Combined dynasty, internal policy proposition.

[unmerged(7313)]

I dislike the idea.

1, one of the ugliest, though practical features of EU2 are the horrible slidersettings which are unhistoric, ugly, gamey, highly artifical and who's only benefit is that they are practical from a gamebalance point of wiew. Now, imagine these arn't there.

I don't know why are you people obssesed with sliders. Sure, they can be improved (anyone seen Crown of Glory?), in order to be more balanced and less exploitable - and I do know how that could be done, yet it's subject for another tread. But even in they current form they allow a player broad scope of possible settings without unnecessary complexity.

Actually, I'd prefer to have DP sliders, but not have them modifyable by humans. I'd much prefer that the Situational Events Engine have events to move DP sliders based on your current situation in game.

ie: We have colonies overseas. We should get an event offering to move us 1 closer to naval for a price.

Ugh, and I prefer to have armies and navies in game, but not movable by humans. And some upgrades in provinces, but not buildable by players.

Putting some feature in game and denying a control over it is a bad design decision.

And goverments, not some Situational Events Engine, have made more or less conscious decisions concerning domestic policy.

2, one of the main features of politics and alliances of the time was dynastic. There is a reason so many of the wars fought have the word succesion in their name. Imagine this included in CBs, Treaties etc.

Sure thing. But what you do, is to propose a system that is everything but dynastic. One world - primogeniture. I don't see nobles from Austria, France, Spain, Russia, whatever, thinking "Hmm, we have here that oldest son of our late king. But let's pick some other fellow instead".
There are exceptions, for which your system would work better - times of troubles for different countries - England or Russia, for example, or merchant republic, orders, elective monarchies. Neither of them can be seen as "dynastic".

Every rules carries a certain domestic policy and different settings, together with different relations modifiers with surrounding nations/rulers, proness to different religions, and to the four groups represented by the parliament. (nobility, clergy, merchant and peasants). This together with the internal situation (how strong different groups are politicly).

No. Too deterministic. Situation changes, DP follows. People sometimes change their views, react to the changes in their environment. Not in your proposal.

Overall, what you propose add a lot of complexity (in different layers - first research for every single nation, that an incredible strain for AI - bunch of possible heirs for every single nation, other nations influencing the outcome etc. and finally - a lot of micromanaging for player). And I don't feel that it adds that much in terms of gameplay to be worth it.

 

[unmerged(11600)]

Ugh, and I prefer to have armies and navies in game, but not movable by humans. And some upgrades in provinces, but not buildable by players.

Putting some feature in game and denying a control over it is a bad design decision.

And goverments, not some Situational Events Engine, have made more or less conscious decisions concerning domestic policy.

Duuk gives a fuller explanation of what he's looking for in another thread, but I'll summarize here, because you've missed his point.

What he's suggesting is that the sliders be set by the player's/ai's actions rather than being set directly and then acting in a completely different manner. Frex, setting the land/naval slider at 100% naval but never building a ship while building massive armies. The player would still control the slider, but indirectly and in an intuitively correct manner.

-Pat

 

[Quift]

I dislike the idea.

I don't know why are you people obssesed with sliders. Sure, they can be improved (anyone seen Crown of Glory?), in order to be more balanced and less exploitable - and I do know how that could be done, yet it's subject for another tread. But even in they current form they allow a player broad scope of possible settings without unnecessary complexity.

I can't develop a relation to them, and most importantly. I think that the are to separated from the game. they are to stiff, easy to change, unrelated to other features and in general don't have the impact they should have. (a trading nations choices should for instance be related to the relations towards other trading nations, policychoices in france to be lenient on protestants should reflect in relations with the pope etc.

Sure thing. But what you do, is to propose a system that is everything but dynastic. One world - primogeniture. I don't see nobles from Austria, France, Spain, Russia, whatever, thinking "Hmm, we have here that oldest son of our late king. But let's pick some other fellow instead".
There are exceptions, for which your system would work better - times of troubles for different countries - England or Russia, for example, or merchant republic, orders, elective monarchies. Neither of them can be seen as "dynastic".

Some people would choose the uncle, younger brother, cousin twice removed by marriage, etc. It's not really like this is a timeperiod of stable, straightline succesion. Succession was a big issue, and one of the primary reasons to go to war. The example fapart rom your list are: all republics where this would symbolise parties; Poland; Netherlands; Castille/aragon/Spain/Neapel. Papalstates; bohemia; hungary; óttoman empire;sweden;scotland;france; and prolly some more.

As I said, if it's related to the stability of the country then it becomes more logical. internal politics should be somewhat more than a nr between 0-6.

No. Too deterministic. Situation changes, DP follows. People sometimes change their views, react to the changes in their environment. Not in your proposal.

Overall, what you propose add a lot of complexity (in different layers - first research for every single nation, that an incredible strain for AI - bunch of possible heirs for every single nation, other nations influencing the outcome etc. and finally - a lot of micromanaging for player). And I don't feel that it adds that much in terms of gameplay to be worth it.

only to much reasearch is you want every ruler to be historic aswell. logicly they wouldn't be since they are possible to change. Ergo, the game becomes less deterministic, and the micromanagment involved is not that much. It's a question of supprting one heir at every change (option A,B and C), and to fiddle in other countries when you see an opportunity which is of course good for gameplay. But the most important feature is that it makes it harder for the player to have the DP where he wants them, forcing him to make strategic choices that affect the entire scope of the game. ie strategic game.

 

[unmerged(7313)]

I can't develop a relation to them, and most importantly. I think that the are to separated from the game. they are to stiff, easy to change, unrelated to other features and in general don't have the impact they should have. (a trading nations choices should for instance be related to the relations towards other trading nations, policychoices in france to be lenient on protestants should reflect in relations with the pope etc.

Stiff?
- well, maybe a little tiny bit...
Easy to change?
- don't think so, 0 to 10 in 100 years
Unrelated, with small impact?
- I can feel a huge difference between aristocracy 0 and 10 in diplomacy, war & economy, same with the most of others

The example fapart rom your list are: all republics where this would symbolise parties; Poland; Netherlands; Castille/aragon/Spain/Neapel. Papalstates; bohemia; hungary; óttoman empire;sweden;scotland;france; and prolly some more.

France - apart from the religious war succesions were straightforward
Spain - in the most of EU3 timeframe, succesion was pretty straightforward, at least until Spain Hapsburgs died off
Bohemia, Hungary - would be good examples, only in the EU3 timeframe they weren't independent most of the time
Scotland - for a long time, single Stuart was only candidate
Netherlands - honestly, I don't know that much about Stadtholders...
Sweden - okay, they were weird with succesions, probably viking thing
Republics, Poland - were on my list. And your system might work for them, but they were not "dynastic". Isn't it starange that "dynastic system" works best without dynasty?
Papal states, Ottomans - bah, they are different in many different ways

Still, all of them are rather exceptions, not rule.

As I said, if it's related to the stability of the country then it becomes more logical. internal politics should be somewhat more than a nr between 0-6.

But you say that we still should have a nr between 0-6, only tied with a monarch?

only to much reasearch is you want every ruler to be historic aswell. logicly they wouldn't be since they are possible to change. Ergo, the game becomes less deterministic, and the micromanagment involved is not that much. It's a question of supprting one heir at every change (option A,B and C), and to fiddle in other countries when you see an opportunity which is of course good for gameplay.

Ok, I didn't get that you wanted randomized rulers/possible heirs. I still believe that AI would sooner die then handle your system well. 200 countries, 600 possible rulers, every counrty may fiddle with succesion in other...

But the most important feature is that it makes it harder for the player to have the DP where he wants them, forcing him to make strategic choices that affect the entire scope of the game. ie strategic game.

Hm, maybe that's why I dislike your idea. I want to make strategic choices about how to set my sliders, where different possible setting have different adventages and disadventages, for the entire scope of the game (and the player should be punished by game engine for actions inconsistent with DP setting).
Being unable to chose an exact policy for a country is like being unable to give an exact orders to its army. You advocate for less control for player and call it strategy.

 

[Quift]

about the stab,

the higher the stab, the more straight the succesion. It's when stab is low that succesion becomes volatile and prone to change. also about the dp, every mopnarchg doesn't "set" the dp, but carry inclinations, so they are each +3,-1,+0, and relations with france +60 etc.

so you could set the dp faster in some areas, but then you may be forced to forgoe it in others. its a better simulation of how politics works. No monarch could set the entire thing, they could set it in some areas, while losing in others. for me it's a balance issue.

And about the AI. The AI cannot handle the dp at all at present, so having a more coherent system, might lead the AI to change the settings slightly better than now.

 

[unmerged(7313)]

I start to be less opposed to your idea, but that might be because I am a little confused about its details.

1. Succesion tied to stability
That sounds OK, but what exactly is a stability in EU? Very abstract measure of turmoil within state. What causes low stability? Usually random or historical nasty events, and much less - direct player actions (ie. that -1 for DOWing the same religion won't ruin you). Most of these events mean that people that way or another don't accept deciosions of their ruler.
So you get:
Event describing that people aren't content with their ruler
then
Low Stability
then
Problems with succesion

But problems with succesion, in its core, mean only that player is forced to move his sliders a bit this way or that (OK, also changing relations, but I don't think that's very important).
It seems to me that you can get exactly the same results with much simpler means - in a way that it's done now, by events (for example: political crisis, stab -x, choose one:
A. appeal for clergy support, innovative -x, lost taxes in random provinces
B. give more power to nobility, aristocracy +x, centralization -x
C. enforce royal prepogative, revoltrisk +xx, cash -xxx)

Very crude example, yet observe how the results are similar to those from your system, obtained with much less complexity.

2. Monarch with different DP settings
I think that contested succesions can be actually beneficial for player, who can chose one of three possible rulers with different DP inclinations; at least one of them can turn out to be in accordance with the player's wishes. Problems here:
-if your stability is high, succesion is straight
But what does that mean? You can't chose the next ruler, so you get his random DP inclinations (bad)? Or you get some generic guy that don't have any inclinations (bad too, as with contested succesion you can move sliders for free)?
-ability to chose rulers, balance
Since the player can choose one of the possible rulers, he can always take one that best suits his wishes, which can't be counterbalanced in any way. For example, a current situation needs low centralization and high aristocracy. Player know that, AI don't. So ruler with these inclinations can't be balnced with higher stability or monetary cost, cause the AI won't see him as any better then others. It also mean that players will chose right guys, and poor AI will chose random.

 

[Quift]

You could choose heir 2 or three, but then you loose stab. so it may be wort to change the internal policy, but then the country gets in turmoil etc. Quite realistic.

Off course you could do it without "persons", but faces, charachteristics end a name is better for the simple reason that you may relate more to it. instead of generic ruler "Bill" with no face you may have "Erik III" of Habsburg (thus proaustrian), who suck bigtime in economy but is loved and protected by the BWB? once you actually care about something the games become better. people care about people :rofl:

 

[unmerged(2456)]

maybe your right. I just didn't want to turn it into a rpg, nor introduce any micromanagment. aslong as they marry automatiucly, procreate and educate without me, and I don't have to bother about nativity, bastards, family quarrles et such. focus should be on gameplay after all. If you want a nice family tree thats fine, as long as i don't have to meddle with it. And no bloody courtiers around waiting for jobs.

I agree, this is a game more about countries than dynasty's, but dynasty's still play a huge role here, even in the latter stage. Rights of claimancy, inheritance and such were still a huge part of this period and are entirely glossed over in eu2.

I agree having to worry about minor characters, such as the numerous bastards your ruler likely has, isn't needed. If they aren't the ruler, can't inherit, not a child of (legitimatly) related to a ruler, not in a position of power (such as a civil servant or adopted heir), we don't need to track them...unless they are going to spark a civil war. Infact if say one of your sons goes insane and starts speaking to angels, he's likely going to be dropped from the inheritance line and unless he's needed for another reason can be "dropped". We could even decide to not track anyone outside beyond a certain level and if they are needed, say your 4th cousin inheits at age 53, we can determine at that time any randomly generated descendants of his own.

about the stab,

the higher the stab, the more straight the succesion. It's when stab is low that succesion becomes volatile and prone to change. also about the dp, every mopnarchg doesn't "set" the dp, but carry inclinations, so they are each +3,-1,+0, and relations with france +60 etc.

Hmm...how exactly would this work? I mean even at -3 stability the order of inheritance would be just as clear as +3. Instability does not change the actual order, only the change in laws, or birth/death of someone or the disowning/excommunication or equivalent (in some cases) does.

so you could set the dp faster in some areas, but then you may be forced to forgoe it in others. its a better simulation of how politics works. No monarch could set the entire thing, they could set it in some areas, while losing in others. for me it's a balance issue.

And about the AI. The AI cannot handle the dp at all at present, so having a more coherent system, might lead the AI to change the settings slightly better than now.

Well the ai can be taught how to handle even current eu2 sliders, it just takes time. Teaching it how to min/max appropriately and prioritize isn't as hard as making a compitent war ai.

As to other thing, not sure how you'd go about doing that.

One thing though, sliders are not the end-all-be-all for representing eu stuff. They cannot, FE, represent a good governmental-type system, unless you have about a dozen of them just to the form of government.

Maybe something like a graph you might see in rpgs (for stats) where its a 5-point pentagon chart where you could ajust those points at the expense of others. Of course it doesn't need to be 5 points, it could be 7 or 8, but not too many or it becomes cluttered.

 

[Quift]

Well, what I wanted to do was to 1, get rid of the sliders, 2, create an intresting internal politic choice, 3, in some way incorporate dynasties and and foreign influence on politics.

Any suggestion that carries this out in some way is fine by me, and I don't really care about neither historicity in the sence that A should look like A (even if it's weird for the time). Historicity is important in terms of dynamics, not appearence. Thus any system could be good in this sense and your pentagon proposal would appeal to a larger crowd (the OT-crowd).

I just like to re-introduce strategic choice instead of pushing slider 3 one step to the left, while ignoring what this would implicate for the relations towards country X, the trade pattern with country Z and production.

What about clear succesion in most parts, but nasty events that force change at low stab?

"The Monarhy is disputed and the nobilty demand XCT. Yes, No (cue, worse stab, worse stab, worse events)"

Some CK event chains would be nice...

 

[crusaderknight]

...Sure thing. But what you do, is to propose a system that is everything but dynastic. One world - primogeniture. I don't see nobles from Austria, France, Spain, Russia, whatever, thinking "Hmm, we have here that oldest son of our late king. But let's pick some other fellow instead".
There are exceptions, for which your system would work better - times of troubles for different countries - England or Russia, for example, or merchant republic, orders, elective monarchies. Neither of them can be seen as "dynastic"...

Take a look at Portugal. In the late 1300s, the "primary" heir was Spanish. The Portuguese didn't like the idea of a Spaniard ruling Portugal, so what do they do? They take the late king's bastard son and say, "Here is the rightful claimant to the throne! He shall rule, not the Spaniard!". There's a pretty big break with Primogeniture there. It was all about how people felt about John of Spain and John of Portugal. Most people said,"We want John of Portugal because he is Portuguese! Primogeniture be darned!"

- Crusaderknight

 

[arcorelli]

Take a look at Portugal. In the late 1300s, the "primary" heir was Spanish. The Portuguese didn't like the idea of a Spaniard ruling Portugal, so what do they do? They take the late king's bastard son and say, "Here is the rightful claimant to the throne! He shall rule, not the Spaniard!". There's a pretty big break with Primogeniture there. It was all about how people felt about John of Spain and John of Portugal. Most people said,"We want John of Portugal because he is Portuguese! Primogeniture be darned!"

- Crusaderknight

Yep. Only problem late 1300's. Before EUIII era. The next time the primary heir was Spanish, the portuguese accepted him (I believe the only opposition to that was in the Azores).

 

[Quift]

Yep. Only problem late 1300's. Before EUIII era. The next time the primary heir was Spanish, the portuguese accepted him (I believe the only opposition to that was in the Azores).

Not like i'ts the only example though. Swedish history for instance is full of these. Danish and russian meddling was plentisome. And then you have Venice, Poland etc. It's could be used as a very nice and enjoyable feature for those who don't enjoy warmongering that much.