IMO Maritime is actually far better than Naval right now and making it galley-specific would just cripple it. +2 naval maneuver, ships repairing along the coast are good, and the rest of the stuff is OK if you care about fleets. If anything, throw more trade-related stuff into Maritime, there's already a decision for it that increases privateer efficiency, making it the light ship idea group makes far more sense than making it the galley group.
DDRJake twitter teaser - idea groups suggestion/discussion
- Thread starter lolada
- 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.
I will always disagree with this using the mindset that the AI should try, and if it does MP balance should be pretty close to SP. That's not EU 4's problem. EU 4 idea groups are not balanced in either setting, which is why you see MP players say they're routinely taking the same picks game to game.
When you make SP a substantially different game from MP by making the AI not try, you wind up needing two entirely different sets of numbers at minimum. It's silly in a game where the AI is allegedly taking the spot of a human, however poorly.
I'd like to see naval get the ability to skip the -2 landing penalty, and maybe confer a combat bonus in fully blockaded provinces. It would be a pretty scary group like that in some areas of the world.
Espionage is a terrible idea group. There is on idea that I think all players would enjoy. Make it where you are searching for other countries spies in your country, you can randomly reduce the unrest of one group or rebels. This would be an almost must pick (potentially supplanting Humanist) but at an opportunity cost of keeping a diplomat busy. That seems balanced. Add in some more anti rebel ideas and it will be chosen often. People hate rebels (but they are necessary).
Most of the time you are forced to pick humanist + religious. For poorer nations it tends to mean you are stuck with a relatively smaller pool of idea groups to pick from.
Ones i use: trade, exploration, quantity, defensive, administrative, religious, humanist, influence
I like espionage but it could be made a rather macabre alternative to humanist/religious. This would free up an admin idea slot which seem nice ideas but only available as a second or third pick.
Ones i use: trade, exploration, quantity, defensive, administrative, religious, humanist, influence
I like espionage but it could be made a rather macabre alternative to humanist/religious. This would free up an admin idea slot which seem nice ideas but only available as a second or third pick.
I believe Espionage cannot really ever be salvaged. I believe the diplomacy system itself fundamentally needs a rework that changes how rebels function and how you can interact with them as well. Then you can start rethinking the espionage group.
One thing to consider is the option of allowing a ninth idea group, but only allowing exactly three from each category. After all, if nearly everyone takes 2 admin + 3 diplo + 3 mil, why not make it 3 admin + 3 diplo + 3 mil for everyone? That way there would be more variety among the admin picks, and allow for still decent idea groups like economic to be picked more.
How about granting +5% discipline and 10% administrative efficiency versus countries you have 100% spy network with. That would make me very interested in building spy networks
I'd like to see a review of the way that we unlock the Idea Groups.
When you hit Admin Tech 5, your nation can pick three of the idea groups, and gets an Idea Cap of 7. At each of the breakpoints thereafter, you can unlock one further idea group, and your cap increases by another 7 ideas.
This would give your nation much more flexibility on how you develop/grow. Rather than Castile having a singular focus on Religion for three decades, then Exploration for three decades, and not touching on any Economy improvements until two centuries down the track ... you would be able to mix and match.
Paradox would need to examine and reshuffle the order of ideas within each group, to avoid "front loading" all of the juiciest bonuses at the start; and ensure that both the Finishers and the Policies were sufficiently attractive, so that you'd always be faced with interesting choices about whether to commit to the completion of a group or spread points into a new one. They might also want to adjust how the Random Pulse Events are triggered, so that instead of "has_chosen_idea_group_X", they require "has_purchased_3rd_idea_in_group_X".
Obviously there are a lot of things to balance in a change like this, and possibly a number of flaws that I haven't considered. And it might be difficult to program the AI to handle these sort of choices effectively. But it's worthy of discussion, IMO.
When you hit Admin Tech 5, your nation can pick three of the idea groups, and gets an Idea Cap of 7. At each of the breakpoints thereafter, you can unlock one further idea group, and your cap increases by another 7 ideas.
This would give your nation much more flexibility on how you develop/grow. Rather than Castile having a singular focus on Religion for three decades, then Exploration for three decades, and not touching on any Economy improvements until two centuries down the track ... you would be able to mix and match.
Paradox would need to examine and reshuffle the order of ideas within each group, to avoid "front loading" all of the juiciest bonuses at the start; and ensure that both the Finishers and the Policies were sufficiently attractive, so that you'd always be faced with interesting choices about whether to commit to the completion of a group or spread points into a new one. They might also want to adjust how the Random Pulse Events are triggered, so that instead of "has_chosen_idea_group_X", they require "has_purchased_3rd_idea_in_group_X".
Obviously there are a lot of things to balance in a change like this, and possibly a number of flaws that I haven't considered. And it might be difficult to program the AI to handle these sort of choices effectively. But it's worthy of discussion, IMO.
Maritime and Naval are lacking, even if that has as much to do with Naval combat vs. AI in general. I'd combine the two, in addition to/or add some ideas that aid on the land side of things, like reducing the penalties for landing, or letting ships act as Supply Depots, increasing the supply and reinforcement rate of friendly regiments on the coast.
Administration I would like to see get broken into two; one a military idea focused on Mercenaries, and the other and actual administration idea. The core cost reduction would either need to be removed (which would mean a level of howling that would make the territory change look like a polite criticism) or more likely, similar effects seen in other ideas, especially ADM ones, so that it's not the must-have mana saver.
Finally, I'd like to see some ideas focused on Estates, now that they are part of the base game. For example, Religious might increase the base influence of the Clergy and give it a new interaction, while Aristocratic might increase the base loyalty of the Nobility, making it easier to make demands or eat loyalty hits from events. Maybe even an idea that reduces the base autonomy of provinces that are controlled by an estate.
Administration I would like to see get broken into two; one a military idea focused on Mercenaries, and the other and actual administration idea. The core cost reduction would either need to be removed (which would mean a level of howling that would make the territory change look like a polite criticism) or more likely, similar effects seen in other ideas, especially ADM ones, so that it's not the must-have mana saver.
Finally, I'd like to see some ideas focused on Estates, now that they are part of the base game. For example, Religious might increase the base influence of the Clergy and give it a new interaction, while Aristocratic might increase the base loyalty of the Nobility, making it easier to make demands or eat loyalty hits from events. Maybe even an idea that reduces the base autonomy of provinces that are controlled by an estate.
My pet peeve is still to move back most of the covert action back into the espionage idea group. It gives you more reasons to get that idea group.
At least one of the devs would disagree with you:
The reason I made my comment on SP vs MP is that even if you accept the devs' assertion that nearly all picks are reasonable in MP (which I don't), that's still not a reason to let SP balance languish as it has.
Does Maritime beat Naval in a head-to-head fight ceterus paribus? If not, it's far worse than naval unless it lets you do something special or interesting (I wouldn't rate coastal repair as either). Naval supremacy tends to be all or nothing, so winning the single critical battle is 80% of what matters.
At least, that's the way it was last time I checked. Ships are too weak for me to care about at the moment, so I haven't done a ton of research.
How about granting +5% discipline and 10% administrative efficiency versus countries you have 100% spy network with. That would make me very interested in building spy networks
Or a buff to the core cost reduction that comes from having a claim, along with the claims bordering claims age ability?
P.S. Mare Nostrum make it so an active spy network gives you increased Siege Ability and reduces AE in regards to that nation... However, this comes with the crippling downside of having Mare Nostrum active.
Last edited:
If we are talking about combat modifiers, I think we shouldnt throw discipline and adm eff. as bonus in every scenario. We already got a tactics modifier: spy network should affect that imo.How about granting +5% discipline and 10% administrative efficiency versus countries you have 100% spy network with. That would make me very interested in building spy networks
At least one developer thought each of the following was a good idea:
- Nerfing religious ideas relative to humanist (again), despite that it was more often the weaker choice
- Nerfing culture conversions, as if this was actually worth doing on a large scale
- Buffing the strongest conquest options in the game by a wide margin and nerfing alternatives (again)
- Arbitrarily removing ships from a subset of nations (no consistent standards or rationale)
- Making truces scale to 15 years and then claiming this will disincentivize total war (despite that such a claim was and is mathematically false and came alongside questioning the math skills of others )
- Scaling republics in such a way that it is impossible to complete their reform tiers if you reform into one, and almost impossible to get anyway (450 years at .5 per month), while giving rationale for their absolutism gimping contingent on the tier 10 reform
- Requiring ADM 8 to reform if lacking El Dorado (one of the more recent patches)
I don't either, unless we're talking considering 2 player co-op and 30 person pvp as both in the broad "MP" category. Even then it's still not true, the worst idea groups are still never-picks.
+2 maneuver is a pretty big deal because it increases engagement width, and unlike land combat you can have different widths on each side (also contributes to ship capture significantly). If you want to lock someone into port you don't want to have to go home to repair at a distance, but if you don't then people can often run from naval fights w/o losing anything, repair, and attack again. Maritime can't be worn down this way.
It still suffers from the usual problem with naval ideas: you win at sea and then get very little returns from the investment. In SP if you really want more ship strength you can just pick quality, and in MP you take quality at some point anyway for the policies + land combat stats.
Atm Maritime is the Quantity to Naval's Quality. The maneuver pips also means your bring 5 more ships (or 1 1/3 more heavy ships) to your engagement length on average, and you have a much higher force cap and (likely) higher tradition, but I've heard enough anecdotal evidence about MP naval combat to know those aren't enough to topple someone with Naval ideas.
I think Maritime is more popular because it has more peacetime application. Naval Tradtion improves the trade steering of ships, and maneuver pips increases their trade power (don't know why the bleep you would ever use a leader slot for that, but hey, it's there) and the cost and force limits mean you can stack more light ships in more places to compound your infinite TC money even further.
I also seem to recall that the last EUIV dev clash brought to light a bug in regards to naval combat that played a large part in why they tend to be so one-sided and destructive, so the paradigm of naval combat might change significantly next patch without any other aspect being touched.
Idea group picks should be a lot less forgiving in MP than SP. Don't see how it could be the other way around. MP opponents should be more aggressive which forces MIL groups. EU4 SP has no defined objective and very few nations are ever under threat.
Devs should leave idea groups alone and undo the screwups of past couple DLCs first. Recent decisions have reflected absurdly poor understanding of meta and mechanics .
Devs should leave idea groups alone and undo the screwups of past couple DLCs first. Recent decisions have reflected absurdly poor understanding of meta and mechanics .
Last edited: