One boardgame that use the empire Rise and fall mechanic is smallworld but it would not translate well into paradox game but a version of it could add something to the game.
Abstract Currencies, Agent-Mechanics, "Realistic" Currencies
- Thread starter Johan
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Thanks for listening to the feedback. I am sure your team will be able to implement changes that make everyone happy, and I look forward to it!
It kind of already is, though it's nothing like Smallworld.
There are situations where you want a civil war to happen. You crush it and come out stronger, more united than before. Right now, it's kind of cheesy, but I think it could evolve into something genuinely fascinating.
Likewise, a legitimacy crisis is potentially game ending.
These mechanics need some tweaking, polish, and expansion, but I can see them being the core of something extremely engaging.
I think there are too many comparisons between this game and CK 2, EU IV, Stellaris and Vicky 2. That's the major problem. People won't allow this game to stand on it's own without making comparisons. I don't think it's really fair to make those comparisons since the games mentioned above have been out for several years and had numerous dlc's and expansions. It seems as though some of you forget what those games were like when they first released. I like the mana system in this game because I think it reflects a ruler's power in an abstract way. The mana received each month is based upon a ruler's ratings. Good ratings yields more mana. What's wrong with that? If anything the mana system needs to be tweaked and expanded upon not replaced with something else. Like I said in another post cultural and religious assimilation shouldn't be instant but other than that there's nothing wrong that a few tweaks of the system can't fix. Every single Paradox game that I've listed has some type of mana system implemented. Each game may use different terms and functions but it's still mana. I like that. I think it makes for huge roleplaying possibilities and numerous strategies. Think about it. A weak ruler won't yield much mana so you either have to stockpile mana to get things done or find a strategy to work around that weak ruler. That's what makes games like these a challenge and interesting. If I wanted exact history, I'd read a history book.
Only thing is Paradox has put out so many games/dlc that it is essentially competing with itself at this point. I too would like to see IR find its niche but nothing wrong with looking to what other teams at Paradox did well to help it grow into its own.
.png){kind=avatar}
I wish stability represented current status of country instead of being another currency. I like in hoi4 for instance when you get bombed or trade routes getting raided you lose stability temporary. In imperator/eu4 every province you have can be burning down but you could still easily have +3 stab.
They are changing stability from a -3 to +3 system, to a scale between 1 and 100. I guess unrest might affect the value.
Something like EU4's autonomy mechanic could be useful. Just make newly conquered territories start with lot's of autonomy and you can decrease the autonomy in exchange for more unrest.
.png){kind=avatar}
It must be something radically different from EU4. It is easy - and booooring - to paint 1/4 of the world map in your colour in EU4.
This being said, autonomy can be an answer, together with culture, with religion, with instability in the provinces, with the emergence of local leaders that organize a rebellion, with rivals agitating regions, with...
Yes and also that the region is ruled by a characters that might hate you depending on traits and loyalty etc. Decreasing the autonomy should make your governor less loyal.
Sure, all that and more...
If there is a will to improve the design and deliver more than a territorial growth exercise optimized for multiplayer, there will be a way.
this statement makes me feel like you still haven't got the message and don't actually understand what draws people to grand strategy games...
Thanks for sharing Johan. It’s a harsh forum sometimes, but we appreciate the ability to share our thoughts and we do it because we love Paradox games. I wish you luck in your endeavour.
Dear @Johan , I believe this is a step in the right direction, but for the wrong reasons.
I believe the problem with abstracted currencies is not that they exist as abstracted currencies, but that they are storeable and instant-use. Consider the following example:
You are playing an office-management game. You hire a couple of new employees and put them in an empty office with no tasks. They sit there for several months, doing nothing visible to the player but generating officework-points. Then, you get a big contract and since you have all those officework-points stored up, you finish it in a single day.
Would you consider that good game design or fun gameplay? I wouldn't.
But what would be the better way to fix it? Remove officework-points and replace them with a more realistic photocopying, scheduling and typing minigame or make it so that officework-points can not be stored up? I think the second one.
Imagine the current system in Imperator, except monarch points are not storeable. Actions are not immediate and require characters - so, for example, if you want to convert some pops to your religion, you select a character and send him there. That costs x religious power/month, with speed of conversion affected by the character's religious stat (and traits), and gives him prominence and a salary for the duration (since he is on a government-funded mission). Monarch points not used for actions don't get stored up, they are converted into stability instead (so small and homogenous countries with very little to do tend to be very stable). Overspending is also possible, but it reduces stability and decreases ministers' loyalty (because they are getting overworked) on a nonlinear basis (so overspending a little is no big problem, but a lot breaks your country very quickly).
Please do not believe that abstract/non-abstract currency is a strictly binary choice, the problem is that most Paradox games are using non-abstract currencies wrong (but the stability rework gives me hope that you are getting there)!
Thank you for reading!
I believe the problem with abstracted currencies is not that they exist as abstracted currencies, but that they are storeable and instant-use. Consider the following example:
You are playing an office-management game. You hire a couple of new employees and put them in an empty office with no tasks. They sit there for several months, doing nothing visible to the player but generating officework-points. Then, you get a big contract and since you have all those officework-points stored up, you finish it in a single day.
Would you consider that good game design or fun gameplay? I wouldn't.
But what would be the better way to fix it? Remove officework-points and replace them with a more realistic photocopying, scheduling and typing minigame or make it so that officework-points can not be stored up? I think the second one.
Imagine the current system in Imperator, except monarch points are not storeable. Actions are not immediate and require characters - so, for example, if you want to convert some pops to your religion, you select a character and send him there. That costs x religious power/month, with speed of conversion affected by the character's religious stat (and traits), and gives him prominence and a salary for the duration (since he is on a government-funded mission). Monarch points not used for actions don't get stored up, they are converted into stability instead (so small and homogenous countries with very little to do tend to be very stable). Overspending is also possible, but it reduces stability and decreases ministers' loyalty (because they are getting overworked) on a nonlinear basis (so overspending a little is no big problem, but a lot breaks your country very quickly).
Please do not believe that abstract/non-abstract currency is a strictly binary choice, the problem is that most Paradox games are using non-abstract currencies wrong (but the stability rework gives me hope that you are getting there)!
Thank you for reading!
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the whole "abstract currencies working better in EU4" part...
Part of the reason I quit EU4 and switched to CK2 was that it just felt way, way, way too abstract for my taste. (And that's a part of why I have no intention to buy Imperator anytime soon, and it's also part of why I quit Stellaris)
But then, different preferences and all of that...
Johan said better in eu4 than in imperator, didnt say better in general or compare to ck2.
... so you consider the currency mechabics of imprrstoe 1.2 Cicero still looking too abstract for your taste, or are you strictly speaking about 1.1?
I don't think Monarch Points was ever the issue, it was the fact they were copy-and-pasted over onto Imperator Rome without any significant additions to temper it for a new Paradox title.
I actually feel you wouldn't have an issue with keeping the Mana if you made it so 1/3rd was from Ruler/Consort, 2/3rd from supporters, and 3/3rd from loyal Pop's. So you had a more dynamic Mana system that actually stimulated immersion and simulation indirectly at least, knowing players had to satisfy their powerbase aligned with their government, and their Pop's inhabiting their empire. Then you provide more game mechanics to liven it up and indirectly influence their population.
I felt there was an idea gap, or better said communicative gap between motivated Paradox fans and Paradox employees, meaning both sides couldn't properly convey and still have a hard time doing so, what they really wanted. I frankly don't see what the actual issue is with Monarch Points.
People just wanted more simulation in Imperator Rome, such as Crusader Kings, and felt the game was to abstract and mundane, not seeing enough from the Characters inhabiting it. Which I feel Cicero is providing more of, yet you didn't tailor Monarch Points enough for I:R.
People saw Pop's and wanted Victoria 2, such as Pop's connected to Manpower, except not permanently dying that would've been a step-up...
People saw Character's and wanted Crusader King's 2, such as numerous character interactions, options, autonomy present within their kingdoms and republics doing their own thing, ectera.
People saw Monarch Points exactly the same as they were in Europa Universalis IV and scratched their heads, upset they were the exact same unmodified mechanic present in another series, and felt the entire game didn't satisfy them. Justifiably somewhat, other reasons.
I actually feel you wouldn't have an issue with keeping the Mana if you made it so 1/3rd was from Ruler/Consort, 2/3rd from supporters, and 3/3rd from loyal Pop's. So you had a more dynamic Mana system that actually stimulated immersion and simulation indirectly at least, knowing players had to satisfy their powerbase aligned with their government, and their Pop's inhabiting their empire. Then you provide more game mechanics to liven it up and indirectly influence their population.
I felt there was an idea gap, or better said communicative gap between motivated Paradox fans and Paradox employees, meaning both sides couldn't properly convey and still have a hard time doing so, what they really wanted. I frankly don't see what the actual issue is with Monarch Points.
People just wanted more simulation in Imperator Rome, such as Crusader Kings, and felt the game was to abstract and mundane, not seeing enough from the Characters inhabiting it. Which I feel Cicero is providing more of, yet you didn't tailor Monarch Points enough for I:R.
People saw Pop's and wanted Victoria 2, such as Pop's connected to Manpower, except not permanently dying that would've been a step-up...
People saw Character's and wanted Crusader King's 2, such as numerous character interactions, options, autonomy present within their kingdoms and republics doing their own thing, ectera.
People saw Monarch Points exactly the same as they were in Europa Universalis IV and scratched their heads, upset they were the exact same unmodified mechanic present in another series, and felt the entire game didn't satisfy them. Justifiably somewhat, other reasons.
Last edited: