Constructive criticism of the Monarch points mechanic

[Taciturn Scot]

In fact the relationship between monarchs and technological innovation was much more accurately represented in EU3 and EU2. That was exactly how it used to work: the crown gave money and legal authorization, the entrepreneurs returned with some result -

If I'm wrong in this, I'm sure you will correct me but haven't Monarch's ratings always affected technology in EU2 and 3 in exactly the same way? They had Administrative, Diplomatic and Military ratings that contributed to the monthly tech investment. They had a minimum rating of 3, which is the same as you find for even the worst Monarch in the Western tech group. The only real change I can see with respect to MPs is that they are now used to do more in the game than their counterparts were in the earlier games in the series.


Seeing as how I rarely have any real trouble keeping my techs up to date on top of getting ideas and building infrastructure in my games in spite of having a string of truly appalling differs in charge for long periods of time, I don't see a need for a boost to technology from investments of cash right now. We can convert gold to MPs by hiring better advisers.

The time monarchs began to really get involved with technology was when they made the link between technological progress and political power. That's why the Royal Society was founded in 1662, chartered by Charles II and there are many more such examples across Europe.

I think it's much too early to start calling for significant changes to be made to this system. I can see great potential for development in the future for example, introducing such structures and institutions in a future expansion or DLC as you point out here. There's only so much that they can do while developing a game within a budget. Let's see what comes later.

But most importantly - you do not know in advance what you are about to discover! It's not a discovery if you know in advance, is it?

Agreed. this is a problem with most games that use tech trees. We already know what we want to get first and beeline to a particular tech to get an edge. Best tech system I've seen so far is AEGOD's Pride of Nations but I'm sure there are much better systems. But the tech tree is not really related to the MP mechanic, is it?

 

[grommile]

If I'm wrong in this, I'm sure you will correct me but haven't Monarch's ratings always affected technology in EU2 and 3 in exactly the same way? They had Administrative, Diplomatic and Military ratings that contributed to the monthly tech investment.

In an amount that was approximately meaningless unless you were both tiny and desperately impoverished.

 

[unmerged(139685)]

My biggest issue with the MP system is the tying of monarch points to infrastructure development. As things stand if I develop my infrastructure my technology advancement collapses. This is totally counterintuitive; infrastructure is supposed to ADVANCE technological development not the other way around. There should be some bonus to tech from infrastructure to encourage and reward the investment.

That's actually one of the positive effects of the monarch point system: large empires tend to have a developed core and neglected periphery (eg. Russia, any colonial empire). The problem is that research is tied to monarch points.

Research should accumulate rather than being bought. Any time you do anything related to a research category (anything with a cost in money or points, to avoid people marching troops in circles to get military research), you should accumulate a few points until you've got sufficient experience and practice to find new methods. It should be an indirect result of your actions rather than something bought off the shelf. That way, warmongers automatically advance more quickly in military tech, colonizers and shipbuilders in diplomatic, builders in administration. Your research will automatically match your playstyle.

 

[justin6477]

I can live with one of my neighbours having a 200-point AE opinion modifier towards me much more easily than I can live with 104% OE.

Having survived 300% OE {never invade China}, I can't say I sympathize. I'd also sooner do that than have to balance the Eastern, Western and Central fronts again. The Swedo-Polish-Ming-Persian-Indian_Minor coalition was something of a headache.

Why do you hate Poland?

I don't; I like Poland. However, the entire point of The Commonwealth should be to deal with their Baltic, German, and East-Slavic holdings. Along with any religious disunity they may have.

When that happens, you have to make decisions about your priorities. (Being at -1 stab is not a problem unless you're mismanaging your country. Even -2 is tolerable if you have high RU and no OE or WE.)

Generally agreed, but with the myriad of costs for admin points, you aren't necessarily in a position to rectify the situation anytime soon. I should clarify that I'm not being anal about staying at +3. Generally I aim for +1 or 0. Spending anymore than that is just folly.

Buildings have to be affordable for small countries.

No. The North Dakotas of the world don't deserve to be as developed as the New Yorks.

 

[marmot01]

If I'm wrong in this, I'm sure you will correct me but haven't Monarch's ratings always affected technology in EU2 and 3 in exactly the same way? They had Administrative, Diplomatic and Military ratings that contributed to the monthly tech investment. They had a minimum rating of 3, which is the same as you find for even the worst Monarch in the Western tech group. The only real change I can see with respect to MPs is that they are now used to do more in the game than their counterparts were in the earlier games in the series.


Seeing as how I rarely have any real trouble keeping my techs up to date on top of getting ideas and building infrastructure in my games in spite of having a string of truly appalling differs in charge for long periods of time, I don't see a need for a boost to technology from investments of cash right now. We can convert gold to MPs by hiring better advisers.

True, I hadn't forgotten that, but the bonus was minimal because the monarch's ability ranged between 1 and 3 I think. And the major contribution was from the national budget. Still better than directly "buying" tech with MP like it is now.

I think it's much too early to start calling for significant changes to be made to this system. I can see great potential for development in the future for example, introducing such structures and institutions in a future expansion or DLC as you point out here. There's only so much that they can do while developing a game within a budget. Let's see what comes later.

If you mean the monarch points system, I think there is lots of improvement possible without the developers' intervention, but I don't stop hoping they will see its flaws and react soon.

Agreed. this is a problem with most games that use tech trees. We already know what we want to get first and beeline to a particular tech to get an edge. Best tech system I've seen so far is AEGOD's Pride of Nations but I'm sure there are much better systems. But the tech tree is not really related to the MP mechanic, is it?

You're right, it's not and I started a bit of a side topic with it. I realize it would be too much to ask Paradox to rework the tech mechanic right now, but we can always mod stuff can't we.

 

[grommile]

I don't; I like Poland. However, the entire point of The Commonwealth should be to deal with their Baltic, German, and East-Slavic holdings. Along with any religious disunity they may have.

If you say absorbing vassals or PU juniors in EU4 should not give cores on wrong-culture provinces, then by cause and effect, you may reasonably be inferred to either (a) not have done your homework or (b) hate Poland. So, taking you at your word that it isn't (b):

The Grand Duchy of Lithuania's Lithuanian and East Slavic provinces add up to a total of 96 base tax. That costs 1920 (base; with Diplomatic ideas it drops to 1440, and if we hypothetically grant claims on it all it drops to 960) admin points to core, and produces 384% OE - causing, on top of all the fun of the PurelyNasty events, a global +19.2% to RR, +192% to mercenary costs, and +192% to stability costs.

Provinces acquired without cores get 30 years of nationalism, providing +9% RR and 9% minRR in those provinces, and coring does not progress when a province is under siege.

Oh, and Kiev produces the largest revolts of any province in Europe (or, indeed, the world).

 

[justin6477]

If you say absorbing vassals or PU juniors in EU4 should not give cores on wrong-culture provinces, then by cause and effect, you may reasonably be inferred to either (a) not have done your homework or (b) hate Poland. So, taking you at your word that it isn't (b):

The Grand Duchy of Lithuania's Lithuanian and East Slavic provinces add up to a total of 96 base tax. That costs 1920 (base; with Diplomatic ideas it drops to 1440, and if we hypothetically grant claims on it all it drops to 960) admin points to core, and produces 384% OE - causing, on top of all the fun of the PurelyNasty events, a global +19.2% to RR, +192% to mercenary costs, and +192% to stability costs.

Provinces acquired without cores get 30 years of nationalism, providing +9% RR and 9% minRR in those provinces, and coring does not progress when a province is under siege.

Oh, and Kiev produces the largest revolts of any province in Europe (or, indeed, the world).

Not necessarily. It isn't without reason that I mention The Commonwealth. The decision inherits Lithuania (or Poland, both circumstances are viable) and grants claims on any of the areas they don't happen to own. I'd make it so this circumstance inherits with cores, which I believe was the EU3 way with formables. Although, it's been a long, long time since I've played vanilla EU3, so I could be wrong. But in most other instances (the exceptions should have their own exceptional circumstances to reflect this), it really shouldn't work. The Spanish Netherlands being a prime example.

 

[TheAtreides84]

As someone already said, monarch point are there to reflect the bureaucracy of the nations. But your criticism is spot on: what I would do is expanding advisors (representing the three branches of the government) to be much more important than the monarch, stat-wise.

 

[grommile]

Not necessarily. It isn't without reason that I mention The Commonwealth. The decision inherits Lithuania (or Poland, both circumstances are viable) and grants claims on any of the areas they don't happen to own. I'd make it so this circumstance inherits with cores, which I believe was the EU3 way with formables.

EU3's formations (with the exception of the glorious weirdness that is Renovatio Imperii, which actively rewarded Ugly Borders) are all like Russia or military Spain, not like the Commonwealth.

 

[DukeWilleo1630]

I find the problem with monarch points is that they are used for too much. This causes bottlenecks where you have oodles of money but still low stability or building count. Not a huge issue, as it doesn't necessarily make the game too hard.

 

[justin6477]

EU3's formations (with the exception of the glorious weirdness that is Renovatio Imperii, which actively rewarded Ugly Borders) are all like Russia or military Spain, not like the Commonwealth.

True, there are aren't really any inheriting formations besides the HRE. However, my point was about granting cores and not formation requirements. That being said, I'm fairly certain that an inheritable decision (other than Renovatio Imperii) was more than possible in EU3.

 

[strits1945]

you make excellent points, and i mostly agree with all of them and have nothing original to add to them


but i gotta ask one thing, to anyone who it might affect:

did you really ever "run out of points" and had something go horribly wrong for that reason?


because even though i get shitty monarchs just as much s everyone else, i might fall behind a tech level or two on occasion, but almost everytime its because of my own failure to plan ahead, and its is by no means permanent.

yes sometimes i would like to build thousands worth of ducats and lakc the corresponding points, that might be annoying, but its not a "problem" per se is it?

-Play as Bengal. On first day my king died immediately. next king 0/1/0 rule for 50 year. 50 year later my MIL teach level 6 while all my enemies is level 9. can never fight them. every 5 year they come and rape me no matter how big my force.

-Western group seem to have enough point (this game design for them anyway)

 

[Taciturn Scot]

In an amount that was approximately meaningless unless you were both tiny and desperately impoverished.

Let's see what the wiki has this to say about monarch stats in EU2:

Each monarch is modelled using three numbers, called monarch statistics or monarch skills. The three numbers rate the monarch's administrative, diplomatic, and military abilities. They range from 1 to 9, but may be modified by the country's domestic policies and/or by events. 1 is bad; 3-5 is average; 6+ is good.

In the monarchs file for a country, the three stats are recorded using the tags "ADM", "DIP", and "MIL"; these abbreviations are therefore used generally to discuss the three attributes. It is also convenient to be able to discuss the statistics for a monarch overall without writing them out in a lengthy form. In the EU2 wiki, we use the A/D/M method to abbreviate stats. The stats for a monarch are written down in the order administrative, diplomatic, and military, with slashes in between. For example, the initial English king, Henry V, who has administrative 5, diplomatic 7, and military 9, would be written as:

Henry V (5/7/9)

Sounds familiar, doesn't it? :huh: That is hardly a meaningless contribution to the countries ongoing research, especially if you're playing a nation that is not swimming in cash.

Note that there were no advisors in EU2. EU3 further expanded this to allow you to hire advisors who would boost your monarch's stats in one field. The only real change I see here is that players can no longer invest gold directly in tech. I said earlier that I have had no difficulty keeping my techs up to date and am buying ahead of time from the mid-game onwards even when I have had a string of duffers running my country. And I have all my idea trees filled out in good time and my country's infrastructure is fantastic. I'd say they've done a reasonably good job scaling the cost of tech but if anything, I'd say tech is too cheap, especially later in the game when you can afford to hire better advisors.

To what extent did your monarch stats affect/influence gameplay in EU2?

Effects of Monarch Statistics

Monarch statistics generally affect the part of the game they are similarly named as; i.e., the military statistic affects military morale.

Administrative

The administrative stat (ADM) is used in many places.
The number of colonies you can have before getting penalties for founding new ones.
The number of trading posts you can have before getting penalties for founding new ones.
The chance of successful religious conversion in a settlement, the time it takes, and the cost.
Direct investment in infrastructure tech and trade tech: 1d per ADM point
Direct investment in stability: 2d per ADM point
The ability to place and keep merchants in CoTs. The exact effect is unknown.
Admin rating affects manufactory cost considerably (up to a few 100 ducats). More research needs to be done for exact effects.

Diplomacy

The diplomacy statistic (DIP) affects the following actions:
Gifts: Higher DIP lowers the cost of gifts, and makes good outcomes more likely.
Diplomatic vassalization.
Diplomatic annexation.
The badboy maximum value.
Badboy decrease per month.
The number of diplomats a country gets annually: base is 1, +1 for each DIP point above 6.

Military

The military statistic (MIL) has only two effects.
Direct investment in land tech and naval tech: 1d per month per monarch point.
Army and navy morale: Monarch modifier = (MIL-5)*0.0625; MIL is capped at 9.

It would appear that a real duffer screwed the gameplay even as far back as EU2.

 

[marmot01]

Yep, apparently EU2 was also less realistic than I remember it with respect to how research was working

 

[nijis]

To my mind technological progress should work without direct player involvement, in the same way that army and navy tradition is accumulated - the more you use a muscle, the stronger it gets.

I would love to see this being the approach used. Obviously it would be affected by some player choices and ties to other countries.

 

[KarlMonster]

I rather like the poorly-named MPs.

Think of it like the Curia. It doesn't matter what the Pope wants, it is the Cardinals (etc) around him that have the most influence on policy. They just have to tell him what he wants to hear. Think of a ruler's stats as a tendency to make good (or bad) decisions with respect to the sorts of people that advise him. For example, a 1-1-1 ruler is an idiot who trusts his moronic friends to know what is best in running the country, while a 6-6-6 ruler understands that it is administrative effectiveness, not charm, that makes a great administrator/advisor.

One of the things that I did all the time in EU3 was to somehow capture and hold faraway provinces; in the Balkans, or wherever I could find an easy victim. In EU3 holding such a province was relatively easy. In EU4, its a nightmare - and it should be! The faraway province has a different set of neighbors, which strains the MP diplomacy system without being impossible. Well, it can be impossible if you take a second far-flung province in a different area of the world. It definitely makes your alliances more important.