A case of monarch power

[Xetfield]

Yesterday Johan wrote that in 1.1 patch they will rebalance the game in a way that will remove monarch “mana” and purchases done with it. May there be a slight chance that 1.29 will bring this change to EU IV too?

You still have plenty of time to do this, since unannounced DLC is planned at the end of the year. This will increase the interest of players in game tremendously.

If Johan, the Godfather of EU IV, removed MP from Imperator, maybe it’s time to look at Imperator’s predecessor?

 

[rimworld inbox]

Maybe people could actually come up with a reasonable argument on why the removal of mana magically increases the strategical depth of the game, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Its like some cargo cult game design.

1. Remove mana
2. ???
3. Game is fixed!

Why Imperator is bad, and Eu4 was good, are unsurprisingly rooted in different things entirely.

 

[fr-rein]

Not a fan of mana, but it is one of more healthy parts of EU4 right now. What could be changed are the ways of generating mana.

 

[JoJo_hell]

ther is no need to remove mana in EU4

 

[DamonIsa]

Not sure what there would be to be gained by removing Monarch Points.

I mean typically the few complaints I've seen is over how unrealistic it is to click and instantly spend points on something. Though there's enough Waiting Game as is in EU4 for me not to want to see more wait times added on everything. And it's a good counter balance in the game right now. As while yes, I can instantly improve my stability by spending 100 points and such and that's unrealistic. It's also pretty unrealistic that by far the most common event I get is "There's a comet in the sky, entire country flips out, lose 1 stability". I swear that one is weighted to be like 30% of all random events with how often it appears.

So the game is balanced around it as is. Changing one side of it would require changing quite literally everything else. Which is usually the other side of the coin I don't see people mention.

 

[Cancerofthehead]

Maybe people could actually come up with a reasonable argument on why the removal of mana magically increases the strategical depth of the game, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Its like some cargo cult game design.

1. Remove mana
2. ???
3. Game is fixed!

Why Imperator is bad, and Eu4 was good, are unsurprisingly rooted in different things entirely.

I don’t think Mana is inherently bad. In fact I think it is a very useful tool. But it can become a crutch. The whole pop management system, for example, overused it and was terribly designed as a result.

My key thought is that Mana generally shouldn’t be the sole cost. It should be a limiting factor, but other things like time, unrest, gold, autonomy, etc should tie to most uses of mana. The worst are the “I didn’t manage my empire well so I will click a button to fix it with no other downsides” buttons. War weariness, inflation, and legitimacy being the main offenders in EU IV.

 

[Jernau_]

The mana in Eu4 works just fine. There is no need to change it because a few people has decided that mana=bad.

 

[fr-rein]

The mana in Eu4 works just fine

A very wrong point.
Concept of mana itself is fine, yes.
But the way it works (is generated and spent) is a different issue and EU4 has issues there.

 

[GSS_]

The question is -- why remove 'mana' from EU4? I think there's really no need to do it. Right now, EU4 is one of the games more balanced and polished of Paradox (CK2 is also), and I'm playing EU4 since 2014 so I know what I'm saying. It would be a huge change and I'm not sure if it would be for good.

 

[Dell19]

Maybe wait and see how it turns out in Imperator before asking for it to be implemented in other paradox games?

For what its worth I don't have a problem with mana as its just another resource to manage.

 

[rimworld inbox]

I don’t think Mana is inherently bad. In fact I think it is a very useful tool. But it can become a crutch. The whole pop management system, for example, overused it and was terribly designed as a result.

My key thought is that Mana generally shouldn’t be the sole cost. It should be a limiting factor, but other things like time, unrest, gold, autonomy, etc should tie to most uses of mana. The worst are the “I didn’t manage my empire well so I will click a button to fix it with no other downsides” buttons. War weariness, inflation, and legitimacy being the main offenders in EU IV.

in general, one of the nice parts of eu4 balance is that the cost for instantly fixing your country is typically a lot higher than alternate measures you could have used in the past.

A classic example is harsh treatment - if you use it as your primary rebel control tool you're going to do massive long term damage to your country. But sometimes that long term damage is the best option.

In both SP blobbing style and MP country building style, the decision to pay down war ex is also not trivial. In SP, the loss of mana = loss of future dev. And you'll often see MP players orchestrate country breaks (paying a lot of autonomy and prestige) to avoid having to spend mana fixing stab and war ex.

 

[Cancerofthehead]

in general, one of the nice parts of eu4 balance is that the cost for instantly fixing your country is typically a lot higher than alternate measures you could have used in the past.

A classic example is harsh treatment - if you use it as your primary rebel control tool you're going to do massive long term damage to your country. But sometimes that long term damage is the best option.

In both SP blobbing style and MP country building style, the decision to pay down war ex is also not trivial. In SP, the loss of mana = loss of future dev. And you'll often see MP players orchestrate country breaks (paying a lot of autonomy and prestige) to avoid having to spend mana fixing stab and war ex.

Harsh treatment tends to be pretty expensive since it is a very short term thing (until absolutism makes it much more interesting an option, same with buying legitimacy). But in most cases paying down inflation to keep it under five is a no brainer and paying down War exhaustion isn’t that expensive unless you are spiralling out of control.

I would love to see, as an example, harsh treatment adding a small amount of unrest over the next few years, both from a thematic (generally repression pisses people off) and gameplay perspective.

That said, EUIV isn’t even close to IR’s abuse of this. “Oh no I have a big bad enemy I need to prepare to fight, quick let’s turn twenty Briton slaves into Roman Freemen overnight to get more manpower generation with no problems at all.”

 

[the glory of plain]

monarch point are one of the worst part of eu4
not just because it is mana
but it mostly come from the ability score of ruler
since eu4 have ruler trait now
there is no need to keep this part even if the entire point system are too basic to remove completely
ruler trait and ability should only effect things like event option and trigger

 

[Azhcristokos]

You still have plenty of time to do this

Monarch power has more or less served as a fundamental mechanic tied to almost everything in a game that is now 5 years old. Such a fundamental rework would require more than the rest of the year. It would otherwise end in complete and utter disaster.

This will increase the interest of players in game tremendously.

There isn't really any evidence for this. A more likely scenario is that it would break a variety of mechanics and polarize the playerbase, even more than what happened when Stellaris axed warp and wormhole FTL.

I've always been on the fence about monarch power, but that is an issue for EU V, should it ever come to exist.

 

[Major Malfunction]

Monarch points-based gameplay was the worst thing to happen to EUIV after mercspam. I really hope they will rework it

 

[mechanical_Critter]

But in most cases paying down inflation to keep it under five is a no brainer

What?!! Who does that? I never let go of my adm points. When they are overflowing (which usually happens at two points in every campaign for some reason), then sure, I'll use them to reduce inflation. But using the active button is IMMENSELY more damaging than, say, having a Master of Mint advisor instead of your fav other advisor.

 

[mechanical_Critter]

but it mostly come from the ability score of ruler

Not just disagree. Your comment is just plain wrong. Over the course of time, the source of mana has changed, there's now
- estates (I think it's up to 1.5 or something)
- advisors (up to 5)
- focus (+2, -1)
- PP (+1)
- Policies (-2)
- extra leaders, extra dip relations (- however much you're decadent)

Leaders are significant contributors alright, I complained about it already. But, their influence translates to a 0-6 roll, which is NOT a majority contribution. Additionally, it is something that you can influence depending on your government form. It's still random, but if you have bad rulers on average, then it's your own damn fault.

 

[Red Death]

In my opinion, the monarch power system, in the way it is implemented in eu4, is an overall detriment to the strategy experience of the game. Expecially when it is used to instantly "fix" problems or give bonuses (Stability, War exhaustion, legitimacy, etc.). That's because it reduces all of those problems to a monarch point cost, instead of actually different problems you need to respond to differently. I played the game for years before I realized this, but it really drags the experience down for me at this point.

However, the entire game, with its years of updates and DLCs, is built around this mechanic. I don't think it's feasible to replace the stockpile-and-spend monarch power at this point. Perhaps some of the worst problems with the system could still be fixed, but changing the whole system would cause more damage than it's worth.

I do hope if/when we get EU5, the monarch point is replaced or heavily modified. It's outstayed its welcome for me in this current form. The system worked fine for a while, but the time has come for it to be replaced, like sliders were before.

 

[Badesumofu]

Monarch power is fine in EU4. It mostly works well. It doesn't work so well in Imperator. The opportunity costs are mixed up and weird. Wholesale removal of it is a huge call, but it's doable in a 1.1 patch. Not so sure it would be workable for a 1.29 patch.

 

[Jesus was a communist]

I feel that the main compliant about mana in imperator was that mana was used for basically everything and produced instant results.
I would think that if you need diplomatic power to convert, guarantee or improve relations everybody would agree that it's to much. Or If using admin to core was an instant mechanic instead of taking months/years.
But removing a mechanic that been part of the game since launch 5 years ago I totally unrealistic and would break more that it would fix.

If they remove mana, it will be in eu5 and I wouldn't care if they left it in as long it's balanced properly. As it generally is now...

Out of all the complaints about eu4 monarch points don't even come close to the top 10.