An honest discussion about RNG

[Travis_Bickle]

I've been watching Aldrahill's YouTube play through as France.

I've been trying my best to replicate it. Basically before 1500's he got the BI, vassalised Brittany, owned Provence, ate into Aragon and got PU's over Milan and Naples.

In my saves, and I've tried an unearthly amount of times, a good combination (i.e at least 4/7 of those listed) of the following things happen:

1) Burgundy starts as a rival, making a RM impossible. If they do not start as a rival, most of the time they don't rival Austria meaning Austria largely gets the succession. Alternatively, the BI just doesn't fire. Securing the BI is my absolutely number 1 priority. In my last attempt, my start was perfect, the BI fired in the first 10 years, but Austria got the succession (I didn't even get a CB). Or...I do get the BI but Burgundy have been wrecked by Austria when they war for Lorraine or Liege and it doesn't mean that much.

2) Scotland don't join the war vs England because they chose to rival Denmark, making it a lot harder. Additionally, England end up with many allies, either Irish minors driving down warscore or in some cases, Castile/Austria, again making a good start ending the 100 years war impossible. On top of that, if Castile does not rival England, England will land 30k in Castile and make the war very hard.

3) Brittany gets allied by Aragon or Castile, making securing Brittany (and thus getting a CB on the whole of England) significantly harder.

4) Aragon keeps Naples.

5) Provence excommunication doesn't happen at a good time and they get eaten by the Pope or Brittany or Burgundy in the process.

6) The Milanese succession CB hits me as Milan are under the Emperor and expires randomly within 5 years. When I did finally get to war them without the Emperor's protection and secured the PU, my ruler died 1 month later...yeah.

7) Castile start as rivals and friendly to Aragon.

If any of the above are down to my own strategic faults, then fine, but I think having a good start is 100% key in this game and there seems to be so many RNG factors it just gets stressful. I must have genuinely restarted 100x to get the pieces to fall into place but there's always something.

If anyone has any comments or suggestions, I'd appreciate it.

On the other hand, I sometimes wish the starting rivals were more static because, let's say in my last save, if I got that BI in the 1460s and owned the entirety of the low lands it would be a huge difference to my start where I didn't get the BI, Scotland didn't join vs England, I couldn't PU Milan, Castile allied Brittany...etc. It means the success of your save is largely dependent on luck rather than skill.

 

[MK1980]

unless you aim for some achievement that depends on event outcomes you don't really need the favor of the RNG.

i mean just by picking france you're already pretty much guaranteed to be a powerhouse and strong enough to take whatever you want unless you screw up badly or get very unlucky. maybe not by 1500, but the game ends in 1821, so there's plenty of time to achieve your goals.

if this is about a specific achievment then yeah, it may seem unfair and it can certainly be pretty annoying and frustrating when you have to rely on RNG luck. but achievements are something that you earn through skill or persistence, not something that you should just get handed with no effort.

 

[Runite Drill]

if this is about a specific achievment then yeah, it may seem unfair and it can certainly be pretty annoying and frustrating when you have to rely on RNG luck. but achievements are something that you earn through skill or persistence, not something that you should just get handed with no effort.

I missed on The Third Way by one province because of an event. That was 5 years ago and I'm still recovering from the disappointment.

As for the OP, there isn't much to say other than luck is luck. If you want to feel 'lucky' all the time play a min-max campaign, otherwise just ride along wherever it takes you. The art in EU4 is adapting to the changing situation around you. I would get bored pretty quickly if every game was the same.

Besides, as @MK1980 pointed out, you don't really need much luck to achieve most things in this game (especially as a leading power like France).

 

[Travis_Bickle]

unless you aim for some achievement that depends on event outcomes you don't really need the favor of the RNG.

i mean just by picking france you're already pretty much guaranteed to be a powerhouse and strong enough to take whatever you want unless you screw up badly or get very unlucky. maybe not by 1500, but the game ends in 1821, so there's plenty of time to achieve your goals.

if this is about a specific achievment then yeah, it may seem unfair and it can certainly be pretty annoying and frustrating when you have to rely on RNG luck. but achievements are something that you earn through skill or persistence, not something that you should just get handed with no effort.

I hear this quite often, "You're France, you can do what you want unless you mess up"

It's really not that simple. As France, you don't have power in a particularly good trade node, you have the HRE breathing down your neck and potentially a very powerful Spain too if colonisation goes well. Securing your homeland before 1500 means that yes, you are in a very strong position, but unless you do that the game can be tricky.

I'm not talking about annexing large quantities of area but I think securing Brittany and the BI early (especially if you get the low lands for trade) is key to actually being a dominant power.

 

[st360]

Having random rivals is almost a bit offensive to me.

On the one hand, its annoying that a lot of starts are game over or -100 years of game time if the rivalries RNG wrong. On the other hand, random rivalries are supposed to make the world more dynamic, but in the end its always the same 3-4 nations that dominate the map.

You will NEVER see Novgorod eat Muscovy or Scotland eat England. So the random rivalries are just there to screw with the player.

 

[raphi1985]

I guess there are two extremes:

Either you can start a campaign and just let it runs its course no matter how good or bad RNG is. Outcomes may vary a lot independent of the players decisionmaking. Or you can play the first couple of decades again and again until RNG really boosts your start; for example with a PU of a big country or events like the Burgundian inheritance going in your favour. I have done both, but ultimately just playing and seeing where each camapings leads me, is more fun for me.

I feel like comparing your campaigns to the campaigns of others, who post here or have videos on youtube, makes it harder to be content with your outcomes. I was playing strategy games pre internet or at least pre youtube/forums etc, had all this gaming content. Back then you just had a couple of friends or family to compare with. You basically did not really know, if you were doing good or bad in the broader context. It was more relaxed, I guess.

This effect of comparing on the internet is even more problematic, because most people will not show or talk a lot about the campaigns they did alright or even failed, but usually the ones that went really well. That can easyly give a wrong impression of what to expect. In my opinion this even seems to influence some of the strategy guides on the EUIV-wiki, where a lot of positive RNG elements for the player just seem to be considered a given.

 

[Travis_Bickle]

Having random rivals is almost a bit offensive to me.

On the one hand, its annoying that a lot of starts are game over or -100 years of game time if the rivalries RNG wrong. On the other hand, random rivalries are supposed to make the world more dynamic, but in the end its always the same 3-4 nations that dominate the map.

You will NEVER see Novgorod eat Muscovy or Scotland eat England. So the random rivalries are just there to screw with the player.

This is basically my point. The way rivalries start out can really mess up or make your game. I get it's supposed to be dynamic, but I feel it doesn't have a huge impact on the rest of the world as much as it does on you.

I wish there was basically a 80-90% static initial set of rivalries that then change as the game goes on.

I guess there are two extremes:

Either you can start a campaign and just let it runs its course no matter how good or bad RNG is. Outcomes may vary a lot independent of the players decisionmaking. Or you can play the first couple of decades again and again until RNG really boosts your start; for example with a PU of a big country or events like the Burgundian inheritance going in your favour. I have done both, but ultimately just playing and seeing where each camapings leads me, is more fun for me.

I feel like comparing your campaigns to the campaigns of others, who post here or have videos on youtube, makes it harder to be content with your outcomes. I was playing strategy games pre internet or at least pre youtube/forums etc, had all this gaming content. Back then you just had a couple of friends or family to compare with. You basically did not really know, if you were doing good or bad in the broader context. It was more relaxed, I guess.

This effect of comparing on the internet is even more problematic, because most people will not show or talk a lot about the campaigns they did alright or even failed, but usually the ones that went really well. That can easyly give a wrong impression of what to expect. In my opinion this even seems to influence some of the strategy guides on the EUIV-wiki, where a lot of positive RNG elements for the player just seem to be considered a given.

Well, I was basically thinking this.

I did my first ever iron man play through as France. I did OK, reunited my home region without the BI, ate 90% of Iberia, colonised far and wide, and felt really proud at the end.

Then I saw others playing doing far better, I got disappointed. Started again, did a lot better, but wasn't as dominant as them so now I am always comparing my save to theirs.

Essentially you think, if they can get the BI and multiple PU's why can't I? I'm starting to just say, "Set your own goals and be happy with it". For me that IS owning all of modern French borders within a reasonable timeframe and PUing Castile. But for that I need the BI and a PU over Milan and there still seems to be a lot of RNG involved in that.

 

[Beagá]

I´ve seen Scotland eat England. So...

 

[Howl]

You can conquer the world as pretty much any nation on the planet. Most require good strategy more than luck. As France?
All the things you list are "nice to have" but you can manage just as well without being given a lot of freebies.

If you then compare yourself to other games you will be a lot slower but the end result should be the same. A monstrous France that cannot be opposed by anyone.

 

[Canute VII]

If anyone has any comments or suggestions, I'd appreciate it.

Relax.

 

[ImAdrian]

RNG is one of the things that makes the game enjoyable even after playing it for hundreds of hours (in my opinion).
Rather than trying to force a certain scenario that you have in your mind, learn to adapt to your specific situation.

 

[Hardy Seaman]

Trying for a perfect or optimal run in an Ironman game is extremely frustrating and mostly futile.
I have gone down that path myself thinking it would be so rewarding if I could get that perfect start. The normal result is wasting a lot of time reloading the game and getting aggravated with RNG.
I highly recommended using the console if you want all things to break your way.

 

[petertju]

I've been watching Aldrahill's YouTube play through as France.

I've been trying my best to replicate it. Basically before 1500's he got the BI, vassalised Brittany, owned Provence, ate into Aragon and got PU's over Milan and Naples.

In my saves, and I've tried an unearthly amount of times, a good combination (i.e at least 4/7 of those listed) of the following things happen:

1) Burgundy starts as a rival, making a RM impossible. If they do not start as a rival, most of the time they don't rival Austria meaning Austria largely gets the succession. Alternatively, the BI just doesn't fire. Securing the BI is my absolutely number 1 priority. In my last attempt, my start was perfect, the BI fired in the first 10 years, but Austria got the succession (I didn't even get a CB). Or...I do get the BI but Burgundy have been wrecked by Austria when they war for Lorraine or Liege and it doesn't mean that much.

2) Scotland don't join the war vs England because they chose to rival Denmark, making it a lot harder. Additionally, England end up with many allies, either Irish minors driving down warscore or in some cases, Castile/Austria, again making a good start ending the 100 years war impossible. On top of that, if Castile does not rival England, England will land 30k in Castile and make the war very hard.

3) Brittany gets allied by Aragon or Castile, making securing Brittany (and thus getting a CB on the whole of England) significantly harder.

4) Aragon keeps Naples.

5) Provence excommunication doesn't happen at a good time and they get eaten by the Pope or Brittany or Burgundy in the process.

6) The Milanese succession CB hits me as Milan are under the Emperor and expires randomly within 5 years. When I did finally get to war them without the Emperor's protection and secured the PU, my ruler died 1 month later...yeah.

7) Castile start as rivals and friendly to Aragon.

If any of the above are down to my own strategic faults, then fine, but I think having a good start is 100% key in this game and there seems to be so many RNG factors it just gets stressful. I must have genuinely restarted 100x to get the pieces to fall into place but there's always something.

If anyone has any comments or suggestions, I'd appreciate it.

On the other hand, I sometimes wish the starting rivals were more static because, let's say in my last save, if I got that BI in the 1460s and owned the entirety of the low lands it would be a huge difference to my start where I didn't get the BI, Scotland didn't join vs England, I couldn't PU Milan, Castile allied Brittany...etc. It means the success of your save is largely dependent on luck rather than skill.

You are really looking at eliminating all RNG from the game and having no uncertainty. But let's go through your points

1) BI is one of the only things that it worth considering to restart for, its a very nice boost.

2) Not a problem, as France, you should be able to defeat England without Scotland. Your armies are strong enough to beat them. If it is about the naval side, I can go further in depth on this.

3) Not a problem, you should be able to quickly peace out Aragon or Castille.

4) and 6) both are about PU luck, on small nations not signifiant enough to restart for.

5) just attack at a bad time, the only land of Provence that you should conquer quickly is the HRE land, Brittany area is always yours, so is Papal/Savoy area.

7) this will take one war to break alliance, which should be doable if you time it right(when they are in Africa).

Then I saw others playing doing far better, I got disappointed. Started again, did a lot better, but wasn't as dominant as them so now I am always comparing my save to theirs.

I'm sorry you look at it this way, this mindset must be difficult to play this game with. Just some thoughts: you shouldn't measure your ability of playing this game not just by how big you become, there are too many RNG/unknown factors that make this impossible. You should measure your ability by the things you do in the game. winning a war France vs. Brittany is easy, try France vs. Brittany, Castille, Aragon. Or start that war against Provence, even if it is at a bad time. You might lose, but you will improve in the process.
This is just playing the military game, but the same counts for the diplomatic game. If rivals don't give you an easy way to expand to, look for a different path to attack them. Find a way to break through! Declare that no-cb war! Find that exact moment on which you should attack.
There are players, like Florryworry or Aldrahill, who play this game thousands upon thousands of hours, or it is even their job. I'm gonna be blunt and say, if you don't put in this time, you will never become as good as them. Of course, if you do put in those hours, chance is high you will be able to do this. It's just a choice how you decide to spend your time.

 

[Froonk]

Rivalry system could be much better.

 

[Travis_Bickle]

You are really looking at eliminating all RNG from the game and having no uncertainty. But let's go through your points

1) BI is one of the only things that it worth considering to restart for, its a very nice boost.

2) Not a problem, as France, you should be able to defeat England without Scotland. Your armies are strong enough to beat them. If it is about the naval side, I can go further in depth on this.

3) Not a problem, you should be able to quickly peace out Aragon or Castille.

4) and 6) both are about PU luck, on small nations not signifiant enough to restart for.

5) just attack at a bad time, the only land of Provence that you should conquer quickly is the HRE land, Brittany area is always yours, so is Papal/Savoy area.

7) this will take one war to break alliance, which should be doable if you time it right(when they are in Africa).

I'm sorry you look at it this way, this mindset must be difficult to play this game with. Just some thoughts: you shouldn't measure your ability of playing this game not just by how big you become, there are too many RNG/unknown factors that make this impossible. You should measure your ability by the things you do in the game. winning a war France vs. Brittany is easy, try France vs. Brittany, Castille, Aragon. Or start that war against Provence, even if it is at a bad time. You might lose, but you will improve in the process.
This is just playing the military game, but the same counts for the diplomatic game. If rivals don't give you an easy way to expand to, look for a different path to attack them. Find a way to break through! Declare that no-cb war! Find that exact moment on which you should attack.
There are players, like Florryworry or Aldrahill, who play this game thousands upon thousands of hours, or it is even their job. I'm gonna be blunt and say, if you don't put in this time, you will never become as good as them. Of course, if you do put in those hours, chance is high you will be able to do this. It's just a choice how you decide to spend your time.

I found this a very helpful post.

Thank you. I think I'll try again and just accept things instead of trying to be perfect. I'm not an EU4 YouTuber and shouldn't compare myself.

Thanks for your help.

 

[damnt512]

Forget about trying to have a perfect game. The unpredictability of some aspect of the game is what makes the game have a high replayability because every playthrough could be different. More so because you seem to be new and are trying to learn the game. Perfect game is not something you should strive for, unless you have something very specific that you want to achieve, like becoming the holy roman emperor as france.

 

[Less2]

Personally I'm only happy with my start if I get a free dynasty spread on Poland/Bohemia/Hungary before anything else happens in the first few months of the game + get a free instant PU over France. Anything less and its a trash start.

 

[Evie HJ]

If rivals were set historically at game start instead of random, Burgundy (which fought multiple wars with France and masterminded at least one noble revolt in France through the middle of the 15th century) would have France as a default historical rival, and would be less likely to have Austria as one.

Likewise, if events were set to historical, the Burgundian Inheritance would still largely go to Austria or Spapin, except for the French territories of the Duchy (a small minority of them).

You may not like how the RNG works or does not work in your favor, but on both of those points, without the RNG you wouldn't have a chance at getting the result you want at all.

 

[lambda x.x]

Some of my thoughts:

It's true that Euro is way more RNG dependent than any other location due to curia/HRE/BI/PUs. In theory you can unpause and within a month or so inherit every eligible monarchy in the game and PU the rest.
Getting curia suddenly makes a bunch of aggressive plays possible.
And so on; that's why I tend to shy away from going for any record-level games in Europe.

That being said, there are "record-level speedruns," which would be like forming Roman Empire as France by say 1550, and "having a decent game," which what I'm going to guess is the gameplay you're referencing. I totally concede that if RNG isn't working in your favor, you probably can't form Rome by 1550, but for a "decent game," what you're not seeing when seeing gameplay footage is that experienced players tend to have a rough intuitive idea of all the ways RNG can go wrong and setup their country in ways to be able to work around them. So in said gameplay, the person probably worked around various bad RNGs and you just didn't notice it or think too much of it because it seemed like it didn't affect them.

Now I find it very difficult to concisely explain how to develop these sorts of intuitions of knowing what things can go wrong; I don't know of anyone who's come close to mastering this idea, and I can at least tell you that I certainly haven't mastered this. All I can say is keep playing, try to critically think what RNG screwed you over, and think whether you could have done anything to influence it or be prepared for it.

Most of the points you listed are things you can workaround with relative ease, and I think the other people covered them, so I won't duplicate that information.

 

[rob_mtl]

I personally hate endlessly restarting games to get ideal rivals at the start. It's not that I think it's cheating or an exploit (all's fair in love and war after all)--I just find it time-consuming and irritating, not something I want to spend 10 minutes in loading screens for, only to screw up my first big war and restart anyway .

I think the best solution to this would be to have an option to show rivals on the loading screen and reroll them prior to start for ironman games. Obviously this would make certain achievements easier, which could be counter-balanced by having achievements based around not rerolling rivals at the start.