So, I dislike mana.
First of all, by "mana" I understand not some existencial thing. Mana is a system of power points in EU4 and Imperator: Rome; it's not exactly matter what constitute it philosophically. I have opinion, but, in my experience, every discussion about it always came to discussion about "deepest natures" and "everything is a mana, therefore there is nothing bad in mana in EU4". This systems exists, we can observe them as they are, in dynamic.
Secondly, I'm trying to refrain from thesises like "it's not fun", "it's not strategic", something like that. Even if I believe it's not fun, it's means I don't have fun playing with it, nothing more.
No. The most daring problem with mana system is it's not working. Not in a sense that game is awful and "literally unplayable". Not in a sense it's a bad game (I do believe Imperator isn't good game, but EU4 I love enough). Just this particular system isn't working.
Every mechanic in game should be for a purpose. Why does mana mechanic even exist? It was answered long ago, when it was firstly announced, in 2012.
1. It should place a player into a situation where he should chose how to spend limited resource he has.
2. It should remove "snowballing effect", where rich get richer to the extent where nothing is impossible.
3. It should make your rulers memorizable, and put your country performance into dependency of your ruler capabilities.
Again - I'm not discussing are this goals good or bad. It's goals why we have mana,
Ok, it was seven years ago, with ferocious tweaking system around, here and there. So, what was achieved?
1. Players options are limited, but it looks arbitraty and easily defeatable - because mana can be stored. This only reason defeating a goal of setting up limitation for a player - with ability to hoard, you can hoard a lot of mana when you're in luck, and then spend it in a chucks. Essentially, for this proporse mana became not better then gold.
2. "Snowballing effect" isn't defeated. I mean, we can argue why, is it mana or not, but snowballing is here. It is in EU4, it is in Imperator.
3. Rulers aren't memorizable. Even with traits, they're not so important, they're just numbers. Low-level ruler can cause frustration from players indeed, but wouldn't play game if you can't do anything, and that's why, I think, mana system "eroded" - with new expansions new methods of generating mana were added to EU4, some mana sinks were removed (like mana cost on buildings).
In the end, in Imperator: Rome you can just buy mana. Considering gold never was a problem for Paradox games, and "snowballing effect" for gold is the very reason (second one) of creating such a system, I believe it's confession - mana doesn't work.
So, I believe my proposition would work better.
Let player entity (country, for example) to have capacities for something, like (EU4 style) administration, diplomacy, military. Contributors for such capacity would be monarch skills, traits, offices of the realm, tech, agents put into improving capacity, ideas, focuses, whatever you want as a developer. And a lot of things that are operated through mana or limits (like state limit in EU4, or troop limit) would take a piece of said capacity. Capacity is a modificable static. You can't "store" and "spend" it. It's a question of occupancy.
You want to make this conquered provinces your cores? Sure. It's a process, taking N capacity (depending from its size) and time. Until this process is finished, capacity is occupied (part of your administration creating power structure in said provinces), and if you stop it, well, you stop. Capacity is freed, but process should be started anew. You want to make it a state? Sure (no limit on states), but every state has capacity upkeep (depending from distance to capital and development size).
For diplomacy, your capacity is taken by vassals, alliances, improving relations... I think you got an idea.
Things like stability and tech would be done through filling the bar per time, with ability to toggle bonus speed by spending more capacity. Same with ideas (unfilled idea group takes some capacity and filling with the time, player can use toggle to increase cost, but improve speed; or, maybe, it's where sliders would be better to return?).
If you going beyond capacity, game would penaltized you, harsher and harsher as you go out, with "tresholds", and actions for this capacity is slowing (and eventually stopping); something like vassal tax from CK2. Administrative overcapacity can came into inflation, lower production and taxation, stability cost, adm tech costs, building cost. Diplomatic will influence relations, relation changing, trade efficiency, liberty desire. Military would reduce discipline, morale, increase cost and upkeep for military, professionalism. The disaster system, which is, I believe, underdeveloped, can be linked here.
Why it's better? Well.
1. It's give player agenda. He can fine-tune a government he is playing through meaniningful decisions, limited by situation and capacities he have. He can go over the capacity, if he is ready to fight consequences. It would limit player options meaningfully, with his ability to play better to fight it.
2. I'm not hope it would remove snowballing effect, but it can reduce it. With administrative capacity as a limit, in some moment player would achieve a situation where taking this province as a state would burden his capacity too harsh, so it's better to make vassal (burdening diplomatic capacity instead), or, maybe, even forget this province at all. I think it would work better then current implementation.
First of all, by "mana" I understand not some existencial thing. Mana is a system of power points in EU4 and Imperator: Rome; it's not exactly matter what constitute it philosophically. I have opinion, but, in my experience, every discussion about it always came to discussion about "deepest natures" and "everything is a mana, therefore there is nothing bad in mana in EU4". This systems exists, we can observe them as they are, in dynamic.
Secondly, I'm trying to refrain from thesises like "it's not fun", "it's not strategic", something like that. Even if I believe it's not fun, it's means I don't have fun playing with it, nothing more.
No. The most daring problem with mana system is it's not working. Not in a sense that game is awful and "literally unplayable". Not in a sense it's a bad game (I do believe Imperator isn't good game, but EU4 I love enough). Just this particular system isn't working.
Every mechanic in game should be for a purpose. Why does mana mechanic even exist? It was answered long ago, when it was firstly announced, in 2012.
1. It should place a player into a situation where he should chose how to spend limited resource he has.
2. It should remove "snowballing effect", where rich get richer to the extent where nothing is impossible.
3. It should make your rulers memorizable, and put your country performance into dependency of your ruler capabilities.
Again - I'm not discussing are this goals good or bad. It's goals why we have mana,
Ok, it was seven years ago, with ferocious tweaking system around, here and there. So, what was achieved?
1. Players options are limited, but it looks arbitraty and easily defeatable - because mana can be stored. This only reason defeating a goal of setting up limitation for a player - with ability to hoard, you can hoard a lot of mana when you're in luck, and then spend it in a chucks. Essentially, for this proporse mana became not better then gold.
2. "Snowballing effect" isn't defeated. I mean, we can argue why, is it mana or not, but snowballing is here. It is in EU4, it is in Imperator.
3. Rulers aren't memorizable. Even with traits, they're not so important, they're just numbers. Low-level ruler can cause frustration from players indeed, but wouldn't play game if you can't do anything, and that's why, I think, mana system "eroded" - with new expansions new methods of generating mana were added to EU4, some mana sinks were removed (like mana cost on buildings).
In the end, in Imperator: Rome you can just buy mana. Considering gold never was a problem for Paradox games, and "snowballing effect" for gold is the very reason (second one) of creating such a system, I believe it's confession - mana doesn't work.
So, I believe my proposition would work better.
Let player entity (country, for example) to have capacities for something, like (EU4 style) administration, diplomacy, military. Contributors for such capacity would be monarch skills, traits, offices of the realm, tech, agents put into improving capacity, ideas, focuses, whatever you want as a developer. And a lot of things that are operated through mana or limits (like state limit in EU4, or troop limit) would take a piece of said capacity. Capacity is a modificable static. You can't "store" and "spend" it. It's a question of occupancy.
You want to make this conquered provinces your cores? Sure. It's a process, taking N capacity (depending from its size) and time. Until this process is finished, capacity is occupied (part of your administration creating power structure in said provinces), and if you stop it, well, you stop. Capacity is freed, but process should be started anew. You want to make it a state? Sure (no limit on states), but every state has capacity upkeep (depending from distance to capital and development size).
For diplomacy, your capacity is taken by vassals, alliances, improving relations... I think you got an idea.
Things like stability and tech would be done through filling the bar per time, with ability to toggle bonus speed by spending more capacity. Same with ideas (unfilled idea group takes some capacity and filling with the time, player can use toggle to increase cost, but improve speed; or, maybe, it's where sliders would be better to return?).
If you going beyond capacity, game would penaltized you, harsher and harsher as you go out, with "tresholds", and actions for this capacity is slowing (and eventually stopping); something like vassal tax from CK2. Administrative overcapacity can came into inflation, lower production and taxation, stability cost, adm tech costs, building cost. Diplomatic will influence relations, relation changing, trade efficiency, liberty desire. Military would reduce discipline, morale, increase cost and upkeep for military, professionalism. The disaster system, which is, I believe, underdeveloped, can be linked here.
Why it's better? Well.
1. It's give player agenda. He can fine-tune a government he is playing through meaniningful decisions, limited by situation and capacities he have. He can go over the capacity, if he is ready to fight consequences. It would limit player options meaningfully, with his ability to play better to fight it.
2. I'm not hope it would remove snowballing effect, but it can reduce it. With administrative capacity as a limit, in some moment player would achieve a situation where taking this province as a state would burden his capacity too harsh, so it's better to make vassal (burdening diplomatic capacity instead), or, maybe, even forget this province at all. I think it would work better then current implementation.
Last edited: