Additional Power Projection from No possible rivals

[pecelot]

I think most of us have reached a point in our games when we became so powerful there are no eligible rivals for us to have. While this is understandable to some degree, the subsequent loss of Power Projection (PP) is not really.

Apart from various scaling boni of the modifier in question, there is one particularly useful: the +3 monthly monarch points (+1 in each category) after surpassing the 50 PP threshold. For many, myself included, it's one of the main reasons to keep this number high. However, once the aforementioned time comes and the ability to select a potential rival is lost, so is the PP. Oftentimes, what one ends up with is +25 points from being the #1 Great Power in the world and some points from the completion of age objectives — from my experience it ranges from +9 to +15 (some of them are specific and cannot really be fulfilled, like the Age of Absolutism ones: you usually can't be on the victorious side in the Religious League War if you're playing outside of Europe, and neither is it achievable to become the Emperor of China while playing in, say, Germany).

Now, to my suggestion: to keep such situations more realistic, there should be a PP bonus — ideally +15, maybe +20 — for being strong enough to not have any eligible rivals. It does make sense — it's quite straightforward that if a rival appeared, a player would pretty much humiliate them on many fronts, creating additional PP. Being so powerful that literally nobody in the whole world can be considered on par with you should also strongly speak for itself, as, indeed, it's a sign of your projection of power.

On the basis of many games played and seen being played by others, maintaining a constant 50 PP that my suggestion is about seems to fit the Europa Universalis spirit. With a country being on a rise, it's not the hardest challenge in the world to get even the maximum amount of PP — therefore, after reaching the heights of being the undisputed #1 on the planet, ±50 PP sounds about right: you get the crucial +3 monarch points per month and 50% of all scaling boni that PP can bring.

I'm sorry if such a proposal has already been brought up — if so, I'd appreciate a direct link to the thread. Any additional feedback or questions are appreciated

 

[Zohtun]

Then again at that point in power, do you REALLY need that extra boon? If anything there'd be reason to let you become stagnant and allow others to catch up and challenge you as rivals rather than letting you permanently maintain being beyond rivalry.

 

[pecelot]

I can't really imagine being in a spot where you would not need extra monarch power. I mentioned the +3 points per month as one of the main reasons to keep PP high, but even if such a bonus didn't exist, it would still make sense to accumulate more PP if, like I said before, you're so powerful that you cannot have any rivals — 50 PP would be appropriate to have then.

I wouldn't mind implementing some modifiers to perhaps level the nations up a bit if one is too far ahead, but, well, it's Power Projection we're talking about here, the whole point of it is literally projecting your power so that others are scared and respect you.

 

[purplephoton]

The whole point is that lack of competition (rivals) leads to stagnation, and I think this is represented quite well via lower PP

 

[pecelot]

The lack of rivals isn't equal to the lack of competition — at least in case of EU4. Also, PP isn't necessarily about the relative strength of others, it's about your power that is projected onto others.

 

[purplephoton]

PP isn't necessarily about the relative strength of others

Except that it is, at least partially. Some of the sources of PP are being a GP (relative dev to others, which you don't project at all), and embargoing/pirating rivals (being strong enough to do this to others, which is projecting but only a little bit).

 

[mechanical_Critter]

Except that it is, at least partially. Some of the sources of PP are being a GP (relative dev to others, which you don't project at all), and embargoing/pirating rivals (being strong enough to do this to others, which is projecting but only a little bit).

if PP expresses in part that you're military more successful than your rivals, then that supports the argument that no available rivals because too strong should give you pp?

 

[pecelot]

^ correct!

Being a Great Power isn't entirely in relation to others' strength, apart from the low places. Up high it's about you being there with your development. Furthermore, you gain the PP by dealing with your rivals — it doesn't matter whether they are the strongest or the weakest out of the bunch. Again: being strong enough that you out-compete anyone else is a sign of your power, not weakness or stagnation.

 

[BugJr]

If you are strong enough to have no possible rivals, it leaves you in the status of a sole superpower essentially. Sole superpowers throughout history were able to project power anywhere and everywhere(British Empire, USA). Thusly I think that if you are #1 great power, have at least twice as much dev points(your dev + half of your subjects land), and actually land close to at least half of the other great powers and land near the second rank great power(so Ming isn't considered a superpower since they just sit in their corner), then you get +25 PP so you can maintain +1 monarch point in each category due to your immense projection of your power.

 

[annulen]

Right now I'm playing for Madyas and fight a war with humongous Ming. It's 1479 and my country has 201 dev. Is it a superpower? Pfff no. But game says "No possible rivals" and may hard-earned PP is wearing out. Ming is considered either to big or too far to be my rival, or both. I think it's not right and needs to be fixed somehow.

 

[annulen]

I suggest that if country has no possible rivals but is not a great power, it's given +10 PP for being a "regional" great power.