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

[Blindbohemian]

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.

I would suggest it doesn’t work (easily) as an extension of EUIV as it is now.

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.

Yeah. A radically different game to EUIV: Origins, or whatever we’re up to now. I don’t think it would’ve been a massive departure from Cossacks—in fact I felt that was the promise of Cossacks and its purported effort to introduce “internal mechanics”. I even felt like it was the promise of the original EUIV dev diaries, coming from the much less popular and (perhaps relatedly) much less map-painty EUIII.

Which is a shame, in my view, but if the people want to paint maps I guess…

My central point, I guess, was that all the suggestions we see about balances of power and slowing down blobbing and so on are misplaced. Tuning the numbers won’t achieve anything, really, except making the game slow and frustrating; revolutionising the game systems is the only way to achieve that design goal and just isn’t going to happen in EUIV’s lifespan. So we just have to accept that EUIV is a game about painting maps and hope that Paradox have the courage to make the sequel a good game.

 

[Runite Drill]

unrest should be higher in non-culture non-religion provinces and conversion speeds should be lowered

It already is??
Unaccepted cultures: +2 unrest and -2% missionary strength.

Tolerance of heathens/heretics has a base value of -2, vs tolerance of true faith at +1.

 

[grommile]

It already is??

I think you're reading that as "it should be higher in those provinces than in accepted culture right religion provinces", when I believe what was actually intended was "it should be higher than it already is".

 

[Runite Drill]

I think you're reading that as "it should be higher in those provinces than in accepted culture right religion provinces", when I believe what was actually intended was "it should be higher than it already is".

Oh, yes, indeed. Don't mind me

I agree with that sentiment in general, but it's a fine line to balance; particularly with rebel whacking and disintegration of your country not being particularly fun parts of the game.

 

[Zaddy]

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.

I suppose I don't understand how your post differs from rebel spam.

Pretenders to the throne? Already in the game, as rebels.

Local lords decreeing Independence? Basically separatist rebels.

Destabilization by neighbors? Already in the game as espionage actions.

Disloyal states hurting your economy? Already in the game.

Now, maybe what you're saying is "These things are in the game, but they should be more severe." Is that it?

 

[Blindbohemian]

I suppose I don't understand how your post differs from rebel spam.

Pretenders to the throne? Already in the game, as rebels.

Local lords decreeing Independence? Basically separatist rebels.

Destabilization by neighbors? Already in the game as espionage actions.

Disloyal states hurting your economy? Already in the game.

Now, maybe what you're saying is "These things are in the game, but they should be more severe." Is that it?

It's a question of quality of representation, not fact of representation.

As I said in my post, if we abstracted war to the point that you just pressed "improve military situation" to spend 100 MIL points to get +1 military situation, and whomever had the best military situation score won the war, we could reasonably say "war is in the game", but it would be a pretty boring war-game. Nonetheless, it would be in.

So, to speak to "pretenders to the throne" there are a number of different ways that can be represented:

- It could be implemented as a random chance: when ruler dies or legitimacy is below X, an event can fire in which one or more pretenders pop up.
- It could be implemented as a product of powerful generals: if generals were given a variable (something like "personal fame") which increased with victories then when a ruler dies or legitimacy falls below X they could have a chance per month based on their fame to become a pretender to the throne.
- It could be implemented as a feature of the estate system: when the nobility estate's loyalty falls below a certain level there's a chance per month...
- It could be implemented as a feature of a massive expanded estate system where the nobility is broken up into a number of "houses" and if any given house's loyalty falls below that level then that house might raise a pretender
- It could be implemented as a feature of a deep centralisation simulation where every province or area of your empire is granted to a house and has its own wealth and levies, which if you don't do what they want might be deployed against you in a bid to take control (or just split off and achieve independence or join a different realm)...

None of the above are necessarily "rebel spam". Any of the above could be represented using dynamic tags like colonial nations—pretender rebellions spawn a P01 tag which takes some % of your development and declares war on you, for example.

Things can be represented in different ways; some ways are better, deeper, or more satisfying than others (and on the flipside demand more development time and player bandwidth). Each is represented with a certain level of abstraction. The things you've listed are referenced in the game in highly abstracted forms—abstracted to the point where (I argue) they have little or no strategic relevance and add little or nothing to the game. People in this thread have suggested that they'd like for them to be less abstract and more central in the EU series going forward. I'm inclined to agree: I would love an EU with much less interest in warfare and much more interest in the kinds of things you've listed above.

 

[Jihem]

I suppose I don't understand how your post differs from rebel spam.

Pretenders to the throne? Already in the game, as rebels.

Local lords decreeing Independence? Basically separatist rebels.

Destabilization by neighbors? Already in the game as espionage actions.

Disloyal states hurting your economy? Already in the game.

Now, maybe what you're saying is "These things are in the game, but they should be more severe." Is that it?

Yes. These disasters are rarely serious and infinitely too predictable. The pretenders to the throne, for example : one or two armies easily defeated, nothing as complex as the Wars of the Roses. As for the separatists, they are associated with a culture, it is not a question of whole regions taking their independence as it can sometimes happen in Russia (I saw the Cossacks form Yakutia, and it could be the same for local nobles before the era of absolutism). Religious-type rebels are few in number and easy to defeat, while the Clergy Domination disaster poses no risk of establishing a theocracy. The plutocratic coup does not result in the recruitment of foreign mercenaries for the bourgeois to establish a merchant republic when we have a small kingdom, or with the independence of a province from a center of commerce if the kingdom is larger. As for the disloyal estates, I have never seen them bring a great kingdom or even an empire to its knees and lead to a spiral of debt. And the support for the rebels lacks both efficiency and complexity (one could for example give them precise instructions, bribe the nobility of the target country or other people, etc.). These are just a few examples, the possibilities are much wider.

In fact, it's as if all the mechanics that could make games varied and unpredictable are there, but only in embryonic form.

 

[Dominion]

I'm always confused by these kinds of premises.

"The issue with EU4 is x, here's how to solve it" while I am sitting there thinking "That's not an issue. That's what the game is about."

 

[ImAdrian]

Aggressive expansion & coalitions do a fairly decent job in my opinion at slowing the player down. I dont think it should be even slower than this. Doing a World Conquest within the game's time frame should still always be a possibility, even if not realistic. It is a game after all

 

[MachopPower69]

Aggressive expansion & coalitions do a fairly decent job in my opinion at slowing the player down. I dont think it should be even slower than this. Doing a World Conquest within the game's time frame should still always be a possibility, even if not realistic. It is a game after all

It does slow down the player but the AI just shrugs it off and allows the Ottomans to eat half of the Pontic Steppe and Carpathia while I struggle to expand as France because if I take Catalonia in Aragon half of Europe is pissed at me because I'm the player.

I'm not suggesting that snowballing is easy for the player, I'm suggesting it is easy for the AI as well.

 

[ImAdrian]

It does slow down the player but the AI just shrugs it off and allows the Ottomans to eat half of the Pontic Steppe and Carpathia while I struggle to expand as France because if I take Catalonia in Aragon half of Europe is pissed at me because I'm the player.

I'm not suggesting that snowballing is easy for the player, I'm suggesting it is easy for the AI as well.

Ah I see. But then if the AI can't snowball, people will complain that late game is too easy because you dont have anyone big enough to fight you. I always use the Ottoblob or another powerful AI as a "final boss" once I conquered all the small guys.

 

[Obeliskkai]

This is how I see it.

Firstly, the OP is right. It is too easy to snowball in this game. The corollary of that is that ultimately, EU4 becomes a map painting game and the thing about map painting games is that once you reach a certain point, the game becomes boring as nobody can beat you. Expansion for expansion's sake is unsatisying, which is why the achievement system is a godsend as you can pick a goal and work towards it.

But here's the real problem with correctly identifying the issue.

So what?

I know that my come off as flippant, but the game is over eight years old now with multiple addons. We've seen enough problems in recent years to determine that the game codebase is pretty funky, with complex changes having unintended and unfortunate side effects. How the OP describes EU4 is pretty much how EU4 has always been and I feel it's simply too long in the tooth to justify the alterations required to bring snowballing under control.

EU4 is now the oldest still developed Paradox Grand Strategy game. It shows. And we can all sense that it is beginning to draw down. I don't expect any major expansions to come out anymore, and think that what's left to come is probably two immersions packs and some code fixes so that they can leave EU4 in as robust a state as possible when the time comes (and I suspect the time will come next year).

This valid concern is better addressed when Paradox Tinto sits down, sifts through a decade of EU4 development and feedback, and lays the groundwork for EU5. Better snowballing is addressed in one of the fundamental aspects of the next iteration of Europa Universalis, rather than trying to change it in the current game.

 

[MachopPower69]

This is how I see it.

Firstly, the OP is right. It is too easy to snowball in this game. The corollary of that is that ultimately, EU4 becomes a map painting game and the thing about map painting games is that once you reach a certain point, the game becomes boring as nobody can beat you. Expansion for expansion's sake is unsatisying, which is why the achievement system is a godsend as you can pick a goal and work towards it.

But here's the real problem with correctly identifying the issue.

So what?

I know that my come off as flippant, but the game is over eight years old now with multiple addons. We've seen enough problems in recent years to determine that the game codebase is pretty funky, with complex changes having unintended and unfortunate side effects. How the OP describes EU4 is pretty much how EU4 has always been and I feel it's simply too long in the tooth to justify the alterations required to bring snowballing under control.

EU4 is now the oldest still developed Paradox Grand Strategy game. It shows. And we can all sense that it is beginning to draw down. I don't expect any major expansions to come out anymore, and think that what's left to come is probably two immersions packs and some code fixes so that they can leave EU4 in as robust a state as possible when the time comes (and I suspect the time will come next year).

This valid concern is better addressed when Paradox Tinto sits down, sifts through a decade of EU4 development and feedback, and lays the groundwork for EU5. Better snowballing is addressed in one of the fundamental aspects of the next iteration of Europa Universalis, rather than trying to change it in the current game.

And another thing is that Hordes are one of the most snowbally nations, like Oirat or Great Horde because it has special CB's, good government type and a exclusive idea group that decreases AE. And if you are Tengri, you can choose a secondary religion, like Confucianism lite. Historically, Hordes were very weak since the fall of Yuan and the Golden Horde. Sure, the game is ahistoric, but if it doesn't follow history, then why is the religious wars and revolutions a thing? Surely if it follows history, would an OPM Mulhouse be realistically be able to conquer France and Britain with nothing but a laugh and a chuckle?

I accept the game isn't supposed to be historical, but what isn't historical is nations snowballing without any trouble. I mean, Mongolia snowballed and faced the consequences, right?

 

[FrogCrusher]

I just want to recall here that history is nothing with regards to fun while playing the game. If PDX can find mechanics fun and engaging to deal with troubles coming with huge expansion I'm not against.
However, adding rebels, nerf aboslutism and so one are not solutions adding fun to the game, quite the contrary in fact. So for me, the first thing to keep in mind is "how can the player have fun?". And I don't care if Mongolia had problem IRL if that means tedious and no strategy games.

 

[Obeliskkai]

And another thing is that Hordes are one of the most snowbally nations, like Oirat or Great Horde because it has special CB's, good government type and a exclusive idea group that decreases AE. And if you are Tengri, you can choose a secondary religion, like Confucianism lite. Historically, Hordes were very weak since the fall of Yuan and the Golden Horde. Sure, the game is ahistoric, but if it doesn't follow history, then why is the religious wars and revolutions a thing? Surely if it follows history, would an OPM Mulhouse be realistically be able to conquer France and Britain with nothing but a laugh and a chuckle?

I accept the game isn't supposed to be historical, but what isn't historical is nations snowballing without any trouble. I mean, Mongolia snowballed and faced the consequences, right?

In principle I agree with your point. I believe that empires that expand too rapidly should pay a price and be unable to sustain themselves. Not only is more historical, but it leads to more interesting gameplay (and the thing about snowballing empires is that grand strategy goes out the window in favour of counting down truce timers).

On the other hand, as I said, the game is so old now and there are expectations on how it plays built in, that it almost feels pointless to address this issue. I would simply highlight it as a concern for EU5 to address from the get go there, rather than trying to overhaul EU4 to deal with it.

 

[MachopPower69]

I just want to recall here that history is nothing with regards to fun while playing the game. If PDX can find mechanics fun and engaging to deal with troubles coming with huge expansion I'm not against.
However, adding rebels, nerf aboslutism and so one are not solutions adding fun to the game, quite the contrary in fact. So for me, the first thing to keep in mind is "how can the player have fun?". And I don't care if Mongolia had problem IRL if that means tedious and no strategy games.

If you think rebels aren't fun, CK3 and Vicky 2 have something to talk to you about. In CK3, uprisings are based on population happiness and random characters being ambitious. Vicky 2 is the same, but depends on consciousness (?) and research.

 

[FrogCrusher]

If you think rebels aren't fun, CK3 and Vicky 2 have something to talk to you about. In CK3, uprisings are based on population happiness and random characters being ambitious. Vicky 2 is the same, but depends on consciousness (?) and research.

I don't deny that, I don't know both
As currently implemented in EUIV, it's not the case. In fact, I'm glad Dev add (behind a pay wall....) the QoL of provoke rebels. Nice decision.

 

[MachopPower69]

I don't deny that, I don't know both
As currently implemented in EUIV, it's not the case. In fact, I'm glad Dev add (behind a pay wall....) the QoL of provoke rebels. Nice decision.

Rebels were easy to deal with in EU4. However in CK3 rebels strength and pop-up time depends on how strong your vassals are, total power and hooks. Rebels in EU4 are just placing an army stack on a high value province where the rebels could be and they instantly die less than a month after spawning because you can tell where they are. CK3 doesn't tell you where the threat is, but they tell you how powerful the threats are.

 

[MatthewP]

Rebels were easy to deal with in EU4. However in CK3 rebels strength and pop-up time depends on how strong your vassals are, total power and hooks. Rebels in EU4 are just placing an army stack on a high value province where the rebels could be and they instantly die less than a month after spawning because you can tell where they are. CK3 doesn't tell you where the threat is, but they tell you how powerful the threats are.

Maybe I’m nitpicking, but doesn’t ck3 tell you exactly who will rebel, how strong they are and when they’ll rebel (within a couple months)? If you’re not busy you can definitely recruit your army and station it next to the faction leader’s capital.

That said, the ways to deal with rebels short of stomping the rebellion are certainly more interesting and varied than in EU4, and the rebels are more of a threat (edit: or more precisely, they scale much better with empire size. In EU4 this can happen but you have to do something to deserve it like 200% OE or not picking humanism).

 

[Blindbohemian]

I just want to recall here that history is nothing with regards to fun while playing the game.

I remember when it was a debate about how to balance the two, not a peremptory announcement that one mattered and the other didn't. Oh EUIV, how you have fallen.