Disapointed by economic system ... again

[HappyBanker]

I do know that this is way too late now for any design change or that this can only be a useless protest but still I do need to talk about it.

The poor and unflavorish economic system has allways been the reason I did not played EU long and got bored quite quickly. I wage wars with some neighbors, explore and colonize a litttle and then get bored and go back to another game. It therefore surprises me that the Victoria 2 economic system, which is huge, balanced, and strong had not been used in EU. Except from some clear changes (no "factories", differents pop classes, trade...) the all experience of balancing vic2 economy should IMHO be used to improve really EU. I would love to see medieval and renaissance goods, production and production chains as well as religious factor affecting emmigration or miscontentement... and all else that would so much benefit from a system that allready exists.

I am for the moment waiting for a real reason to buy EU4 instead of trying once again EU3 but cannot find it. I do hope it is coming soon.

Therefore why is none of the great design advances of Victoria 2 appears in EU ? What is the opinion of people who know (which I am absolutly not) and love EU (which I a not really)? Do you think this would ruin the game and you prefer the current design? I am just curious, once again I know I won't change anything now in the game design.

 

[Revshawn]

Looks like HappyBanker is a SadBanker.

 

[Phelan]

As much as I like Vicky I and II. EU is a complete different game. A bit more focus on the economy I would welcome, but not the vicky system.

 

[Sleepyhead]

I like both games, and I totally agree with you. With a dumb-downed Vicky system you could still have real settlement policies, you could have culturally diverse provinces, you could spread your own culture across the world, you could actually build an economy from almost scratch, production and goods would really matter etc.

 

[GregElSho]

Therefore why is none of the great design advances of Victoria 2 appears in EU ?

Mostly because it would not be appropriately portraying the EU time frame.
Economy during the Renaissance and during the Victorian era are nothing alike.

That being said, I'm all for a deeper provincial representation, but it's already been said that no pie-chart will creep into EU4's provinces under the dev's careful watch.

 

[Daunus]

I actually think CKs 2 model is pretty good. I especially like the building settlements and such, and more stuff to build within settlements. Its simple but better then eu.

Would be cool if different settlements within a province could also have different cultures. Would allow for cultural mixes and better conversion but still be a simple model.

For example you could convert underdeveloped places like colonies or tatar territories by building settlments. Thats what happened historically. But then converting a major developed province with already many settlments would be very hard like also was the case.

 

[Tomn_Peng]

Trying to jam a system explicitly designed from the word go to model 19th century social, economic, and political realities into a game trying to model the social, economic and political realities of the 15th to 18th centuries sounds like a recipe for disaster. Consider the massive amount of things that wouldn't make sense and would need a lot of work to fix - for instance, the way the world market works. As is, V2's basically has every single country's goods pouring into one "world market" that everyone can access at once based on prestige - not exactly the best way to model the global economy during the Age of Exploration when finding new and more efficient trade routes was half the reason for said exploration. Then again, without Victorian-style "factories," in play, what is even the point of the V2 economic system? Sans factories, it becomes nothing more than a remarkably complicated and resource-intensive population-tracker upon which the player has little to no influence.

Game design isn't a simple matter of "That feature looks cool, let's jam it in!" You need to consider how well the feature actually integrates into the game, and as far as I can see there isn't really a compelling reason to take the time and effort needed to shoehorn the V2 system into EU. The games are just too different, with different focuses.

 

[Sir Tornado]

What is the fanbase of Victoria games? And what is the fanbase of Europa Universalis games? Why is there such a difference? (Hint: It is because managing a EU economy does not require in depth study of economics)

Besides, Victoria's economic engine is not suitable for a game lasting more than a 100 years. Try playing a Victoria game past 1936 and see what happens to your economy as you go into the future...

 

[Meanmanturbo]

Trying to jam a system explicitly designed from the word go to model 19th century social, economic, and political realities into a game trying to model the social, economic and political realities of the 15th to 18th centuries sounds like a recipe for disaster. Consider the massive amount of things that wouldn't make sense and would need a lot of work to fix - for instance, the way the world market works. As is, V2's basically has every single country's goods pouring into one "world market" that everyone can access at once based on prestige - not exactly the best way to model the global economy during the Age of Exploration when finding new and more efficient trade routes was half the reason for said exploration. Then again, without Victorian-style "factories," in play, what is even the point of the V2 economic system? Sans factories, it becomes nothing more than a remarkably complicated and resource-intensive population-tracker upon which the player has little to no influence.

Game design isn't a simple matter of "That feature looks cool, let's jam it in!" You need to consider how well the feature actually integrates into the game, and as far as I can see there isn't really a compelling reason to take the time and effort needed to shoehorn the V2 system into EU. The games are just too different, with different focuses.

All good points. Another one is that the Vicky economic system is so dependent on the POP-system. The problem with the POP system is that it require population statistics, and there is not really any good sources for a large enough portion of the world before the Vicky period.

 

[Arizael]

Just give us dynamic base tax + ability to rarely change produced goods and we will be happy.

 

[unmerged(25822)]

V2's economic system is hard work and i would be really angry to see it in an EU game.

I actually think CKs 2 model is pretty good. I especially like the building settlements and such, and more stuff to build within settlements. Its simple but better then eu.

Would be cool if different settlements within a province could also have different cultures. Would allow for cultural mixes and better conversion but still be a simple model.

For example you could convert underdeveloped places like colonies or tatar territories by building settlments. Thats what happened historically. But then converting a major developed province with already many settlments would be very hard like also was the case.

I 100% agree with that

 

[HolisticGod]

From all appearances, EU IV is closely simulating state interventions in the 15th-18th century economy-trade routes, trade nodes, ports, navies, colonies.

Following "production chains" would be anachronistic. And "pops," while interesting, would be a political feature rather than economic. It would be very neat if we could (or had to) arrange political settlements with various factions in each province-the subject of which settlements would, naturally, have largely economic substance-for example the Lord of X is given eight villages in the county, the Town of Y is granted sovereignty, the A Monastery receives a salt monopoly, the B Minority is permitted to live in that quarter of the city, etc.

But this would be simulating medieval law more than medieval economics. Efficiency was not a driver in these decisions (if it had been, there wouldn't have been a Lord, towns would have equal and settled powers, there would have been no salt monopoly, and the minority would have been encouraged to integrate and disperse).

 

[HappyBanker]

All good points. Another one is that the Vicky economic system is so dependent on the POP-system. The problem with the POP system is that it require population statistics, and there is not really any good sources for a large enough portion of the world before the Vicky period.

This one is a very good point. I agree that research to create the scenarios might be really hard or impossible.

Well you all made very good points. I would absolutly not advocate a complete start from the victoria system (and especially not the world market which to be honest doesnt even seems right in Vic2 ... ) but I am sad that for example there is no notion of quantitive good output of anykind. All economic production and trade (corrrect me if I am wrong) will pretty much sum up to money flowing around trade nodes and going directly to the budget screen. For me it is not an historical representation issue it is simply a flavour question. The game would be more enjoyable for me with silk produced in the east end moving west, gold & silver mined in the spanish colonies and sent back to europe or French wine of exquisite taste(of course ) produced in south of France and traded over europe.

Well I seem to be kind of alone on this anyway so I guess I will have to go back playing vic2, pride of nations or even imperialism 2 (which I still enjoy so much because it had some economic flavor while simulating pretty much the same historical timeframe). Umm I guess I must be some kind of "economy maniac" .

 

[Arizael]

What I fear is, that economy in EU IV will be too static.

If in Eu III any rich province became exposed to constant warfare&occupation it still remained rich province, compared to the others. However if you had province with lowly base tax and useless tradegoods, there weren't many ways to improve it above standarts even if it was your capital.

Currently it seems that it will be easier to affect provincial culture than provincial economy :blink:

 

[Meanmanturbo]

Well I seem to be kind of alone on this anyway so I guess I will have to go back playing vic2, pride of nations or even imperialism 2 (which I still enjoy so much because it had some economic flavor while simulating pretty much the same historical timeframe). Umm I guess I must be some kind of "economy maniac" .

The nick was a dead give away

 

[Eh up me duck]

EU's economic system is head and shoulders above Vicky 2's when you bare in mind that it's a computer game, and allowing the player to build things and prioritise specific areas is better than setting sliders and letting the game run for 100 years before seeing an end game screen.

 

[Tomn_Peng]

Well I seem to be kind of alone on this anyway so I guess I will have to go back playing vic2, pride of nations or even imperialism 2 (which I still enjoy so much because it had some economic flavor while simulating pretty much the same historical timeframe). Umm I guess I must be some kind of "economy maniac" .

Well, unfortunately, trying to model a realistic economy is enough of a job that generally you need a game dedicated to simulating it in order to make it happen, and in EU the economy really is primarily an adjunct to national grand strategy as opposed to the main focus.

If the movement of goods and such is what interests you, may I recommend the following games? The Patrician series, the Merchant Prince games, the Imperialism series (well, I suppose you already know about that), the Settlers series, the X3 games, the Guild series, the Anno series, and, possibly, Children of the Nile...

...among others?

 

[Phelan]

But I am sad that for example there is no notion of quantitive good output of anykind. All economic production and trade (corrrect me if I am wrong) will pretty much sum up to money flowing around trade nodes and going directly to the budget screen. For me it is not an historical representation issue it is simply a flavour question. The game would be more enjoyable for me with silk produced in the east end moving west, gold & silver mined in the spanish colonies and sent back to europe or French wine of exquisite taste(of course ) produced in south of France and traded over europe.

In Eu3 you get strategic modifiers for controlling the 33% of the trade of a certain trade good. As production leader of a certain typ you also get a bonus. Naval Supplies make ship building cheaper. Building manufacturies in provinces with appropriate goods gets you double boni. gold increases inflation. Minting increases inflation. Building certain buildings increases the demand of certain trade goods. Religion affects fish-prices...

For me the economic model of eu3 was always very deep and complex. If I think about it the economy in vicky is much simpler.

 

[Haresus]

In Eu3 you get strategic modifiers for controlling the 33% of the trade of a certain trade good. As production leader of a certain typ you also get a bonus. Naval Supplies make ship building cheaper. Building manufacturies in provinces with appropriate goods gets you double boni. gold increases inflation. Minting increases inflation. Building certain buildings increases the demand of certain trade goods. Religion affects fish-prices...

For me the economic model of eu3 was always very deep and complex. If I think about it the economy in vicky is much simpler.

The things you cited are not deep or complex. They are really simple. "Build woodcutter in forest, get BONUS!"

I bet any Facebook game could do that.

Anyway, on this debate.. The Vicky2 system is far too complex to simply carry over. In part, or in entirety.

 

[Red_warning]

Borrowing of game mechanics across the different brands will result in the games becoming increasingly similar to each other, and they might even feel like copies of each other. It may be hard for the player to justify buying VCIII if it plays like EUIV but in a different age.