Do you play sub-optimally?

[Aelisa]

As someone with entirely too many hours in this game (let's just say it's in the thousands and leave it that), I take a certain pride in keeping up with the meta, optimal strategies, and the like, yet there are also ways in which I purposefully deviate from these strategies as well, and not always for roleplay or game goal (like clean borders)-related reasons either. For example:

Playing Castile, I always eat up Portugal in two wars in the 1440s/1450s. I know there is a PU. I know they can colonize for you and all that, but I just like having the rare game where Portugal doesn't leave green blotches all over the map (and extra Iberian development early isn't so bad either).

I am generally not the biggest fan of subjects (and not of Influence ideas either. Diplomatic for life). I'll happily diplo-vassalize and prop up the odd subject, but they're fated for annexation as soon as possible.

I really love Religious games, converting, and even oftentimes culture converting (something to use the dip I save above on, huh?). I know it's more efficient to just pick Humanist and essentially forget religions are a thing, but that's not me (usually).

Now my question to you all is: Are there ways in which you purposefully play sub-optimally, or are you a mean, lean meta machine?

 

[petertju]

As someone with entirely too many hours in this game (let's just say it's in the thousands and leave it that), I take a certain pride in keeping up with the meta, optimal strategies, and the like, yet there are also ways in which I purposefully deviate from these strategies as well, and not always for roleplay or game goal (like clean borders)-related reasons either. For example:

Playing Castile, I always eat up Portugal in two wars in the 1440s/1450s. I know there is a PU. I know they can colonize for you and all that, but I just like having the rare game where Portugal doesn't leave green blotches all over the map (and extra Iberian development early isn't so bad either).

I am generally not the biggest fan of subjects (and not of Influence ideas either. Diplomatic for life). I'll happily diplo-vassalize and prop up the odd subject, but they're fated for annexation as soon as possible.

I really love Religious games, converting, and even oftentimes culture converting (something to use the dip I save above on, huh?). I know it's more efficient to just pick Humanist and essentially forget religions are a thing, but that's not me (usually).

Now my question to you all is: Are there ways in which you purposefully play sub-optimally, or are you a mean, lean meta machine?

I'm also in the thousands of hours. I've never been able to play sub-optimally. But I think this is the reason why I love this game so much, it's like a puzzle that can always be solved better.

I do put constraints on as a challenge, this can force me to play in another way and creates incredibly fun games. Like my Mann game in which I forbid myself from owning any non-islands. This gives every great power a reason to hate you and reduces the snowballing. In the end I actually got declared war on by five different countries at the same time. Amazing game.

 

[Feeblezak]

I don’t know what optimal play is, so probably.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The best players in the world player sub-optimally, just less so.

 

[Jomini]

I have not done it in a while, but if I am going broad and one-faithy I would often go Humanist/Religious to have better QOL for rebels and making new territory rapidly productive. Likewise, I will often dump some resources into locking down the HRE (either disband or lock the election) just so I do not have to deal with the annoyance of eating through it later.

In like fashion, I have a weak spot for exploration/expansion ideas as I dislike dealing with a bunch of random new World allies/colonies and just prefer dumping cash to colonial nations that can slow things down enough to let the European wars happen in peace. And if I am trying anything too terribly crazy, migrating to a colonial region is definitely suboptimal but lets me not have to waste anywhere near as much time on New World issues if I can just steam roll each religious block in a couple of wars, integrate, covert, and forget about it.

 

[petertju]

The best players in the world player sub-optimally, just less so.

I think everyone plays sub-optimally. I think the better version of the question would 'do you always play the most optimal way that you can play?' I'm sure there are people that are more optimal in micro'ing armies. But I will always pick the most optimal idea groups.

 

[Runite Drill]

I'm not a computer, so yes.
I'm also lazy, so even more yes.

 

[Astalic]

Yes. I play suboptimaly a lot.

I only did one WC (if you play optimally you usually eat the world).

Usually i have some goals before starting a game and i know i have 300+ year to reach them. And when i want a chill game, my goal is only to generate ducat and, if i'm in europe, play tall once the trade node is secured.

I also did a OPM challenge once and played all the way to 1821 while only having Hamburg starting province (150 dev without pillaging capital).
Also i often ignore absolutism. And i have the "nice border" mental illness, i can't play with half state (there is some exception where half state are pretty).

Oh and i played 2697 hours.

 

[reivaj89]

I’m much more into roleplaying than blobbing for blobbing’s sake (I’ve never been interested in doing a WC for example), but I do try to play optimally as long as what I do makes sense narratively in the context of the save. I like to keep my playthroughs as plausible as possible while allowing for interesting AH scenarios to develop.

For example: Nahuatl Horde Poland is a huge no no for me. Catholic Ming, on the other hand? Why not if I can come up with a credible story in my head of how and why China converted to Catholicism.

In my first playthrough as Italy I converted to Protestant just out of spite because the Pope had been a douche to me the whole save.

FWIW I have a little more than 1000 hours in the game.

 

[holyvigil]

My favorite reasons for playing suboptimally is 1) I dislike bordergore so I don't snake unless I want to WC and clean borders are more important to me than expansion. 2) I often expand in suboptimal ways because I don't want to have to fight over-seas-battles. 3) I enjoy periods of peace. So even if my AE is good to expand anywhere sometimes I don't because the nation building can be a nice break. Sometimes I really want a t3 monument more than another continent.

 

[jamal bakr]

i take a military group as my third idea group, even though there is always a better admin or diplo choice.

 

[MatthewP]

Definitely. Some games I play as optimally as I can, usually going for some goal. But the majority of games I’ve played are more semi-rp. I don’t sabotage myself (have terrible army composition, build bad buildings, throw away monarch points). But I may pass on wars that don’t make sense or aren’t related to my immediate goals. Or just take longer breaks between wars and do some developing or colonizing. And I generally try to be a good ally to the AI, or even pick some weak AI next to the ottomans and try to prop them up.

 

[InvisibleBison]

I'm sure there are other ways that I play suboptimally, but one thing I know I do is that I never use loans or mercenaries. Mostly because I just don't think to use them, but also because I don't like the way they feel.

 

[Word_Smith]

I didn't realize you could play optimally in a game with no goal other than "survive to 1821"

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I didn't realize you could play optimally in a game with no goal other than "survive to 1821"

Players generally have some sort of goal in the game, and within the constraints of that objective there are optimal choices. Those change depending on objective, though my impression is that most people don't think in terms of optimizing for said objective.

 

[Word_Smith]

Players generally have some sort of goal in the game, and within the constraints of that objective there are optimal choices. Those change depending on objective, though my impression is that most people don't think in terms of optimizing for said objective.

Eh, maybe. I usually just go with the flow and enjoy the alt-hist.

 

[Nostalgium]

In almost every game, yes. I like to know what I should do so I can do it if I want to, but I don't.

 

[MojaveDreams]

I prefer to roleplay, The hardest thing to do is restrict yourself.

Something I am trying now is to roleplay how my leader would think according to traits & background etc. So far I have not been successful in playing this way because I keep forgetting to change up plans when a new leader comes but I would love to truly play this way

 

[MatthewP]

Edit: removed accidental add.

I prefer to roleplay, The hardest thing to do is restrict yourself.

Something I am trying now is to roleplay how my leader would think according to traits & background etc. So far I have not been successful in playing this way because I keep forgetting to change up plans when a new leader comes but I would love to truly play this way

yeah, I also have this as an ambition but always forget what I’m supposed to be doing as I play

 

[JaxElite]

I play most games worse than i could. The game world is much more interesting and alive if you don't snowball as hard.

On the other hand optimal play and anything remotely close is insanely tedious.

Also there are simply optimal choices that i just don't want to do. I disnt get through the troubles of building a Holstein Empire in the baltics and Britain just to turn green and tack the name "Hanover" on it. I didnt fight and lose the religious league war as a 60 dev catholic prince just to switch to protestant because the council of trent didnt go my way. I actually might want to take the mandate of heaven and proclaim myself emperor of china, even without owning any of the 3 key cities and with too little chinese land to accept any chinese culture.


Playing suboptimally is great for replayability, it offers new experiences and it prolongs the life of your spacebar by years.