Another post in the series what's wrong with this game

[dm99]

Disclaimer. I have been playing this game intermittently since its inception. I am extremely respectful of the developers, I understand that the main concept of the game is determined by them, and not by a forum of disgruntled fans. I am happy with the development of the game, and how the game I play now differs from the one that was many years ago.

But sometimes there are questions. What the hell is going on?

• Why are most bonuses so small? Favorite figure is 5%, sometimes 2.5%, occasionally 10%. Why, for example, not 20%.

• I've been playing with the government reform tree for the monarchy and for the republic, and the question arose why all bonuses always come with minuses. And with a limited choice, you have to choose from minuses, not pluses. I can understand that at the beginning of the game, getting a bonus that is balanced by a minus gives an equal start, but why is this necessary during country development?

• Why estate privileges most often go as 5 to loyalty and 10 to influence. This leads to rare complexity when these privileges need to be taken away. Those. Not only is -20 loyalty, but you can't take it back for decades.

• Why the tasks that can be obtained by calling diets at the beginning of the game are most often simply impossible.

• What the heck, asking to raise money means not an amount, but a percentage of annual income. As the development progresses, the income increases, the amount also increases, and when you collect the ordered, it turns out that this is not even half the way.

• Why mock at republican traditions like that? Strengthen government grants only 3 (three) tradition points per 100 mil mana. 10 legetimasi and only 3 republican traditions. But they have the same stable sources of income. And there are no others.

• Why does the Italian Signoria have the same minus for re-election as the rest of the republics. On the one hand, it seems that 3 times 4 is the same as once 12, but this is not so. During this time, an ordinary republic gets +3 to each attribute, and Italian Signoria only +1. A one-time 30 drop to 70 (at best), it's not a consecutive drop of 3 times 10 in 4 years.

• Why is the country with which you are in an alliance, having a much smaller army and size, suddenly turns on the domination mode.

• Why does a neighboring country suddenly want your province (one) so much that it gets minus -100 to the attitude, and breaks the alliance. Let me introduce the Pope, the evil Pope from Rome.

• Why at the beginning of the game the Pope manages to invest 180 (!) points into his re-election and how.

• Why does the emperor HRE, having no real allies, first support the idea of taking away the lower lands from the joint formation of France-Burgundy, and then go alone to take them away. It seems that in the latest iterations, the AI was a coward, but not suicidal. And it seemed to me that if the princes had already voted for the resolution, then this crowd would go to implement it. But it turns out you can also fight for France against the emperor.

Usually developers talk about balance. But it seems to me more and more that they are just trying to complicate the life of the players to the maximum. I understand this in games like roque-like, where a glorious death is the goal of the game. But in strategies, it seems to me that the source of fun from the game is a little different. It is clear that the strategy must be complex and overcoming complexity is the goal. But overcoming obviously artificial difficulties smacks more of a masochism. The game is certainly good, but sometimes you look and think, but this is how and where, and most importantly why.

 

[Vetgirig]

1. To large bonuses make them OP. There are plenty of small bonuses that you can stack to gain big bonuses if you want.

2. To not make them OP. Advantages should come with disadvantages too.

3. Sometimes there are 10 10 or 10 0 or another numbers.

4 Do not understand the question about loans.

5. You lose less republican tradition then which you can lose as monarki when changing leader. So you need to gain more when you pay to get it back.

6. Dont know.

7. You introduced an heir so they got a PU CB on you.

8. Papal state don't invest - they get it automatically when others invest.

9. Dont understand your question regarding Burgundian inheritance.

 

[Mindel]

Why are most bonuses so small? Favorite figure is 5%, sometimes 2.5%, occasionally 10%. Why, for example, not 20%.

Have you tried comparing these numbers to percentages in real life?

Would you consider a +5% interest on a loan, or a +5% annual return on an investment, to be a small difference?

 

[dm99]

1. To large bonuses make them OP. There are plenty of small bonuses that you can stack to gain big bonuses if you want.

2. To not make them OP. Advantages should come with disadvantages too.

3. Sometimes there are 10 10 or 10 0 or another numbers.

4 Do not understand the question about loans.

5. You lose less republican tradition then which you can lose as monarki when changing leader. So you need to gain more when you pay to get it back.

6. Dont know.

7. You introduced an heir so they got a PU CB on you.

8. Papal state don't invest - they get it automatically when others invest.

9. Dont understand your question regarding Burgundian inheritance.

1. If everyone gets a bonus more, then everyone becomes an OP and therefore no one.
2. What nonsense. If advantages are constantly accompanied by great disadvantages, then no forward movement occurs. I see you fixated on the OP.
3. You are wrong. I list from the current available for clergy (5 and 5), (5 and 5), (-5 and 0), (5 and 10), (0 and 10), (10 and 10) (which is nothing), ( 0 and 0), (10 and 10), (10 and 0) (loss of income), (10 and 20), (5 and 15).
4. What does loan have to do with it. There is a task from diets to "gain money", the amount is named. After the amount is collected, it turns out that twice as much is required.
5. How many played, never lost legitimacy when changing the monarch. But re-election in the republic costs 30 republican traditions for the Italian Signoria.
6. 
   
7. Yes, but that's not what we're talking about. How can we talk about dominance with incomparable opportunities. What should he do with this dominance?
8. And why would the Pope not obey the general rules, and then it happens only for a few decades at the beginning. There was no such thing before.
9. Why start a war in which there is no chance. The AI is super careful lately and don't start wars without 100% certainty, and here's a suicidal mission.

 

[dm99]

Have you tried comparing these numbers to percentages in real life?

Would you consider a +5% interest on a loan, or a +5% annual return on an investment, to be a small difference?

We live in different countries

 

[Blust]

I would answer most of these with "it's about balancing the game". Sure, 5% isn't much, but there's plenty of ways to stack a specific bonus. Government reforms having downsides is making you think a bit more before chosing your path as well. As for the others relationship questions, most likely you introduced an heir and you're expanding into an area which your allies are interested in too.

 

[dm99]

I would answer most of these with "it's about balancing the game". Sure, 5% isn't much, but there's plenty of ways to stack a specific bonus. Government reforms having downsides is making you think a bit more before chosing your path as well. As for the others relationship questions, most likely you introduced an heir and you're expanding into an area which your allies are interested in too.

By and large, you are right about plus bonuses, but there are a few buts. If the base is small, then +5, +10 or +15 gives a very small amount in the overall standings. If the base is large, then vice versa. It also depends on the current bonuses, ie. if there is already +60, then +5 is about nothing. But this stacking of all sorts of bonuses of the same type is, of course, a wonderful strategic initiative.

On the reform of the government. The question is not the choice of the path, in general, I have enough experience. The question is conceptual. There are things that require a balance of disadvantages. But if you have a line of 10 steps, in each of which you make a choice of 4-5 solutions, then the chance that all possible combinations are correctly balanced is zero. This is what I am talking about. Some steps, which are mandatory, do not provide anything useful, but only disadvantages. On some, the minus are insignificant.

In general, two approaches are possible, to give at each step approximately the same value bonuses for all types of government, then since everyone will go this way, everyone will have approximately equal bonuses, then no one will receive a decisive advantage, which completely contradicts the structure of the surrounding world. Or try to constantly balance the pluses with the minuses to make sure that, as if moving forward, you never got anywhere, which again contradicts reality, but infuriates more.

The problem is not where I expanded, being a neighbor of the Pope there was not much choice. The question is in numbers. More than once I have met the strange desire of the AI to have what belongs to me. Usually it was limited to small numbers. Well, when -40 for a dozen provinces, I can understand, although more often it is much less, like -4 per province. But 100 for one and 24 for the other, by the way, originally owned by me, this is something new. Even for Milan, which is initially an enemy, three provinces cost -120. Although this is too much. For example, Venice -15 for two provinces (normal), although my rival. Or Savoy -64 for five provinces, which is tolerable.

 

[Cuke]

I've been playing with the government reform tree for the monarchy and for the republic, and the question arose why all bonuses always come with minuses. And with a limited choice, you have to choose from minuses, not pluses.

On a side note: can Paradox collect remotely the data about which reforms are chosen and how often?
I mean, e.g. I never choose Macchiavelli because he gives smth horrible like -15% AE.

 

[Ixal]

There are many things wrong with EU4 but bonuses being too small is not one of them.

 

[dm99]

On a side note: can Paradox collect remotely the data about which reforms are chosen and how often?
I mean, e.g. I never choose Macchiavelli because he gives smth horrible like -15% AE.

If only that were the case. But alas, this is just a worthy conspiracy theory. But I think that everything is much simpler. At first they came up with reforms, but then there was one point without a choice. Then they decided to offer a choice, but got scared and began to crush the pluses with the minuses, since it is unrealistic to check the balance of all options for various government. Plus, they also involved estates in these reforms, which, by the way, did not simplify, but only complicated the task of balancing.

As a result, I approach the reform step and see that this item is interesting, but generally impossible for my type, this one completely destroys the hard-won balance of estates, and rebalancing brings less pluses than minuses. In some, there is simply only one worthy option. In some, the plus fee is too high. Some points are categorically out of date. A few steps earlier or later would have been just right, but now it's nothing at all. This is still exacerbated by the severe shortage of reform points in monarchies. If republics can flexibly play with the reform tree, accepting one point now and then replaying it as needed, then things are very bad in monarchies.

 

[LukasYork]

I really don't understand the drive to take one of the most interesting features of the game which is Govt Reforms and make it wholly bland and uninteresting.

Right now most of the time I actually have to think which reform to choose BECAUSE it's an act of balancing. If it would be pure bonus for every reform it would be so boring you could actually completely remove it as there would be negligible cases deviating from 1, optimal, path. Now at least there are cirumstances preventing me from picking the best reform or making me work for it

Also if you manage your autonomy well there is no problem with reaching last reform by the 1620 or so - some government reform do help with that quite a lot.

 

[dm99]

There are many things wrong with EU4 but bonuses being too small is not one of them.

I'm not saying that all the bonuses are small, there are quite pleasant and worthy ones, but this whole structure is absolutely unbalanced, and some bonuses cause exorbitant surprise with their senselessness. Of course, after collecting 5 small bonuses, you get one big one, but this is very similar to farming in an RPG.

For example, not all 10% bonuses are equal. They look the same, but the result is different. For example, a 10% bonus to LA in territories is a very good bonus, but 10% to taxes is not. The first bonus is also good because there are only 2 (or 3) sources. And the second is bad because there are a lot of these sources.

The ideology of the game is more and more like a lot of bonuses, but small ones. As a result, the goal is to farm as many of these bonuses as possible in order to get a decent one. It is necessary to take a lot of actions, and as a result, get a bonus that is clearly inadequate to the efforts expended. Not to mention that this is an impossible task for AI.

Why does it hurt. For the most part, the game is an endless struggle with a shortage of everything and everything. Getting one bonus doesn't make life much easier. Of course, you will tell me that difficulties harden and generally teach you to live within your means. But alas, in reality, a constant deficit breeds angry people who are offended by the whole world.

Perhaps if the bonuses themselves were larger, and their sources were smaller, then perhaps it would be more interesting, or maybe not .

 

[Cuke]

If only that were the case. But alas, this is just a worthy conspiracy theory.

It's not a conspiracy theory, it's a question.

 

[dm99]

Thanks to everyone who participated, it's always nice to talk to smart people.

Special greetings to those who like to press the "respectfully disagree" button but do not like to justify their opinion. It seems to me that almost 10 years and 5000 hours allow me to have an opinion different from others.

It's nice to realize that over the past year and a half the world of the forum has not changed, it's much more interesting to discuss what the union of England and France will be called or in which province the culture is wrong.

Upd: That's interesting, people who press the "RD" button under the post, which says thank you to everyone for a meaningful discussion, do they themselves understand how stupid they look? How can you disagree with the word "Thank you". Or do you not agree that I can have my own opinion?

Upd2: As the number of crosses under this post continues to grow, I have three guesses for what is happening.

1. There is a special Olympiad where bonuses are given for each cross.
2. People just don't read what they don't agree with. It reminds me of an old cartoon character.
3. People who have gone through the school of social networks confuse Dislike and Respectfully Disagree, even though they are different things

But thank you, too, for taking part, albeit a strange one.

 

[Namepending4]

On the reform of the government. The question is not the choice of the path, in general, I have enough experience. The question is conceptual. There are things that require a balance of disadvantages. But if you have a line of 10 steps, in each of which you make a choice of 4-5 solutions, then the chance that all possible combinations are correctly balanced is zero. This is what I am talking about. Some steps, which are mandatory, do not provide anything useful, but only disadvantages. On some, the minus are insignificant.

I'm don't understand your points because in my opinion the majority of government reforms only have positives. Unless you are referring to some of them increasing estates influence, which is a negative yes, but I would hardly argue that it negates the positives of what ever you get. Even the weaker ones like +10% manpower recovery is still worth +10 noble influence imo. Someone mentioned Machiavelli which does have probably the harshest negatives, but that same tier has the government reform that basically turns of religious unity, so it's not like there's nothing else to pick in that tier and your forced to take a huge negative you might not want.

 

[fireandplague]

8. Papal state don't invest - they get it automatically when others invest.

This is not correct, the Papal State invests (primarily) by appointing cardinals. Every time it appoints a cardinal, it gets more points to papal control chance. Since the Pope can use the Curia Treasury to appoint cardinals if he controls the Papacy, appointing cardinals is basically free until someone else manages to take control of the Papacy.

 

[LukasYork]

Well Machivelllanism is a perfect example of a nice reform - it's very powerful yet situational. If you combine it with diplomatic idea finisher you can best cb anyone for free, if you don't lose stab you don't get Aggresive Expansion for declaring so one could argue that it's +15% AE is offset by this.

I think this a really good design for gov reforms - when picking one is a balancing act, especially if the tradeoff is something unique (free no cb war in this case)

If not for this 15% AE I would easily go for this strat 95% of the time, now I do it only if I'm prepred to pay the price.

Keep in mind that switching reforms is possible so taking one with a harsher penalty just for some time required to achieve your goal is also a viable option, which gives even more depth to the entire system.

Tying many reforms to estates is also great in my opinion - it finally connects some of the game systems giving them a semblance of realism.
I really love how picking certain reforms can completely change how you approach the game,
there's always real consideration if I should get this better bonus but increase certain estate influence (I'm looking at you -10% advisor cost for +10% burgher influence), risking putting them over 100 influence or just having a hard time revoking prvileges from them
Not to mention disabling entire estates

 

[dm99]

I'm don't understand your points because in my opinion the majority of government reforms only have positives. Unless you are referring to some of them increasing estates influence, which is a negative yes, but I would hardly argue that it negates the positives of what ever you get. Even the weaker ones like +10% manpower recovery is still worth +10 noble influence imo. Someone mentioned Machiavelli which does have probably the harshest negatives, but that same tier has the government reform that basically turns of religious unity, so it's not like there's nothing else to pick in that tier and your forced to take a huge negative you might not want.

Fine. Italian Signoria. Republic. Elections in 12 years.

I balance estates at the very beginning of the game, loyalty is above 60, and with influence, how it will turn out, but above 60. Well, plus bonuses. During the game, loyalty is kept at 70-90. Bourges have a very high influence in the republic, they received only 2 privileges so that they can increase loyalty and cannot be touched anymore. At events, sometimes you have to choose a minus so that only loyalty does not go off scale. Nobles are doing well with loyalty, but a little lack of influence. Clergy has plenty of both. Those. I'm limited to picking items with plus influence and I'm also in a situation where I can't revoke privileges because loyalty is less than influence.

• Tier 2 Republican Traditions deficit leaves only one point +0.2 per year to choose from. Just a mocking bonus, but there is no other.
• Tier 3 -1 election cycle -10 absolutism, +1 election cycle +10 absolutism, - corruption - 10 absolutism, change of election mechanics. Not in time, the change of mechanics takes away the only plus of Signoria, but leaves the election cycle long, which is +1 to the cycle, which is -1 all one cycle is very long. Since republics start with -40 absolutism, then +10 is our choice, although we probably should have chosen -1 to cycle, and then replay.
• Tier 4 One point does not roll over ideas, the rest +10 and +5 to clergy influence. If I had the ability to revoke the privilege, I could call it, but I can't have to choose that to -10 to administrative technology. In principle, it's nice, but I already have a bonus of -30.
• Tier 5. I can choose. Very good tier. How will it go. And in monarchies, a similar step left only 2 choices (mine was wrong).
• Tier 6. Change of government. And Parliament, an unequivocal choice, others are not equivalent at all.
• Tier 7. One does not go through the ideas. The second +10 loyalty bourges, does not pass. The second -10 loyalty is the most preferable. But later, when all privileges are taken away, I can return to the choice. But perhaps now it is possible, the time will come - I think. But in general, at first glance, the bonuses are scanty, so one is worth the other.
• Tier 8. There is an interesting mechanic that doesn't make sense with my election cycle. There are -40 authoritarianism. There are two of which - 0.05 LA is preferable to the mocking -2% bonus.

Further it is difficult, you just need to finish the game, then it will be more clear. That in all above it turns out 4 do not leave a choice, in one the choice is unambiguous, in one it is a good choice, in the second there is a choice but it is doubtful. This is our path. A lot of fun from how to fine-tune the government. Of course, I'm exaggerating, none of the above is absolutely fatal. But for many years there has been a certain trend, with all the richness of choice, it is not particularly there.

 

[dm99]

This is not correct, the Papal State invests (primarily) by appointing cardinals. Every time it appoints a cardinal, it gets more points to papal control chance. Since the Pope can use the Curia Treasury to appoint cardinals if he controls the Papacy, appointing cardinals is basically free until someone else manages to take control of the Papacy.

You are probably right, but from the outside it looks like a continuous increase in invested points up to 180. It is almost impossible to beat. But it looks like at some point the cardinals may end and everything returns to normal, then the Papal controllers appear. Or is it somehow connected with the beginning of the reformation. Previously, this mechanism did not exist and, frankly, it is annoying. Perhaps it corresponds to historical realities and therefore has the right to life. But no one changed the mission in connection with these new realities.

 

[fireandplague]

You are probably right, but from the outside it looks like a continuous increase in invested points up to 180. It is almost impossible to beat. But it looks like at some point the cardinals may end and everything returns to normal, then the Papal controllers appear. Or is it somehow connected with the beginning of the reformation. Previously, this mechanism did not exist and, frankly, it is annoying. Perhaps it corresponds to historical realities and therefore has the right to life. But no one changed the mission in connection with these new realities.

No, what happens is that at some point the Pope becomes unlucky and loses control of the Papacy. After all, even at 180 invested, it's not 100% chance to go to the Pope. Once that happens, appointing a cardinal as the Pope takes money out of his own treasury (as long he isn't the Papal controller), usually around 80-140 ducats per appointment. That's not so easy to afford, so the Pope can't get nearly as many points.