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

[st360]

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

Because if you have a lot of mechanics, missions and rewards, you will get simmilar bonuses from a few places and end up with +300% morale armies or -120% advisor cost where advisors end up paying you money for their employment.

I would also like to challenge the notion that a 5% bonus is small just because the number is small. The difference is big. My old chemistry teacher had every exam question give 1 million points, because he got tired of parents complaining that their child was just 1 point short for a better grade on their exam. So he had standard exams with 10 questions, but each was one million points and you needed five million to pass. If a kid needed 1 more for a better grade he would tell them that he could overlook 2-3 hundred points, but this was a huge ONE MILLION points they where missing.

• 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?

Because in real life history, you couldn't conquer the world with a 1 province tribe in 200 years, and the game is already too easy without more bonuses. If anything, nations should have REAL debuffs. Ottomans fighting 150% of their forcelimit as rebels every time a ruler dies, Austria in a permanent coalition by all the major powers for the entire game, France going bankrupt like it did in real life... Not free + bonuses just for breathing.

• 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.

I wanted to go trough your points 1 by 1, but most of them are just wanting the game to be even easier than it already is. Just play on easy mode or with cheats.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

1. Why are most bonuses so small? Favorite figure is 5%, sometimes 2.5%, occasionally 10%. Why, for example, not 20%.
2. 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?
3. 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.
4. Why the tasks that can be obtained by calling diets at the beginning of the game are most often simply impossible.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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
8. Why is the country with which you are in an alliance, having a much smaller army and size, suddenly turns on the domination mode.
9. 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.
10. Why at the beginning of the game the Pope manages to invest 180 (!) points into his re-election and how.
11. 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.

1. I'm not sure this is actually true? 10% is more common than 2.5%. There are modifiers that go to 25% or even 50% sometimes. They're picked based on how impactful they are and how much investment is needed to get them.
2. The government reforms are already powerful, but they do require making tradeoffs. This is healthy. Maybe some could use a little tuning since they're never picked, but reforms don't strike me as unique among EU 4 mechanics in that way.
3. Privileges are powerful, so the downside is influence and other costs to get those bonuses. You can skip them if you feel it isn't worth it.
4. Most of them aren't?
5. Income scaling event and diet stuff in EU 4 is pretty annoying, I agree with that. Some of these should probably freeze when they first come up.
6. RT is more valuable than legitimacy, because it can be spent as a resource on re-election spamming. The amount you get from strengthen is tuned accordingly.
7. Not familiar with that government type, too much Anbennar and other games lately.
8. Bad design around what the AI thinks it can do with PUs.
9. WYP depends on relative strength between the nations. WYSP is bugged and seems to disregard overlord strength?
10. No idea, might start with it?
11. AI doesn't handle special case stuff well

 

[theauthor]

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

Honestly the bonus is quite significant, especially since their effect stack combined with the base idea. Special point to combat when stacking combat modifier can make you army ridiclously powerful.

I do admit i like big number go even bigger but for most country that are not neglected the bonus modifier work as it is. I don't need to make if bigger when my normal play would make them big enough anyway.

 

[dm99]

Because if you have a lot of mechanics, missions and rewards, you will get simmilar bonuses from a few places and end up with +300% morale armies or -120% advisor cost where advisors end up paying you money for their employment.

I would also like to challenge the notion that a 5% bonus is small just because the number is small. The difference is big. My old chemistry teacher had every exam question give 1 million points, because he got tired of parents complaining that their child was just 1 point short for a better grade on their exam. So he had standard exams with 10 questions, but each was one million points and you needed five million to pass. If a kid needed 1 more for a better grade he would tell them that he could overlook 2-3 hundred points, but this was a huge ONE MILLION points they where missing.




Because in real life history, you couldn't conquer the world with a 1 province tribe in 200 years, and the game is already too easy without more bonuses. If anything, nations should have REAL debuffs. Ottomans fighting 150% of their forcelimit as rebels every time a ruler dies, Austria in a permanent coalition by all the major powers for the entire game, France going bankrupt like it did in real life... Not free + bonuses just for breathing.



I wanted to go trough your points 1 by 1, but most of them are just wanting the game to be even easier than it already is. Just play on easy mode or with cheats.

I do not experience the slightest difficulty with this game and can easily cope with any new mockery invented by the developers. Which is exactly what I do on a regular basis.

I don't understand how a combination of completely fictional parameters can be justified by real life. Why is the idea that if you tie minuses to pluses, then this will balance something, is so widespread. Why does it not occur to anyone that the more various parameters and bonuses will be introduced into the game, the less likely it will be possible to somehow balance it. Why is it considered that complexity is when you have to deal with a bunch of different parameters and their interaction, although by and large it's just boring.

 

[st360]

I don't understand how a combination of completely fictional parameters can be justified by real life.

Because EU4 is a game about Europe (a real place) and its justified that Spain colonizes America better than Bosnia.

 

[dm99]

1. I'm not sure this is actually true? 10% is more common than 2.5%. There are modifiers that go to 25% or even 50% sometimes. They're picked based on how impactful they are and how much investment is needed to get them.
2. The government reforms are already powerful, but they do require making tradeoffs. This is healthy. Maybe some could use a little tuning since they're never picked, but reforms don't strike me as unique among EU 4 mechanics in that way.
3. Privileges are powerful, so the downside is influence and other costs to get those bonuses. You can skip them if you feel it isn't worth it.
4. Most of them aren't?
5. Income scaling event and diet stuff in EU 4 is pretty annoying, I agree with that. Some of these should probably freeze when they first come up.
6. RT is more valuable than legitimacy, because it can be spent as a resource on re-election spamming. The amount you get from strengthen is tuned accordingly.
7. Not familiar with that government type, too much Anbennar and other games lately.
8. Bad design around what the AI thinks it can do with PUs.
9. WYP depends on relative strength between the nations. WYSP is bugged and seems to disregard overlord strength?
10. No idea, might start with it?
11. AI doesn't handle special case stuff well

1. Okay, you're right, I got excited. Dear opponents helped me understand that the main problem is that we have a lot of bonuses of 10% instead of half as much as 20%.

An interesting situation is created when at the beginning of the game there is access to only a small number of them, and with a small base, one in 10% most often does not change anything. By the middle of the game, it is possible to combine many of these bonuses, but the base is already large, each next 10% of course gives a pleasant increase, but not a fundamental one.

Actually, I noticed an interesting thing. A net income of 5 coins is too small, and 10 coins already allows for active development. Also, mana income 8 implies all sorts of savings, but 11 already allows you to spend more wastefully. I thought that the growth would be linear, but for some reason it happens in a jump.

2. The very idea of fine tuning the government is very good and I fully support it. But the current version leaves the feeling of being made anyhow. Tiers are not equal. The choice within the tier is also not equivalent. And the worst thing is that the reforms are absolutely not balanced with other game mechanics.

Trying to introduce estates into refs is not bad, you can replace bonuses that cost absolutism with smaller bonuses that don't cost its. But this change starts very early. And it clearly destroys the established balance.

The estate mechanism, although I don't like it, is pretty well defined. I wanted bonuses - now suffer with maintaining a balance. By the way, here's an event for you not to relax.

The reforms simply do not take this into account, so now we have to take it according to the situation, and then it is possible to change it to something else. For example, I inattentively read in small print and accidentally discovered a mechanism that resets the influence of estates by 10 for 4 years (again, they forgot that the republics are different). A very useful mechanism in 150 years later, but now it interferes greatly. Will have to change the choice.

Definitely, there are things that need to be balanced with minuses. Especially when it comes to mechanics. But simple good bonuses do not have to be accompanied by artificially attached minuses. The funny thing is that it is possible in a different situation and at a different time, on the contrary, I will consider these minuses as pluses.

A good thing but constantly creates a feeling of incompleteness and lack of balance. Bonuses are not encouraging, minuses are annoying. In the republics there is a very well-made Tier, where the choice is really difficult, you want both one and the other and the third. I think this is how it should ideally look like. When you choose between different paths, each of which brings its own bunuses, but you can’t get everything at once. Not when you have to choose the lesser of two evils.

3. That's not the problem. When we take away a privilege, we get a big minus to loyalty. This is a fee. But since the privileges are arranged in such a way that the amount of loyalty is less than the amount of influence, then by assigning a number of privileges, we come to the conclusion that they cannot be taken away. Only through special events and solutions that come with a price. We pay for the second time for the same action. This is ideologically wrong.

And when government reforms are superimposed on all this, it is unrealistically annoying. I can't accept the reform because it takes influence to an already dangerous level, and I can't replace the privilege with the reform because I can't take it away now. And perhaps thanks to the mechanism of events, I won’t be able to for another decade.

4. I guess I was so lucky, but in the beginning they wanted something unrealistic or completely wrong in terms of my future development. Because it was on the first day, I just started over a few times. But once they asked me to fulfill what already exists.

6. I still don't understand the connection. If it is a resource, then more is needed. Those. there must be sources. But these sources are few or very difficult to access. Government Reform, Pope Bonus, and 100 Pover Projection all give 0.2 per year. This is absolutely not enough for reelection. By the way, there is no spamming in Signoria, the cycle is too long, it's good if it happens once. It would be in which group of ideas 0.5, because of this I would take the whole group, but only in politics and also 0.2 и 0.1. And then the strengthen gives me 3 for 100. I would honestly understand 5. BUT 3.

7. Italian Signoria is the standard Republic type for the Italy region. The cycle is 12 years, but you can choose a nephew, whose attributes are like for a normal ruler, but costs -12 RT. Sometimes throws something like 010. Here we need a re-election. Since the idea is to take 114, and after three cycles (12 years) it will already be 446 does not work here.

10. Somewhere above the mechanism was explained, the Pope receives points for the appointed cardinal as long as he controls himself. When control passes (it's ridiculous to kill 180 30, but it happened), the Pope appoints cardinals less often and such disgrace is not observed.

8, 9, 11 These were purely rhetorical questions, but thank you for bringing them to your attention. Just for some reason, in this version AI behaves especially strangely. A year ago there were other problems, but not these. By the way, I thought maybe these high minuses like "I want a province" are somehow connected with the mission tree, but usually such missions are accompanied by constant claims, but there is nothing here. I just want that's all. As a result, Italy at the beginning of the game is just a nest of vipers, where everyone hates each other and really wants foreign lands.

 

[dm99]

Because EU4 is a game about Europe (a real place) and its justified that Spain colonizes America better than Bosnia.

With deep respect, but your answer resembles the following situation. When asked why the sky is blue, someone answers because the grass is green.

 

[dm99]

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.

Thank you very much. By the way, I just managed to beat his 180 points with my 30. This brought me progression in the mission tree. Without you, I would have waited until the reformation.

 

[dm99]

Funny. While I was whining here, saying that this is not so and this, a wonderful bug was discovered about which the developers are still saying that this is a feature. Did you know that by feeding your vassal (minor) a captured province, you can get the LA of that province at 99 with a probability of almost 100%? For example, I didn't know.

 

[Kurfürstin Adelheid]

Special greetings to those who like to press the "respectfully disagree" button but do not like to justify their opinion.

Not directly related to this but I do wonder sometimes. I post a purely subjective thing based only on my own experience, yet people still 'respectfully disagree' without explaining why. How can you disagree with that though? It is only to do with my experience. I was not claiming things about other people's experience. Are they implying I'm deluded?

 

[dm99]

Not directly related to this but I do wonder sometimes. I post a purely subjective thing based only on my own experience, yet people still 'respectfully disagree' without explaining why. How can you disagree with that though? It is only to do with my experience. I was not claiming things about other people's experience. Are they implying I'm deluded?

This is what is especially surprising. Either they give a bonus for a large number of marks, or it is used as a dislike. Well, you didn’t like someone, so you follow him, putting a cross. But since this is a different label, it looks so strange that it is rather even funny. A year and a half ago, there was no such madhouse. And now no one explains what it means.

 

[holyvigil]

And over here is a man asking for 20% discipline modifiers. For a total of 160% discipline from ideas alone.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Because EU4 is a game about Europe (a real place) and its justified that Spain colonizes America better than Bosnia.

Demonstrates the statement it quotes very well.

Funny. While I was whining here, saying that this is not so and this, a wonderful bug was discovered about which the developers are still saying that this is a feature. Did you know that by feeding your vassal (minor) a captured province, you can get the LA of that province at 99 with a probability of almost 100%? For example, I didn't know.

Not just with vassals. And yeah, I don't think even devs can justify this inconsistent interaction or how "hidden autonomy" interacts with displayed autonomy more generally.

With deep respect, but your answer resembles the following situation. When asked why the sky is blue, someone answers because the grass is green.

It is unfortunately common on this forum, for players to justify something happening in this game "because it happened in history", ignoring the game's mechanics/causal modeling. Then, the very second something deviates from history that these same players don't care about, they will suddenly switch and say "it's a game, things have to be abstracted", completely disregarding the fact that they objectively and fully destroyed their previous argument of "because it happened in history" in saying this.

Game mechanics *are* the causal abstractions of the game world. If your game isn't causally consistent, it is also not historical and it can't be. If we accept the notion of events flowing from their causes in real history, then it is *objectively* incorrect to "justify" something obtuse happening in the game "because it happened historically", unless you want a "game" with no agency.

Players don't engage with that refutation, because they can no more overcome it than they can overcome the existence of gravity. But it doesn't stop the rationale from being regurgitated when convenient, you from being ratio'd for making an objectively correct statement.

That said, some of the downvotes are also coming from a position of just understanding the game and tradeoffs better. Maintaining a balance with estate interactions or picking government reforms based on what provides the most short and/or long-term benefit (and factoring switching cost) leads to different conclusions fairly often. The downsides can (and often do) make that choice harder/closer/more interesting.

This is what is especially surprising. Either they give a bonus for a large number of marks, or it is used as a dislike.

It is most commonly used as a dislike for whatever was posted.

 

[dm99]

And over here is a man asking for 20% discipline modifiers. For a total of 160% discipline from ideas alone.

Thank you great joke, though I never said anything about discipline, but the joke is very good.

 

[dm99]

Not just with vassals. And yeah, I don't think even devs can justify this inconsistent interaction or how "hidden autonomy" interacts with displayed autonomy more generally.

There is a bug report on the forum about the situation. At first I just faced the fact and we had a long discussion that this can and should be explained by natural causes. And then, when I took a closer look, I caught the moment when the AI does something that should be completely prohibited in general. And sent a confirmation, let's see how it ends.

That said, some of the downvotes are also coming from a position of just understanding the game and tradeoffs better. Maintaining a balance with estate interactions or picking government reforms based on what provides the most short and/or long-term benefit (and factoring switching cost) leads to different conclusions fairly often. The downsides can (and often do) make that choice harder/closer/more interesting.

The question is solely in the balance difficulties - interest. There are difficulties, overcoming which on the way to the goal, causes a legitimate sense of pride in one's capabilities. There are difficulties that you can’t even call difficulties, these are constant minor annoyances that only irritate. But if you make them bigger, they will still be annoying, even if they are big. If you look around you will always find examples.

In addition, people are different, for some, achieving a goal through difficulties is the meaning of life. Others consider the goal more important and simply find another way. Most of the players are in the middle.

Let's take estates for example. The first time I ran into them, they ruined my life in the game specifically. The second time I took something that turned out to be very unpleasant side effects for me, but everything else went smoothly. The third time I just put everything on the first day of the game and forgot about it. Therefore, the situation when, although a good minus is assigned for taking away a privilege, it is impossible to take it away now, this is not a difficulty, this is an annoying circumstance. By the way, it is surmountable, since the developers have laid down one provided mechanism, and the second has developed itself due to a side effect.

Adding estates to the reforms is not fatal, but still unpleasant, because IMHO it happens too early. But it is quite possible that this is due only to the fact that I have already solved the problem of estates, and it is difficult to rebalance. If I look carefully and take everything into account from the very beginning, then everything will again turn into "done and forgot". Just a solution to the problem, not an overcoming. But this does not mean that it should be made even more intricate and complex.

A good choice is when you have to choose from good alternatives, each of which is valuable and interesting, such a choice is much more difficult and forces you to try differently next time (fortunately this happens). But the choice from the series will go to the right - you will lose this, you will go to the left - you will lose that, and let's think faster, otherwise you will lose everything, it is not interesting.

I remember those times when the introduction of new mechanics brought the game to an almost non-working state. Now those days are gone, the game is very complex and the introduction of something new is unlikely to greatly unbalance it. But in it for many years there is a constant feeling of unfinished business. As if someone decided to make an extension to the house, you come to him, but you constantly stumble upon some building materials and tools, because he did not finish the extension, but was already busy with the attic.

It is most commonly used as a dislike for whatever was posted.

Thanks, I already figured it out. But when these labels were introduced, even then the developers were warned that this would not lead to good. It doesn't bother me, but some people get very upset. When I write a provocative post, I somehow count on a certain reaction. I am simply surprised by such labels under posts containing facts, gratitude or a question. But this is probably because I am not familiar with the subculture of social networks.

The original post, too, after all, only contained questions, and not a single statement. True, rhetorical, from the series why the world works this way and not otherwise ... But alas, people read inattentively and begin to argue and disagree not with what is written, but with what they think is written. What can I do, the era of short messages and crystal clear thoughts.

By the way, I know the answer to the question that irritates everyone so much, it's about bonuses. If we turn to the analogy with the house, then at first no one intended to build a luxurious mansion with blackjack and hookers. But fate decreed otherwise, and at each stage of construction, new sources of bonuses appeared. And now we have what we have and it is impossible to change it. But this does not mean that there is only one way, this one.

 

[Lykus Cerebros]

Thank you great joke, though I never said anything about discipline, but the joke is very good.

I mean you generalised all boni. So this reaction isn't surprising. Honestly I am surprised that it took this long for people to point out a specific example that just breaks the whole argument that if everyone receives overpowered boni it's gonna be balanced.

 

[grandadmiralbob]

I never get these threads. This game is so easy to play now. There is the "national modifier" screen which shows mainly buffs. I don't play optimally at all so I don't get bored and I usually have several rows of buffs to my nation. So many that I honestly don't even care...

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The question is solely in the balance difficulties - interest. There are difficulties, overcoming which on the way to the goal, causes a legitimate sense of pride in one's capabilities. There are difficulties that you can’t even call difficulties, these are constant minor annoyances that only irritate. But if you make them bigger, they will still be annoying, even if they are big. If you look around you will always find examples.

Those small modifiers and "annoyances" add up and impact the rate at which nations can progress. Because of how the game applies modifiers in additive fashion, sometimes particular 10% modifiers amount to very high impact outcomes. Penalties can force choices to mitigate total damage too.

Let's take estates for example. The first time I ran into them, they ruined my life in the game specifically. The second time I took something that turned out to be very unpleasant side effects for me, but everything else went smoothly. The third time I just put everything on the first day of the game and forgot about it. Therefore, the situation when, although a good minus is assigned for taking away a privilege, it is impossible to take it away now, this is not a difficulty, this is an annoying circumstance. By the way, it is surmountable, since the developers have laid down one provided mechanism, and the second has developed itself due to a side effect.

It is routine in runs to give out at least some estate privileges, and sometimes quite a few, early on. Then players revoke them near absolutism age (keeping the best ones if they can manage). Government reforms can indeed make this revocation easier. I personally give and revoke privileges every run. It is far from impossible, it's something players plan around and do routinely. How hard it is depends on the choices you make.

Thanks, I already figured it out. But when these labels were introduced, even then the developers were warned that this would not lead to good. It doesn't bother me, but some people get very upset. When I write a provocative post, I somehow count on a certain reaction. I am simply surprised by such labels under posts containing facts, gratitude or a question. But this is probably because I am not familiar with the subculture of social networks.

I'm not a big fan of it. The posters who like/dislike stuff I post are more or less exactly who I'd predict to like/dislike posts before even hitting the button to make one, plus some randoms who don't engage in the discussion either way and don't post in thread in question at all. Forum is a different format than social media, but the feature isn't a big enough deal either way for me to care. Now we can ratio or like stuff like on YouTube!

This game is so easy to play now. There is the "national modifier" screen which shows mainly buffs. I don't play optimally at all

???

Most players who say this don't know what optimal play looks like or entails, even if they think they do. I'm reminded of FTL players losing in sector 4 on normal and then claiming they lost due to RNG (not realizing that this fact pattern is more or less impossible).

Anyway, if you set easy goals in a game, the game is easy. It's nevertheless an interestingly common trend that players have lots of ideas about what hypothetical optimal players do, yet can never identify such a player, and the best players don't resemble this hypothetical. DCSS, FTL, Pdox games...same thing crops up over and over. Playing at a high level is allegedly "tedious". What does playing at a high level entail? Doesn't matter !

 

[dm99]

Those small modifiers and "annoyances" add up and impact the rate at which nations can progress. Because of how the game applies modifiers in additive fashion, sometimes particular 10% modifiers amount to very high impact outcomes. Penalties can force choices to mitigate total damage too.

Here is such a thing. There are many small bonuses of the same type that provide the ability to add up to get a decent result. Each of them is of little value on its own. At the beginning it's too little, at the end it's just another small increase (of course I'm exaggerating a little). Only the entire group is valuable. Gathering a group is a purely technical task, there may be people who enjoy collecting all these bonuses. But it reminds me of a promotion in the store: collect 10 stickers and we will sell you this unnecessary thing at a f...ing discount.

When the monuments appeared, I was not too lazy to collect all that gave some kind of general bonus, upgraded them, but this is purely for the sake of curiosity, since the economic efficiency was clearly below zero.

I remember the times when a group of ideas "Economy", gave a very noticeable increase in sensations. I just took this group and ... of course there is a difference, but not so significant.

The second drawback of this "many small bonuses" concept is that when it suddenly turns out that the bonuses are small, but for some reason there are very few of them, it is annoying. The first example is Republican traditions. All sources are very difficult to reach. The second, oddly enough, diplomatic reputation in the republics. Well, I urgently needed to get +3. In monarchies, it's easy. 100% legitimacy, a bonus from the Pope and an adviser. In the republics, instead of the first 0, the second is prohibited, only the adviser remains. There is a random event and that's it. Only in fifth place in two groups that I don't need. Well no, okay. But the concept of the game does not work.

I would call it expectation inflation. Of course, I like big bonuses more, but in smaller quantities, so that receiving each bonus causes at least some emotions. Although on the other hand, in the good old days, a 10% bonus was a very nice addition (this is when there were few of them).

It is routine in runs to give out at least some estate privileges, and sometimes quite a few, early on. Then players revoke them near absolutism age (keeping the best ones if they can manage). Government reforms can indeed make this revocation easier. I personally give and revoke privileges every run. It is far from impossible, it's something players plan around and do routinely. How hard it is depends on the choices you make.

I didn't say it was impossible. Let's just say, I do not see the need for just such a combination of minuses. There is the first component of the mechanics: in a large set of privileges, loyalty is always less than influence. The second component: when privileges are selected, loyalty drops by a significant amount. The third component is events that randomly pull everything in different directions. Well, there are still diets and taking away land. Now, if you remove either the first or the second, the meaning will not change, because because of the events, the second is also not always easy. I'm just of the opinion that they don't punish twice for the same thing. Well, kind of life position.

There is another point, let's say for you or me, this whole construction is not particularly difficult. But we have the AI, which is poor, intimidated by the developers, but still pretty decent at this stage. I very much doubt that only on the basis of algorithms, you can make him cope with such a heap. Judging by the fact that I observed in my subjects constant unscheduled attacks by small parties of the rebels, he does not cope very well.

And in terms of combining with the reforms, it turns out such a thing. For example, the year 1495 is now in the game. I'm about to get Parliament and goodbye nobles. Two tiers ago was about the Clergy. If this happened in a hundred years, it would look more natural and the reasons for choosing would be different. Thanks to the republic for the inexhaustible flow of RPP, every choice is easily replayed. But some are just the only ones. Due to the severe shortage of republican traditions, you have to choose +0.2 per year. This choice is incredibly annoying. Firstly, it is forced, and secondly, this value is simply mocking. With three such sources, I can only make up for half of what was lost in re-election. Although if it is possible to make the Parliament a source of RT, then everything is not so bad and I am straining in vain.

In general, something like this. Anyway, thanks for the discussion .

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Parliament has a debate you can use for RT. There are also events that let you trade stab for it at low-ish values, and if you re-elect a lot on short cycles, you can afford to buy it up with MIL w/o falling behind in tech.

I guess you can try to push reforms through quickly too if you're something like a pirate republic, with an amazing CB and access to razing sooner if you get through them.