Hold off on the ideas if you start to fall too far behind in tech?
- 11
- 3
Corruption hate - why??
- Thread starter Captain Frye
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Hold off on the ideas if you start to fall too far behind in tech?
This. Just adjust your play style as needed. If I have a bad ADM ruler, cut back on conquest, focus ADM and higher a better adviser. Meanwhile, I can use DIP and MIL for other things.
- 6
- 4
.png){kind=avatar}
In short, yes, corruption changed how the game works. If you continue to play as you did before you will not do well. Adapt. Something is not a bad feature merely because it means that new factors need to be considered or tactics need to be used.
- 8
- 3
Corruption is a stupid mechanic that tries to prevent you from doing the only fun thing in the game: war. What else are you supposed to do? Sit and wait to get enough monarch points to develop a province?
And for some reason people seem to be claiming that corruption makes the game harder... It doesn't. For the player, corruption is an annoyance. It doesn't stop you from expanding, it just makes it an annoying process. For the AI, corruption is death. It just can't handle it. And when the AI fails to handle a new feature, the player's relative power to the AI increases, making the game even easier.
I just don't understand what Paradox is trying to achieve with this mechanic. It doesn't make the game harder, it doesn't make it more fun... what does it do?
And for some reason people seem to be claiming that corruption makes the game harder... It doesn't. For the player, corruption is an annoyance. It doesn't stop you from expanding, it just makes it an annoying process. For the AI, corruption is death. It just can't handle it. And when the AI fails to handle a new feature, the player's relative power to the AI increases, making the game even easier.
I just don't understand what Paradox is trying to achieve with this mechanic. It doesn't make the game harder, it doesn't make it more fun... what does it do?
- 21
- 7
Perhaps the problem is that the only thing to do in vanilla EU4 is fight wars? There I would agree with you. But I see corruption and states as the hoped for beginning of that no longer being true, rather than a misstep.
- 10
- 7
A large part of why I hate corruption is that in the long run it punishes you for having bad rulers. It's easy to keep it at bay with normal monarchs, but get a 0/0/1 who lives until his 80's and almost a 1/5th of your campaign is ruined having to balance techs and waiting.
I'll keep trying to get used to it and hope it leads to deeper mechanics but it's so annoying...
I'll keep trying to get used to it and hope it leads to deeper mechanics but it's so annoying...
- 6
- 2
It's funny how the WC crowd seems to always feel the need to conquer here too.
- 6
- 5
You're supposed to be punished for having bad rulers. That's how the game works.
- 26
- 3
Corruption punishing you with increased monarch point costs by the very fact of not having enough monarch points to keep yout tech balanced... Bad rulers already are a punishment, punishing twice feels redundant to me.
Moreover, how does it make sense? I can understand corruption could happen in a country that is overextended or with religious diversity, I can imagine how would it happen in the real world. What I cannot get is how developing a new kind of cannon instead of new agricultural techniques makes corruption appear.
- 22
If I wanted to play a game where I was punished for having bad RNG, I'd just go play a game properly built around it like 100% Orange Juice. At least that's a party game. Being punished for bad RNG doesn't make sense in a strategy game. Now if this was a game where you had the ability to tutor your heir and develop him and him turning out poorly was because you tutored him poorly, then sure, punish me for having bad rulers. Don't punish me just because I failed to toss dice correctly.
- 10
- 2
- 1
how is that good design in a strategy game? You could literally be the best eu4 player in the entire world and you still can't effect monarch stats. So it's just bad design to make them so important
- 6
- 2
The corruption is solely off your religious unity so high tolerance would be fine as highly tolerated religions don't decrease your religious unity.
Balancing techs with a 0/0/1 wouldn't be that hard at all unless you were hell-bent on trying to keep up in mil tech and focused it and went 0/0/3 on advisors or somesuch. It is absolutely true though that there need to be better options as mil point sinks
People hate corruption because Religious Unity affects it. This is stupid and should be replaced by anything- low legitimacy, republican tradition, anything.
- 5
I found that taking a military idea group early to tank military tech level means you can expand faster with less corruption. Yes, you will be behind in military tech but your military ideas can help against that.
Thus you get equally bad in all tech areas so you can blobb out with less corruption.
PS Ive mostly played africa/asia in 1.16.
Thus you get equally bad in all tech areas so you can blobb out with less corruption.
PS Ive mostly played africa/asia in 1.16.
- 1
I agree with this. It should be a mix of legitimacy (and equivalents), prestige, and the like.
Religious Unity should not effect it.
- 1
If you as the player don't intervene, then it takes a while for the AI nations to do anything really, most will handle corruption by taking 1-2 provinces in as many decades, however if they take say 10 provinces in 3 years and it goes on like that, then you find the bankruptcy spiral. I have broken France, England, PLC, Ottos and HRE Blobs this way ( with Florence ) I start a war against one of their rivals, feed them as many provinces as they will take in the peace deal, do this a few times till they've taken close to 100% OE. Usually they have gone into debt by the last war and have no more manpower, at this point you just break alliance and wait, then after truce you attack and eat them. The thing is monarch power costs increase with corruption, corruption increases with overextension and low religious unity. After they've got 15 corruption, they will go bankrupt trying to keep FL size of troops and fighting corruption.
This means you can basically force the AI into bankruptcy by feeding them provinces, which after 15-20 corruption, they can't core due to MP costs being so high. So they spiral out of control. It was fun the first 2 games with France and Kuba (because reasons) after that though I realized how sad a state the Devs have left the game in.
I know many people want this game to have more depth and challenge, I get it, problem is the core game design is all about conquest. Before anyone chews my head off, yes you as the player can (thanks to some DLC and free patches) take a different path. The thing is though the Devs tacked most of this stuff on after the vanilla game was designed, because people wanted it. To me though all these changes have the same effect as putting bicycle tires on a Ferrari, sure you can drive it, but it won't perform properly. This is the problem I see with all the changes the Devs are making to the core game, they don't have the depth that they should because they're trying to turn it into something it's not.
I have one final suggestion since all over these forums people have been citing that PDX knows how to add depth because of games like CKII and Vicky II. I have CKII and play it when I want indepth country management and political/diplomatic strategy and depth. It's what it's good at, you look at the complaints about the latest DLC and most of them are becuase of changes to make the game more like a different game. Which is what has been kinda happening here, instead of playing EU4 for what it is, people seem to want a game that combines the best of EU4, CK2 and Vicky2 with a bit of HOI3 in there for good measure.
I will grant you that game would probably rock out loud, but it's not going to happen with EU4, to do that they would have to start fresh with a completely new game with that specific design philosophy. Otherwise we get all these mechanics and features that on paper look amazing but in simple game terms really aren't that fun or challenging for me. Now to those of you having fun with this patch that's great, I won't berate you or belittle you claiming you only play a certain way or with certain nations. What I will say is that I think you might have more fun or get more depth with a different game that caters more to the style of play you use.
With every new patch and DLC we're getting more and more options for play taken away than put in, so this begs the question, do we want a good abstract strategy game of conquest (which we know EU4 is great at) or do we want a watered down version of EU4/CK2/Vic2?
- 9
- 1
- 1
Playing Kongo, corruption is fine after the patch. I got 8 corruption carelessly after switching to Catholicism and it paralized my game before the patch. Now its zero - it wasn't too expensive to reduce it, and i rarely get up to 1-2 when I conquer 90-100 territory of overextension. I westernized, have almost whole Africa atm.
Just don't tech too much unevenly. Don't let religious unity to go too low too long. Thats about it for 90% of the countries.
Just don't tech too much unevenly. Don't let religious unity to go too low too long. Thats about it for 90% of the countries.
- 1
The "simple solution" would be to simply cap how much AI can spend on fighting corruption, isn't it?
- 2
My only concern with corruption is I feel a non west tech nation should prioritize westernization Asap. I mean the behind tech really hurts.