An issue with EU4 is that it is too easy to snowball

[MachopPower69]

One thing that ticks me off about the game is that you can easily snowball your nation with the meta idea groups or with gov capacity not mattering and it really annoys me. I mean, sure it isn't meant to be realistic, but if you have a huge realm with half of Eastern Europe, the unrest should be higher because of the cultures and religions, but that can easily be dealt with with huge armies and fast conversion speeds with Religious ideas.

Controversially speaking, unrest should be higher in non-culture non-religion provinces and conversion speeds should be lowered. Reformation centres should also be less impactful but still strong.

This isn't a suggestion post, this is a meta discussion about how boring it can be when it is easy to snowball your way to conquering the world as a 3pm in 1444.

 

[grommile]

Controversially speaking, unrest should be higher in non-culture non-religion provinces and conversion speeds should be lowered.

This is controversial chiefly because it eviscerates Religious Ideas and moves Humanist (to the extent it isn't already) from "usually meta" to "no thought required".

 

[Blust]

I don't understand how "converting a province to your religion should take longer" prevent snowballing or world conquest.

 

[grommile]

I don't understand how "converting a province to your religion should take longer" prevent snowballing or world conquest.

It should act as a brake on those activities, but in reality it wouldn't, simply because anyone who wants to blob that hard is probably going to take Humanist Ideas (and/or try to tag-switch to the Mughals for even greater comfort) anyway.

 

[MatthewP]

I don't understand how "converting a province to your religion should take longer" prevent snowballing or world conquest.

I mean sure, if that’s the only change you take humanist. But that wasn’t the r only change suggested, the op also wants to increase unrest in wrong culture wrong religion provinces. Presumably enough that, say, going to 80% OE (just throwing out a number) would cause massive revolts even with humanism. If it’s not this extreme, agreed it won’t do much.

so, why shouldn’t eu4 work this way? I would say simply because it isn’t fun to interact with. If I can’t convert quickly, and I can’t prevent revolts without converting, the game is either waiting or suffering through endless rebels. It would surely make WC harder, but not in an engaging way.

 

[grommile]

Presumably enough that, say, going to 80% OE (just throwing out a number) would cause massive revolts even with humanism.

If it causes massive revolts "even with humanism" then either it is flatly unmanageable without it, which puts you in "no thought required", or you achieved this by nerfing humanism so you're still in "no thought required" territory but in the opposite direction.

There are no good, quick fixes to be had here.

 

[Zaddy]

Unrest should not be higher, for two main reasons:

1) Fighting rebels isn't very fun

2) Increasing unrest just increases the time you spend all peace waiting for rebels to fire and manpower and money to tick up. Ie, the game at it's worst.

If anything, Religious needs a pretty severe buff. Compared to Humanist it's basically a joke. For some bizzare reason the devs disagree and recently have been nerfing Deus Vult, the only possible reason you would ever want to take Religious.

 

[MatthewP]

If it causes massive revolts "even with humanism" then either it is flatly unmanageable without it, which puts you in "no thought required", or you achieved this by nerfing humanism so you're still in "no thought required" territory but in the opposite direction.

I could argue with this, but I think there’s no point.

There are no good, quick fixes to be had here.

Because I agree with this.

 

[Reman]

Name a single strategy game where expansion + conquest is the primary gameplay loop as it is in EU4, that has also implemented mechanics that make expansion beyond a certain point extremely difficult or outright impossible as the OP desires, and where said mechanics are fun and engaging rather than merely being arbitrary penalties meant to enforce a certain outcome.

 

[MatthewP]

Name a single strategy game where expansion + conquest is the primary gameplay loop as it is in EU4, that has also implemented mechanics that make expansion beyond a certain point extremely difficult or outright impossible as the OP desires, and where said mechanics are fun and engaging rather than merely being arbitrary penalties meant to enforce a certain outcome.

I mean to an extent I agree, but you’ve sort of defined the problem out of existence. Any game that succeeded in creating an interesting mechanic like this would no longer have expansion as the primary gameplay loop.

 

[Blindbohemian]

I think the “increase unrest, slow down conversion” suggestions are aiming at the right thing—EUIV lacks the key constraint of internal tension that acted on early modern states—but because they’re designed to work within the existing framework of EUIV they’re going about it the wrong way. This is a fundamental issue with EUIV. You can’t fix a broken system by tinkering within it. We need more revolutionary ideas.

So I agree: snowballing is a thing in EUIV and (beyond a certain point) that’s an issue. It’s an AI as well as a player issue: the AI has no appreciation for natural borders, because there is no internal tension or administrative cost in EUIV so there is no opportunity cost to acquiring territory: more clay is always better. So the French AI is never happy driving its border to the Pyrenees, it’s always looking to snap up bits of Navarre, Galicia and Catalonia… because the additional pressure of administering and managing foreign populations and elites is not built into the game. Ditto Spain’s AI, or France’s desire to expand into southern England. Similarly there is essentially no reason to ever just have vassal and client states; they exist as (bizarre, ahistorical) free coring machines or for RP… and yet vassal and client states were a persistent feature throughout the period. These things don’t make sense as things the countries in question would want, but they do make sense within the parameters of the game. So I think rather than twiddling dials the basic parameters of the game need looking at.

Or, as others have observed up-thread, we just need to accept that EUIV is quite a dull game about painting maps in different colours and to hell with attempts at modelling anything interesting. I’m sure it’s clear what I’d prefer, but I can’t speak for the community as a whole.

 

[MatthewP]

I think the “increase unrest, slow down conversion” suggestions are aiming at the right thing—EUIV lacks the key constraint of internal tension that acted on early modern states—but because they’re designed to work within the existing framework of EUIV they’re going about it the wrong way. This is a fundamental issue with EUIV. You can’t fix a broken system by tinkering within it. We need more revolutionary ideas.

So I agree: snowballing is a thing in EUIV and (beyond a certain point) that’s an issue. It’s an AI as well as a player issue: the AI has no appreciation for natural borders, because there is no internal tension or administrative cost in EUIV so there is no opportunity cost to acquiring territory: more clay is always better. So the French AI is never happy driving its border to the Pyrenees, it’s always looking to snap up bits of Navarre, Galicia and Catalonia… because the additional pressure of administering and managing foreign populations and elites is not built into the game. Ditto Spain’s AI, or France’s desire to expand into southern England. Similarly there is essentially no reason to ever just have vassal and client states; they exist as (bizarre, ahistorical) free coring machines or for RP… and yet vassal and client states were a persistent feature throughout the period. These things don’t make sense as things the countries in question would want, but they do make sense within the parameters of the game. So I think rather than twiddling dials the basic parameters of the game need looking at.

Or, as others have observed up-thread, we just need to accept that EUIV is quite a dull game about painting maps in different colours and to hell with attempts at modelling anything interesting. I’m sure it’s clear what I’d prefer, but I can’t speak for the community as a whole.

I actually think all of what you describe as not being implemented is implemented. There are mechanics that explicitly simulate every item.

But I still think you have a point. The way these dynamics are implemented is designed to give the players clear tools they can use to fix, lessen or work around them. Exactly how to optimally use these tools is an extremely complex and deep problem. But one doesn’t have to get there to conquer the world, an experienced player who has been exposed to the meta uncovered by experts can do it.

Where I agree is, just making the existing mechanics harsher isn’t going to work. This is because they’re designed to be fun to overcome, not fun to constantly struggle with. I think a very different game might make it fun to build an empire and constantly struggle with holding it together (ck2 was sort of ok at this). But it doesn’t work with most of the extensive anti-blobbing mechanics EU4 has; it would just make the game unpleasant to hard cap GC, add unlimited rebels over 2000 dev, or similar harsh versions of using existing systems.

 

[Blindbohemian]

I mean to an extent I agree, but you’ve sort of defined the problem out of existence. Any game that succeeded in creating an interesting mechanic like this would no longer have expansion as the primary gameplay loop.

Yes, it's a circular argument. Currently the extent of EUIV's gameplay is "conquer, expand, prepare, conquer, expand", and people are complaining about that. Anyone who then gallops in on a white horse and goes "well actually EUIV's gameplay is "conquer expand prepare conquer expand" is missing the point.

You can’t fix a broken system by tinkering within it. We need more revolutionary ideas.

To speak further to this, for anyone interested—

I think a key example is stability. Currently stability is a very simple feature in EUIV: your country sits somewhere on a scale from extremely unstable to extremely stable, it's buffeted occasionally (and quite dramatically—a loss of one stability corresponds to a 15% change) by actions you make or by random chance, and it's controlled by the instantaneous expenditure of resources.

This makes sense in a game about painting maps, because painting maps is the point of the game and managing internal stability is just a distraction—a constraint with some flavour. It does not make sense in a game about managing an early modern state, which is what EUIV (in the past at least) purports to be. As an example of something which needs be revolutionised in order to change the foundations of the game enough to make snowballing not an issue anymore, I think the stability feature needs to be completely stripped out and reimagined.

Rather than a simple tiered system that just needs resource pumped in every now and then, stability should be an emergent feature of your gameplay. You don't spend 100 MIL points (plus or minus modifiers) to get +1 "military situation" in EUIV; your military situation emerges from how you play the game. Why should ADM points and stability be any different?

What if, instead of stability, you just had unrest (or something a bit more complex and satisfying) in your provinces, and you just kept tabs on how your estates were going? That would be annoying—we'd be replacing a clear and simple "stability" number with the need to actually pay attention to what's going on, just like you have to pay attention to your armies, but it'd make stability a bit more meaningful.

More complex still, what if instead of just having three estates with two numbers each (influence and loyalty) you instead had, say, one nobility estate per culture group in your realm? "Iberian nobility", "French nobility", "Italian nobility"? And they all had influence and loyalty and wealth and manpower stats? So suddenly your Spanish Empire has got a bunch of very very wealthy and not terribly loyal Dutch nobles in the Low Countries and a lot of loyal but not as wealthy Spanish nobles in Iberia? How do you balance their concerns? And what if all of them could post agendas at any given time, so that their interests begin to compete for your limited resources? Say, the Dutch nobles want 30,000 troops stationed in the Low Countries area and the Iberians want 60,000 stationed in Iberia but you only have 60,000 troops? Doesn't "stability" start to become something a bit more nuanced and interesting even then? Wouldn't you think twice before integrating Naples and adding a bunch of Italian nobles with their own demands to the pot?

What if it got more complicated still? What if estates could have relations with other powers—so everyone with culture group provinces shares those culture-group nobles? And if Friesland and Austria, having much more resource to devote to the Dutch nobility have a much better relationship, so they start getting lots more money and/or manpower from the Dutch provinces? And then along comes the Reformation and those Dutch nobles are demanding religious freedom while your Iberians are demanding that you enforce unity? And what if those estate wealth and manpower values were where rebel forces came from, and estates who had good relations with foreign powers could rebel to take their side in a war—or even grant a CB to those foreign powers? You might start paying quite close attention to keeping your Dutch provinces happy.

What if there were interests and demands and access to resources and strategic considerations in other parts of the game connected to how you manage "stability", not just bonus monarch points?

We could add another layer on top of that: imagine if your nobility estates provided levies to the army, and feudal states relied on those levies (and mercenaries) to fight wars. But your patchwork Ottoman realm is made up of Greek and Turkish and Arab and Slavic nobles, and mercenaries are really expensive, what do you do? Start snaffling Christian kids and buying slave soldiers from Circassia?

There is SO MUCH room for depth in EUIV.

 

[MatthewP]

Yes, it's a circular argument. Currently the extent of EUIV's gameplay is "conquer, expand, prepare, conquer, expand", and people are complaining about that. Anyone who then gallops in on a white horse and goes "well actually EUIV's gameplay is "conquer expand prepare conquer expand" is missing the point.

To speak further to this, for anyone interested—

I think a key example is stability. Currently stability is a very simple feature in EUIV: your country sits somewhere on a scale from extremely unstable to extremely stable, it's buffeted occasionally (and quite dramatically—a loss of one stability corresponds to a 15% change) by actions you make or by random chance, and it's controlled by the instantaneous expenditure of resources.

This makes sense in a game about painting maps, because painting maps is the point of the game and managing internal stability is just a distraction—a constraint with some flavour. It does not make sense in a game about managing an early modern state, which is what EUIV (in the past at least) purports to be. As an example of something which needs be revolutionised in order to change the foundations of the game enough to make snowballing not an issue anymore, I think the stability feature needs to be completely stripped out and reimagined.

Rather than a simple tiered system that just needs resource pumped in every now and then, stability should be an emergent feature of your gameplay. You don't spend 100 MIL points (plus or minus modifiers) to get +1 "military situation" in EUIV; your military situation emerges from how you play the game. Why should ADM points and stability be any different?

What if, instead of stability, you just had unrest (or something a bit more complex and satisfying) in your provinces, and you just kept tabs on how your estates were going? That would be annoying—we'd be replacing a clear and simple "stability" number with the need to actually pay attention to what's going on, just like you have to pay attention to your armies, but it'd make stability a bit more meaningful.

More complex still, what if instead of just having three estates with two numbers each (influence and loyalty) you instead had, say, one nobility estate per culture group in your realm? "Iberian nobility", "French nobility", "Italian nobility"? And they all had influence and loyalty and wealth and manpower stats? So suddenly your Spanish Empire has got a bunch of very very wealthy and not terribly loyal Dutch nobles in the Low Countries and a lot of loyal but not as wealthy Spanish nobles in Iberia? How do you balance their concerns? And what if all of them could post agendas at any given time, so that their interests begin to compete for your limited resources? Say, the Dutch nobles want 30,000 troops stationed in the Low Countries area and the Iberians want 60,000 stationed in Iberia but you only have 60,000 troops? Doesn't "stability" start to become something a bit more nuanced and interesting even then? Wouldn't you think twice before integrating Naples and adding a bunch of Italian nobles with their own demands to the pot?

What if it got more complicated still? What if estates could have relations with other powers—so everyone with culture group provinces shares those culture-group nobles? And if Friesland and Austria, having much more resource to devote to the Dutch nobility have a much better relationship, so they start getting lots more money and/or manpower from the Dutch provinces? And then along comes the Reformation and those Dutch nobles are demanding religious freedom while your Iberians are demanding that you enforce unity? And what if those estate wealth and manpower values were where rebel forces came from, and estates who had good relations with foreign powers could rebel to take their side in a war—or even grant a CB to those foreign powers? You might start paying quite close attention to keeping your Dutch provinces happy.

What if there were interests and demands and access to resources and strategic considerations in other parts of the game connected to how you manage "stability", not just bonus monarch points?

We could add another layer on top of that: imagine if your nobility estates provided levies to the army, and feudal states relied on those levies (and mercenaries) to fight wars. But your patchwork Ottoman realm is made up of Greek and Turkish and Arab and Slavic nobles, and mercenaries are really expensive, what do you do? Start snaffling Christian kids and buying slave soldiers from Circassia?

I think this is awesome. But

There is SO MUCH room for depth in EUIV.

I don’t think this works as an extension of EU4. If the core gameplay loop is at all centered around what it is now, diplomacy, war, and optimizing your nation via different modifiers, having dozens of different interests groups to deal with is just going to feel annoying and tedious. You’ll never get anything done, and keeping the Dutch happy will just be an obstacle in the way of what you really want to be doing.

I think to make the vision work many elements that currently make EU4 a great game need to be largely stripped out or made more abstract and replaced with this new vision. This is not intended to shut down the idea, which I think is a very cool basis for a game. But I understand why the devs are hesitant to gut their incredibly successful formula, even if part of me wishes they would.

 

[grommile]

EU4 sits at, or at least nearish, a local optimum in design space.

There are other, better, optima that it could sit at-or-near, but they're a long way away, with vast expanses of pessimum in between.

 

[MatthewP]

EU4 sits at, or at least nearish, a local optimum in design space.

There are other, better, optima that it could sit at-or-near, but they're a long way away, with vast expanses of pessimum in between.

Thank you. I’ve tried to put this idea across in half a dozen threads and inside my own head without ever getting anywhere close to such a clear and succinct statement of it.

 

[deathbypie]

Almost any game becomes "too easy" once you play it enough, and people who say this about EU4 tend to have played it a lot. You can't just erase the knowledge you've gained from playing, so of course the game seems easier over time.

While I definitely agree improvements could be made in that respect, the majority that I see are just ways to make things slower, not really more difficult. Things like increased conversion speeds just means more waiting, or no change if you ignore conversion. It doesn't actually make dealing with the ai any more difficult.

 

[Zaddy]

EU4 sits at, or at least nearish, a local optimum in design space.

There are other, better, optima that it could sit at-or-near, but they're a long way away, with vast expanses of pessimum in between.

Exactly.

Regardless of how you feel about this game, it has made a pretty clear design decision to be a map painting game. That's not to say that they couldn't do something different in a sequel, but it DOES say that attempting to shoe-horn in excessive anti-expansion mechanics that fundamentally conflict with the rest of the game would be beyond silly.

These threads always essentially boil down to "I wish EU4 was a radically different game". Which is fair enough. But the game is 8 years old. It isn't changing. Stuffing in more and more severe anti-blobbing mechanics serves no purpose except to extend the amount of time the player is making no meaningful strategic decisions.

 

[Jihem]

Exactly.

Regardless of how you feel about this game, it has made a pretty clear design decision to be a map painting game. That's not to say that they couldn't do something different in a sequel, but it DOES say that attempting to shoe-horn in excessive anti-expansion mechanics that fundamentally conflict with the rest of the game would be beyond silly.

These threads always essentially boil down to "I wish EU4 was a radically different game". Which is fair enough. But the game is 8 years old. It isn't changing. Stuffing in more and more severe anti-blobbing mechanics serves no purpose except to extend the amount of time the player is making no meaningful strategic decisions.

These mechanisms lack both variety and complexity. Blindbohemian's suggestion is excellent, since it also brings an additional depth of diplomacy. Rather than Rebel spam, we should have more frequent and varied disasters threatening the stability of our empire. And others based on legitimacy, a rather insignificant parameter in EU IV. Clearly the game lacks tough pretenders to the throne, armed factions (for the Republics), local lords suddenly craving power and decreeing their independence, destabilization by our hostile neighbors, disloyal estates crippling our economy, etc.

 

[grommile]

Blindbohemian's suggestion is excellent,

It's an excellent suggestion for a radically different game.

Getting there from EU4 is enough work to make it quite a poor suggestion for EU4 at this point in EU4's life cycle.