Has it ever struck you that balancing according to this question also tends to make WC/hyperblobbing the only worthwhile thing to do from a challenge perspective?
Do you have ideas how to make eu4 'taller and less blobby'?
- Thread starter SubTachyon
- 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.
Idea of ditching manual armies control was born out of frustration with mid-late game wars. When you have to move 3+ death stacks (even more stacks if you want carpet siege) and "wait for siege completion, click on next fort, rinse, repeat" while you know that you will win. At that times I wanted strategic warfare screen: draw some arrows, adjust priorities and just tell AI to go conquer me, say India.
Then sit and watch the destruction of enemies, marveling on your strategic genius
As an option (not the only gameplay) it is a very good idea.
Why do your vassals have automated armies but you have to manually control all of yours?.
Tick a box to put one of your armies under AI control and leave it to do its thing. Would make many of the mid to late game wars far less tedious.
.png){kind=avatar}
I don't mind too much when the AI throws my vassal armies into suicidal attacks and/or leaves 100k men suffering 5% attrition for years on end.
If it did the same with my own armies, I think I'd simply not use such a feature.
Optional automation of armies isn't a bad idea.... but the AI is just too unreliable atm.
This pretty well covers it. You'd have to completely alter the core gameplay experience to make non-war decent. It's also why stuff like regency is broken. "Tall" is only relevant insofar as it is a more viable (or just more available) option compared to taking territory in order to become militarily stronger. For a ridiculous example, you could have a scenario where development is so inexpensive it's superior to taking land as a means of expanding until territories reach 30 development. Under that design, everyone would "play tall" compared to what goes on now, but it wouldn't be very engaging gameplay and eventually people would start taking land anyway.
"Especially true"? Multiplayer and RotW are basically the only places where there is any temptation to seek additional sources of MIL power at all. In Euro SP, on the other hand, ADM/DIP penalties for being at war would be a massive disincentive to engage in wars with peer powers compared to roflstomping minors or opportunistically sniping a severely weakened major.
You conquer because it's fun to paint the map different colors. Even if it didn't give a single rusty ducat of income, people would conquer.
Click development button for 1 development: 50.
Click core button for 10 development: 100.
The choice is clear.
Click core button for 10 development: 100.
The choice is clear.
- 1
There should be some type of penalty or cost to growing too big (and perhaps too fast).
Realistically having an empire of a few hundred provinces is difficult to control because of centrifugal forces (such as different cultures and religion the farther you are away from the capital and simply the further a province is away from the capital the more difficult it is for the central forces to control the outlying provinces).
The more provinces the higher the level of revolt and provinces breaking away.
It should be a hard struggle keeping a large country going with, constant maintenance required.
The outlying provinces would constantly be demanding more autonomy while the central capital forces struggle to keep the empire as one.
Corruption would be higher the farther away from the capital with less tax revenue flowing back to the federal government.
Realistically having an empire of a few hundred provinces is difficult to control because of centrifugal forces (such as different cultures and religion the farther you are away from the capital and simply the further a province is away from the capital the more difficult it is for the central forces to control the outlying provinces).
The more provinces the higher the level of revolt and provinces breaking away.
It should be a hard struggle keeping a large country going with, constant maintenance required.
The outlying provinces would constantly be demanding more autonomy while the central capital forces struggle to keep the empire as one.
Corruption would be higher the farther away from the capital with less tax revenue flowing back to the federal government.
- 1
The peace-time economic system should be further developed.
The only reason a large military is possible is because the economic strength allows the diversion of resources to the military (instead of being re-directed back into the economic system to create more goods and services for the civilian sector of the economy).
There should be a need to constantly start, develop and watch over and grow the economy, including land, farm, forest, factory and trade sectors.
There should be a more active need to make decisions in this economy.
The demand for economic resources should be less than the demand in most cases so you have to constantly make decisions as to where you're going to invest your scarce resources (material, capital etc.).
In other words force the player to become actively involved in creating the economy and other aspects of this game, or at least have an option for it.
Also, if you invest too much in the military then the civilian population becomes upset causing a disruption in the production of goods and services.
Invest too much in the civilian sector and the military starts to think about staging a coup to overthrow you.
The only reason a large military is possible is because the economic strength allows the diversion of resources to the military (instead of being re-directed back into the economic system to create more goods and services for the civilian sector of the economy).
There should be a need to constantly start, develop and watch over and grow the economy, including land, farm, forest, factory and trade sectors.
There should be a more active need to make decisions in this economy.
The demand for economic resources should be less than the demand in most cases so you have to constantly make decisions as to where you're going to invest your scarce resources (material, capital etc.).
In other words force the player to become actively involved in creating the economy and other aspects of this game, or at least have an option for it.
Also, if you invest too much in the military then the civilian population becomes upset causing a disruption in the production of goods and services.
Invest too much in the civilian sector and the military starts to think about staging a coup to overthrow you.
.png){kind=avatar}
Hey guys, MEIOU and Taxes kinda solves a lot of these problems. Come join us, we're cool.
Hey guys, MEIOU and Taxes kinda solves a lot of these problems. Come join us, we're cool.
How so? Does it make peacetime gameplay enjoyable and engaging? Or does it just run conquest into the ground?
For that matter, does it even run smoothly? I remember both of the big conversion mods ran like ass when I tried them, and I don't exactly consider myself to have a 'low' end computer. Not high end, but not low.
- 1
The issue isn't with making "taller" more optimal, the issue is with "tall" strategies leading to boring and uninvolving gameplay.
If you want the game to make tall strats feasible, you need to make it so that a tall strat is actually fun to play. (Compare and contrast EU with Civ 5)
If you want the game to make tall strats feasible, you need to make it so that a tall strat is actually fun to play. (Compare and contrast EU with Civ 5)
- 1
My thoughts, also incorporating some already mentioned stuff:
1) As suggested: You can better focus on teching up when not busy murdering peeps. So a bonus to monarch points when at peace.
2) minimum autonomy for provinces based on development and distance. Think of it as counting "steps" away from your capitol, so the further you go the more the autonomy, but going though high Dev provinces is hard, so each step counts more the higher the development of each province you go through. So say you are some horde up north. Big empire but 3 development in pretty much every province. You should B able to manage that not too badly (kinda). Now imagine you are France, blabbing into the HRE. Well by God, it might be 1/3 of the distance the horde has from capitol to the border, but since you have to manage so much more (higher development =more shit to manage) you have atleast the same autonomy. Like say... Trying to manage wien from Paris (capitol), Wien would have I dunno... 30 mininum autonomy?
3) The less provinces you have, the easier it is to develop clay.
4) Going to an Offencive (or any?) war, gives a temporary +10% autonomy everywhere, to show drop in productivity from everyone not liking war. Penalty goes away at once when war ends.
1) As suggested: You can better focus on teching up when not busy murdering peeps. So a bonus to monarch points when at peace.
2) minimum autonomy for provinces based on development and distance. Think of it as counting "steps" away from your capitol, so the further you go the more the autonomy, but going though high Dev provinces is hard, so each step counts more the higher the development of each province you go through. So say you are some horde up north. Big empire but 3 development in pretty much every province. You should B able to manage that not too badly (kinda). Now imagine you are France, blabbing into the HRE. Well by God, it might be 1/3 of the distance the horde has from capitol to the border, but since you have to manage so much more (higher development =more shit to manage) you have atleast the same autonomy. Like say... Trying to manage wien from Paris (capitol), Wien would have I dunno... 30 mininum autonomy?
3) The less provinces you have, the easier it is to develop clay.
4) Going to an Offencive (or any?) war, gives a temporary +10% autonomy everywhere, to show drop in productivity from everyone not liking war. Penalty goes away at once when war ends.
This is just more of the same for what's been done so far : it is making conquest more of a grind without having any fun mechanics to balance it. At one point, people should come to terms with the fact that EU4 is and always will be a game about expansion and warfare, and to make that aspect of it more painful for bland and unengaging mechanics does not make it more fun, which is, you know, the only reason to play the game, having fun.
- 1
We do a lot to make peacetime be interesting and engaging, as well as many paths to developing your empire wide or tall with advantages and interesting tradeoffs for both. As to performance . . . that's something everyone needs to measure for themselves. Certainly we run slower than vanilla, but there's a lot less downtime and waiting, so slower isn't always a problem.
I just saw the thread and thought I'd drop in mention that we wrestle with exactly the same issues you're discussing in this thread, except that we can actually change things to resolve them. If that's enough to be interesting to some of you, come take a look, it's not like it costs money.
I'm not trying to make conquest more of a grind but make it more realistic and force the player to become more involved in the game so that every decision is important and every decision involves trade-offs. Every step should involve a decision or activity or event.
The purpose is to make the game more immersive.
I've never tried that expansion/mod.
Doing more in peacetime is a good option.
I'm not sure what the trade-offs are but it might be worth a look.
I'll see where I can get more information about it.
I'll think about it, as I'm honestly growing pretty tired of playing vanilla EU4 at this point. Am I allowed to play custom nations inside it?
Nerfing conquest in the current state of the game by itself does not make the game more immersive, nor does it add any interesting decisions or trade-offs. Me playing the game shouldn't be "I can conquer this land, but then I'll have to wait a billion years to play the game again because of all these timers Paradox keeps adding in to slow down conquest without making anything outside conquest interesting." If I wanted to do something where I spent a ton of time waiting, I'd go paint my walls or something.
We have an entire sub-forum for just that. Currently we don't have custom new world working, but custom nations are entirely enabled.
Neat. Interested enough to consider playing it then; I'll decide by next time I load up EU4.