, including base tax itself (hence snowballing). Given this, it is reasonable to argue that growing base tax controlled is the game's objective and country-neutral goal, and that this goal is prior (but not superior) to any subjective or country-specific goals.

Edit: To clarify, when I say it is prior but not superior, I mean that all countries must grow their base tax controlled in order to accomplish any subjective or country-specific goals, but no country must accomplish subjective or country-specific goals in order to grow their base tax controlled.

 

[WeissRaben]

I've given a number of analyses as to why base tax controlled growth is the objective of the game. To put it concisely, everything, from conquest to buildings to prestige, flows towards growing base tax controlled, including base tax itself (hence snowballing). Given this, it is reasonable to argue that growing base tax controlled is the game's objective and country-neutral goal, and that this goal is prior (but not superior) to any subjective or country-specific goals.

Edit: To clarify, when I say it is prior but not superior, I mean that all countries must grow their base tax controlled in order to accomplish any subjective or country-specific goals, but no country must accomplish subjective or country-specific goals in order to grow their base tax controlled.

And, of course, I disagree - on the scale, probably. I often get to a certain objective (can be the Rhineland and Westphalia as Frankfurt, can be the Yuan Empire as the Mongols, can be a Mediterranean empire as Aragon), get there, then the push to conquer more disappears. Either I leave the game as it stands, or I do something else. Minor border adjustments, diplomacy, internal growth. If I fight three wars in the last 150 years, it's a lot. I just don't want to snowball after I got my cake.

 

[zodium]

And, of course, I disagree - on the scale, probably. I often get to a certain objective (can be the Rhineland and Westphalia as Frankfurt, can be the Yuan Empire as the Mongols, can be a Mediterranean empire as Aragon), get there, then the push to conquer more disappears. Either I leave the game as it stands, or I do something else. Minor border adjustments, diplomacy, internal growth. If I fight three wars in the last 150 years, it's a lot. I just don't want to snowball after I got my cake.

Hopefully I'm not co-opting your words here, but I'd like to make the argument that you actually agree, based on this. You have your subjective goal, which is your ultimate goal: to accomplish this, you must grow your base tax, but once the ultimate goal is reached, there's no reason to keep playing. You correctly perceive that you've won your game, hence you quit. Conquest can be an ultimate goal, but it doesn't have to be the ultimate goal to be prior to all other goals.

If you can think of a goal that does not imply growing your base tax controlled, that would be more problematic for my claim that base tax growth is prior to all other goals, but I suspect any such goal would be extremely particular to some particular country and playing style.

 

[WeissRaben]

Hopefully I'm not co-opting your words here, but I'd like to make the argument that you actually agree, based on this. You have your subjective goal, which is your ultimate goal: to accomplish this, you must grow your base tax, but once the ultimate goal is reached, there's no reason to keep playing. You correctly perceive that you've won your game, hence you quit.

If you can think of a goal that does not imply growing your base tax controlled, that would be more problematic for my claim that base tax growth is prior to all other goals, but I suspect any such goal would be extremely particular to some particular country and playing style.

It is, literally, true, but I see as a /problem/ that reaching one goal means that the game is done, maybe in half the timespan of the game. Moreover, further goals are nixed because of the lacking nature of EU4 in matters not of war: the original goal of the Frankfurt -> Westphalia game would have been to make the city - and the city alone - a center of culture and progress, but it was just staring at the screen and I had to move on war, willing or not, breaking the arranged system of protective alliances in order to expand. AND IT STILL was boring, because as a landlocked nation trade was minimal and colonization non-existent. I can't see this as good gameplay, I'm sorry.

 

[zodium]

It is, literally, true, but I see as a /problem/ that reaching one goal means that the game is done, maybe in half the timespan of the game. Moreover, further goals are nixed because of the lacking nature of EU4 in matters not of war: the original goal of the Frankfurt -> Westphalia game would have been to make the city - and the city alone - a center of culture and progress, but it was just staring at the screen and I had to move on war, willing or not, breaking the arranged system of protective alliances in order to expand. AND IT STILL was boring, because as a landlocked nation trade was minimal and colonization non-existent. I can't see this as good gameplay, I'm sorry.

I'm not necessarily arguing that "base tax controlled is prior to all goals" makes for good gameplay, I only claim it's an accurate analysis of the game as it is today. This was likely a conscious design decision, however, so I think it's reasonable to base my arguments on whether or not something makes for good gameplay within that context.

 

[joak]

You asked for a coherent argument on why such pauses in the game are bad, and I gave one: having zero or one degree of freedom makes for boring gameplay, because there is no game. When df is zero or one, there is no choice, and hence there is no strategy. Since EU4 does not have a motor component to supplement the decision making/strategic aspect of the game, that implies for the period where df is zero or one, there is effectively no game to be played. To say that a game is bad during periods where it ceases to have any game elements seems both coherent and uncontroversial.

Actually, it seems to me it kind of misunderstands what a game actually is.

Most games have resource constraints and unpleasant surprises that knock down "degrees of freedom"--"lose a turn" or "go directly to jail" mechanics on classic board games are common enough. Or, heck, being put in check in a game of chess. The fact that they exist gives a bit more urgency to optimizing outcomes when you do have choices.

In a board game of course you chat or maybe whine. , in EU you don't have that but watching other countries fight or listening to a podcast or whatever isn't that bad--or if it is, maybe the pacing of the game isn't to your taste. But it's certainly not some rule that a timeout penalty is bad game design automatically.

 

[grommile]

Or, heck, being put in check in a game of chess.

The objective of chess is to eliminate your opponent's degrees of freedom until they are forced to make a move that allows you to put them in checkmate; running out of DoF in chess (and several other pre-industrial board games) is generally indicative of imminent defeat.

As it happens, I actually have no conceptual problem with regency councils being unable to declare war (a regent's ambitions would naturally tend to be directed at getting a bigger slice of the domestic pie, rather than at making the domestic pie bigger by outward aggression) even though I find it tremendously frustrating when I get a fourteen-years-eleven-months RC; the fact remains that for the vast majority of countries it basically shuts down the player's pursuit of the primary objective indicated by the game mechanics, and it is triggered in ways that the player can easily aggravate (by turning his ruler and/or adult male heir into generals) but has very little scope to mitigate.

 

[aragonFTW]

I've done it 3 times now as native americans and am becoming convinced that it's not worth the huge time out compared to staying as a reformed government for a few more techs. 5000 points for the process, never mind the freezing of your country at 0.0.0 for a few years towards the end, is a long time on autopilot. Extra techs may cost 2000 points apiece then but the difference between the units you start with and the units you are likely to get afterwards are negligible unless you are at least getting Gustavian after reform.

Method of preparing also different.Better to spend 4000 points on extra mil tech (and still save up to 3900 on dip / adm in the meantime for immediate cash in on tech at the start)