But are Vicky's internal politics really that richer to compensate for it? Vicky certainly feels more flavourful, but this may be just a loose impression.
To a degree, yes. But in truth no. Vicky is a much shorter game. So diminishing returns in terms of enjoyment and un factor affect you a lot less per playthrough. On average, a Vicky II game will only last a fraction of a EUIV game, because it covers a quarter the time span, even if there is more to do in that quarter of time.
As for the politics themselves? I'd hesitate to call the politics of Vicky interesting, really. If you have an election, you can't really control it much, especially as a larger nation. As a monarchy you can appoint whatever party you want. And even then different parties don't have an overly huge effect on how you play - the only place they really make a crucial difference is in industry and economics. I once played a warmonger game as the US, and went the majority of the game with an underfunded army and still managed to eat up all of Great Britain (the isles, that is), China, and France (coalitions formed, but they just died...fast under my massive, overpowered armies).
In Vic2 SP, if you form Großdeutschland in any remotely timely manner you are functionally invulnerable, partly because of the defective design where releasing a same-
culture-group OPM as your satellite when you're a culture union cancels five points of infamy.
Ahh, I did not know that. I don't really use satellite states, tbh
Although, to be fair, you don't even really need that. Greater Germany is already capable of taking on France and Russia by itself and winning. I once got involved in such a war and the only reason I was losing was that I was fighting a fully formed Italy, and France, and Japan, and Russia, and many other regional powers in a massive Great War (I owned the vast majority of Africa though). The UK was my only ally...and the bastards didn't send a single troop to help.
I'm pretty sure I still could have won though, if I'd mobilized my population and focused my troops on specific fronts instead of spreading them out - but by that point I was pretty much bored of the game anyways so I stopped.
But yeah, greater Germany OP, especially if you form it with all Czech/Hungarian lands at the earliest possible date that tech allows (which is what i did).
I did once go a greater Germanygame. Similar thing, except I took all of China too. Farmville was harder than that game.
And back to the population mechanic / population density ... This could be made to cater to this aspect, I believe.
Population mechanics would add comparatively little to the game for far too much of a hardware cost.
I would have to partially disagree on this one. Whilst indeed making AI smarter would help balance between player and AI it's not necessary. Paradox keep trying to keep EU4 as both a wargame and historical sim, and as such we have Ruler personalities for the AI. If you were to set all of them to always warlike, than wars between player and AI would bee far less one sided. Problem with this is historically nations didn't try to expand everywhere all the time, like players do in game, and making this change would lessen the history sim part of the game.
The rulers doesn't really have much to do with historicity as much as not everyone being aggressive. If the AI were just constantly aggressive that would be as bad or as silly as all AIs in Civ being equally and constantly aggressive.
P'dox has made it impossible to mod this for a long time with the combination of overextension and an AI that breaks if it cant core. But the state mechanic might mean that modders will finally have a backdoor to address this with. Just limit all nations to 0 states and all new cores will be "colo/nial cores"
I feel that's a bit too punishing though
Make development cost gold instead of monarch points
That's a terrible, terrible idea. That would so very disproporionately favor wide empires. It would also mean that you could never in a million years challenge Ming, England, or the Mughals as by 1600 they'd all their land being 99 development provinces. Any system that transfers cost from gold to MP just disproportionately tips the system in favor of large nations.
Maybe, I've never blobbed in this game though, it's hard (maybe i just dont know how to exploit the game's weaknesses?).
Just start up a game as the Ottomans or Ming and then start one up as...say...Brandenburgh. If development were based no cash, Ming would reach 10k development by the end of the game and poor Brandenburgh wouldn't survive the PLC mosnter for more than a couple decades.
I just think it's really unfortunate that they added something like development, but with such poor execution. It doesn't really work they way it should (just my opinion, i know). The fact that it costs monarch points makes it a "never ever ever do unless it has an incredible benefit and you're already ahead on tech and maxed out on monarch points" type thing... I feel like most players probably don't even develop because their monarch points are so precious to them.
That it costs monarch points isn't the problem, it's that it costs *too many* monarch points in almost all cases. Thus conquering land is comparatively a more efficient and effective way to expand.
If, however, there were a way of making it much cheaper, then expansion would be much less attractive, as why core when I can increase basetax? Or take unjustified land when I can increase production?
That being said, I think they should decouple costs in different categories, or at least reduce the increase across the board substantially so that increasing admin dev increases the next admin dev more than the next dip dev.
Developing lands shouldn't be able to make you fall behind in technology... If anything, shouldn't development be the thing that determines technology? Or at least influence it somehow?
Why not? Growing wide can hold you back in tech too. Coring can be extremely expensive and if you aren't careful it can easily drag you behind in admin. Hell, in my Ottoman games I usually just conquer back my cores ASAP and then spend the rest of the time waiting for Admin - Coring Cost idea, and Millets because it's just so much more efficient. I just go and make a few vassals in the mean time (usually start off with Iraq/Persia and try to get Crimea as well).
Development should just cost gold. Development should also somehow contribute the amount of monarch points you receive... Higher development would mean a larger bonus, low development would be smaller bonuses, maybe even a penalty if low enough?
No. Making development depend on gold would just skew the game even more towards large nations. Under that system, the Mughals, Ottomans, and Ming could each beat every country in the world combined without ever expanding past their De Jure lands because of the massive amounts of money they bring in.
Making development give you more MP on top of that would only skew things in Blobs' favors even more, as it gets rid of the only really limited resource that they actually have to worry about.
Last edited:
- 3