Estates, not POPs, should be the central mechanic of EU5

[Ivashanko]

In Stellaris they sort of do, but in most cases you can ignore that without much of effect. On paper it has many interesting interaction, but in practice none of that matters. Vic2 does it much better. Not sure why you didn't care about them, but in Vic2 they make a big difference to your game. You can't even conquer if your pops aren't interested.


I haven't seen any convincing distinction in your posts. From the description it seems that proposed estates and Vic-like pops (in concept, not in specific grouping) are very similar. Obviously, there would be no industrialization and large portion of population would remain farmers, but the pops with significant political influence would still play large role. It's not that much different than in Vic2 where a small number of capitalists have disproportionally large impact. And then pops that had little power had large impact when looking at them combined. The motivation to go exploring East and to go colonizing was because there money to be made by selling spices, sugar, cocoa etc.. to the population. All that profitable trade was dependent on having consumers with disposable income.

Ah, yes, the rush to make all your POPs as jingoist as possible was (iirc) the only other time I cared about what they wanted. That's a good and fair point.

I'm having some difficulty grasping why you think my idea is similar to POPs. I don't see many similarities, so it is difficult for me to respond.

Amazing suggestion, one of my biggest complaints about EU4 is the number of disparate mechanics that represent internal factions and stability.

• Stability
• Legitimacy & Alternatives
• Unrest
• Vassals
• Factions
• Estates
• Events
• Overextension

All of these have significant conceptual overlap. For EU5 I'd like to see these all merged into a single unified system.

I think estates need a serious rework, and a return to something closer to the old province-based estates. Ideally I'd like a system where each estate is composed of many local powers, tied to specific provinces (which also replace vassals) with the ability to interact with these powers individually or as a group. Would sidestep the problem of 1000 estates for each culture/religion combo, and allow government types to really differentiate themselves.

This is a good idea as well! As I said, I am not a developer so my specific suggestions on how estates should function might be worthless. I'm mostly advocating for estates, as a mechanic, to be made central, instead of POPs or mana or expansion.

 

[alexti]

I'm having some difficulty grasping why you think my idea is similar to POPs. I don't see many similarities, so it is difficult for me to respond.

For example, serf pops in Russia don't have their basic needs met, have no political power. Result - neighbouring cossack pops/estate grow. Or merchant estate lobbying for relaxation on serf laws (in conflict with nobility) because they want to sell to lower classes. If they are successful merchant pops grow/estate power increases. Where do you put boundary between pops and estates?

 

[Tryvenyal]

Very nice suggestion!

Wouldn't it mean you has X times 3 Estates to manage where X is the number of cultures reprecented among your held provinces?

 

[Ivashanko]

For example, serf pops in Russia don't have their basic needs met, have no political power. Result - neighbouring cossack pops/estate grow. Or merchant estate lobbying for relaxation on serf laws (in conflict with nobility) because they want to sell to lower classes. If they are successful merchant pops grow/estate power increases. Where do you put boundary between pops and estates?

Because of effective caste systems in place for most of the world during EU5's timeline, people rarely transitioned out of what they were born into. I'd abstract away the lower classes' wants and demands through a new 'unrest mechanic' that doesn't just result in rebellions, but also crime and disorganisation and other provincial/state wide modifiers.

As for my idea of estates, the biggest difference I see between them and POPs is that my idea of estates are active participants with stable dynamic plans, wants, relatioships, and dislikes. In this sense they are more like other nations than the POPs of Victoria.

Very nice suggestion!

Wouldn't it mean you has X times 3 Estates to manage where X is the number of cultures reprecented among your held provinces?

My suggestion is modifiable, for sure. And there would be more types of estates than 3 and religion would also affect estates. The equation would therefore be X*Y*Z, where X is number of cultures, Y is number of religions, and Z is number of estates. That number will balloon very quickly, so some nifty programing would need necessary in order to keep the game running.

I acknowledge that the specific idea might be unworkable. Simplifying it into culture group or just getting rid of culture altogether might work too, I guess.

 

[Tryvenyal]

I acknowledge that the specific idea might be unworkable. Simplifying it into culture group or just getting rid of culture altogether might work too, I guess.

On the contrary - I think it would be great! It could have big simelarities to the Impirator culture/pop management. This starts to emerge as the driver/central mechanic in that game. Making estate management the central feature and base it on Impirator culture/pop feature from start could be the ultimate way

As for my idea of estates, the biggest difference I see between them and POPs is that my idea of estates are active participants with stable dynamic plans, wants, relatioships, and dislikes. In this sense they are more like other nations than the POPs of Victoria.

i thought of treating them as a vassal/client state could be nice but I guess they are not unified enough for that. But for sure could be a concequence of high-powered estates - a small vassal emerges of their government-type.

 

[Nyrael]

I agree, though I'd another one: Advisors. This time period was basically defined by these individuals, who played a major role in both statesmanship and defining identity of nations and cultures.

 

[Ivashanko]

On the contrary - I think it would be great! It could have big simelarities to the Impirator culture/pop management. This starts to emerge as the driver/central mechanic in that game. Making estate management the central feature and base it on Impirator culture/pop feature from start could be the ultimate way



i thought of treating them as a vassal/client state could be nice but I guess they are not unified enough for that. But for sure could be a concequence of high-powered estates - a small vassal emerges of their government-type.

I love the idea of sufficiently autonomous and powerful estates becoming vassal countries if the player does not take steps to reel them in. It creates another wrinkle in the system.

And I strongly agree that having POPs would benefit Estates greatly. And having Estates would help keep POPs micromanagment from spiralling out of control: the player would not interact directly with POPs. It would instead interact with estates, which would then influence POPs.

I agree, though I'd another one: Advisors. This time period was basically defined by these individuals, who played a major role in both statesmanship and defining identity of nations and cultures.

I imagine advisors would be directly integrated into the estate system. Different estates would compete to have an advisor from their faction be added to your court, and that advisor would then attempt to influence state policy in a way that strengthens their faction. It could be a way to simulate (non-abstracted) corruption.

 

[Emre Yigit]

I love the idea of sufficiently autonomous and powerful estates becoming vassal countries if the player does not take steps to reel them in. It creates another wrinkle in the system.

And I fear I must diverge again. I hate the idea.

"My lord, the burghers of York have decided to secede from the realm though they acknowledge fealty to you" is not something a king of England ever heard. Nor did many others.

Semi-or actual secession, if it ever happened, was led by the nobility. Now, I am sure people will call up one of the vanishingly rare instances where it did happen to be led by someone else, but the only overmighty subjects were the people who could raise armies (i.e. the nobility), though I grant that would change in some parts of the world over time.

This is also against the idea of estates as interest groups. Scheming to seize power from the ruler or enlarge one's own position has always happened, but the point of that scheming in the elites that you mention was almost always self-interest and aggrandisement, not setting themselves up as lords of a vassal state.

...

(And while my original, oh God, no! post is racking up the downvotes, if people would bother to explain themselves, I'd be most grateful.)

 

[Ivashanko]

And I fear I must diverge again. I hate the idea.

"My lord, the burghers of York have decided to secede from the realm though they acknowledge fealty to you" is not something a king of England ever heard. Nor did many others.

Semi-or actual secession, if it ever happened, was led by the nobility. Now, I am sure people will call up one of the vanishingly rare instances where it did happen to be led by someone else, but the only overmighty subjects were the people who could raise armies (i.e. the nobility), though I grant that would change in some parts of the world over time.

This is also against the idea of estates as interest groups. Scheming to seize power from the ruler or enlarge one's own position has always happened, but the point of that scheming in the elites that you mention was almost always self-interest and aggrandisement, not setting themselves up as lords of a vassal state.

...

(And while my original, oh God, no! post is racking up the downvotes, if people would bother to explain themselves, I'd be most grateful.)

Allowing any single estate to declare independence would be a mistake, but to continue an example I made earlier, if Austria were to continuously promote autonomy for their Polish estates in an attempt to undermine Russian rule in other parts of Poland it would eventually result in a situation where the Poles defacto led their own vassalised state.

As for the downvotes: your original post stated that you are against the current implementation of estates. There aren't many people who disagree with that, but this entire topic is about why estates should be completely reworked/how they should be reworked.

 

[Emre Yigit]

Allowing any single estate to declare independence would be a mistake, but to continue an example I made earlier, if Austria were to continuously promote autonomy for their Polish estates in an attempt to undermine Russian rule in other parts of Poland it would eventually result in a situation where the Poles defacto led their own vassalised state.

As for the downvotes: your original post stated that you are against the current implementation of estates. There aren't many people who disagree with that, but this entire topic is about estates would be completely reworked.

As you say in another post, the number of estates would have to balloon to be able to accommodate it. I happen to think that today's computers could handle it, but am against the idea.

I have two main objections.

First, autonomy for which "estate"? The Polish burghers might want one thing, the nobility others, the clergy something else entirely. I don't think you would ever be in a position where reducing autonomy for all estates made sense. And are we not beginning to confuse estates with ethnicities?

Second, if Austria is constantly promoting autonomy for all their Polish estates so that it might have some slight effect across the border (and why? one wonders unless it were late in the game) and the outcome is as you describe, it would be suicidal.

I realise people are just throwing up ideas here, but if the end result is a grindingly slow micromanagement fest, I'm against it.

I'm also against the idea of estates as represented in EU4 too.

 

[Ivashanko]

As you say in another post, the number of estates would have to balloon to be able to accommodate it. I happen to think that today's computers could handle it, but am against the idea.

I have two main objections.

First, autonomy for which "estate"? The Polish burghers might want one thing, the nobility others, the clergy something else entirely. I don't think you would ever be in a position where reducing autonomy for all estates made sense. And are we not beginning to confuse estates with ethnicities?

Second, if Austria is constantly promoting autonomy for all their Polish estates so that it might have some slight effect across the border (and why? one wonders) and the outcome is as you describe it would be suicidal.

Tbf, specific ideas like this one aren't super important to the overall topic. It is very possible that allowing estates to trigger the creation of a new vassals estate without war breaks the flow of the game, but that isn't an argument against the overall point of this topic.

That being said, if estates were by religion/culture/type then they may share commonalities depending on their culture, their religion, and their type. By the end of the game all same-culture types might start being influenced by the effects of nationalism, and begin advocating for self-rule for their entire culture. This could be an 'end of game crisis' that challenges mutli-ethnic empires and keeps the game fresh for the people who have decided to play until the end game.

As for why Polish-culture estates in Austria would affect Polish-culture estates in Russia: this is an example drawn from real life. Austria was fairly lenient with its Polish population, and it caused issues within Russian Poland partly because the Polish estates and people in Russia wanted the same rights the Poles in Austria were given.

And, in game, the Austrian player might not just want to undermine Russian authority. They also might want to keep their Polish subjects from revolting and spreading unrest. After the Poles declare a new vassalised state the Austrian player would be given an option to crack down on their vassals, angering Polish-culture estates and potentially leading to a war between Austria and Poland.

 

[Emre Yigit]

Tbf, specific ideas like this one aren't super important to the overall topic. It is very possible that allowing estates to trigger the creation of a new vassals estate without war breaks the flow of the game, but that isn't an argument against the overall point of this topic.

And to be fairer, you started this thread with the statement that EU4 does not have a central mechanic and that estates would be a wonderful way of blending or enhancing many aspects of the game. It does behove you to provide concrete suggestions how.

Your system of "estates" could, for example, be represented by a rework of the original Celestial Empire form of government, with its factions, at the national level, which is where elites tended to congregate, and as I thought you implied. Far, far simpler than "estates".

But then in your third post you state that estates would work on a provincial level, so I was mistaken. But if that were the case, the game would indeed shudder to a halt. On the one hand, X (ethnicity) x Y (religion) x ("rank"), on the other hand its interactions with all other such groups in your own realm; you would be forcing 3x3x3x3x3x3 different interactions which would need to be calculated, and that would be just one example. I would hope that my computer could cope with all these background calculations, but the level of complexity it would introduce would be a micromanagement nightmare. And that would not be all. You would have, say, three possible ways of dealing with the discontent that might arise, so add 3x3. So you, as a player, would be faced with nine choices per non-equivalent "estate" pair, each of which would have 729 ways of interacting with other "estates", of which there would be thousands, and the game would have to calculate all of this.

The idea behind modelling something is to keep it as simple as possible, not proliferate complexities to reflect a position which you believe is more accurate or interesting. The computer might be able to keep up; if I have to spend a day calculating how raising wartime taxes or whatever would effect my realm, I'll just throw my hands up in horror.

So, no, I don't agree with you.

As for why Polish-culture estates in Austria would affect Polish-culture estates in Russia: this is an example drawn from real life. Austria was fairly lenient with its Polish population, and it caused issues within Russian Poland partly because the Polish estates and people in Russia wanted the same rights the Poles in Austria were given.

And, in game, the Austrian player might not just want to undermine Russian authority. They also might want to keep their Polish subjects from revolting and spreading unrest. After the Poles declare a new vassalised state the Austrian player would be given an option to crack down on their vassals, angering Polish-culture estates and potentially leading to a war between Austria and Poland.

Yes, hence my comment about late in the game.


...

You raise interesting points, but in my opinion have an unreasonable notion that estates are the way of dealing with them.

 

[Me_]

And to be fairer, you started this thread with the statement that EU4 does not have a central mechanic and that estates would be a wonderful way of blending or enhancing many aspects of the game. It does behove you to provide concrete suggestions how.

Your system of "estates" could, for example, be represented by a rework of the original Celestial Empire form of government, with its factions, at the national level, which is where elites tended to congregate, and as I thought you implied. Far, far simpler than "estates".

But then in your third post you state that estates would work on a provincial level, so I was mistaken. But if that were the case, the game would indeed shudder to a halt. On the one hand, X (ethnicity) x Y (religion) x ("rank"), on the other hand its interactions with all other such groups in your own realm; you would be forcing 3x3x3x3x3x3 different interactions which would need to be calculated, and that would be just one example. I would hope that my computer could cope with all these background calculations, but the level of complexity it would introduce would be a micromanagement nightmare. And that would not be all. You would have, say, three possible ways of dealing with the discontent that might arise, so add 3x3. So you, as a player, would be faced with nine choices per non-equivalent "estate" pair, each of which would have 729 ways of interacting with other "estates", of which there would be thousands, and the game would have to calculate all of this.

The idea behind modelling something is to keep it as simple as possible, not proliferate complexities to reflect a position which you believe is more accurate or interesting. The computer might be able to keep up; if I have to spend a day calculating how raising wartime taxes or whatever would effect my realm, I'll just throw my hands up in horror.

So, no, I don't agree with you.

Without raising any support or dislike of the OP's suggestion (I agree with the principle, but not exactly with the proposed execution), I'd just like to point out that this is a vary cataclysmic outlook on gaming.

Imagine if you'd like a game, wherein at any given time there are hundreds of actors (let's call them tags). These tags are defined by a very vide and diverse range of variables that can sometimes be quite inscrutable. What's worse, they have intentions and goals that are mostly hidden from the player.

Imagine then that I want to say, interact diplomatically with that entity. Goodness me, so many options - war, alliance, vassalisation, royal marriage, opened borders and so on and so on. And don;t get me started on secondary systems, like the HRE that can intersect with this system, or the way it affects the trade system.

Any single course of action I choose will affect not only my tag and the target tag but will affect every other tag that either my tag or that tag has contact with!

That's lotsxlotsxlotsxlots of possible interactions and their outcomes, how can I ever choose the best one? An AI may do it, but I'm lost. I'll just throw my hands up in horror.

Wait, that's just the game, the very thing I wanted to play.

 

[Ivashanko]

And to be fairer, you started this thread with the statement that EU4 does not have a central mechanic and that estates would be a wonderful way of blending or enhancing many aspects of the game. It does behove you to provide concrete suggestions how.

Your system of "estates" could, for example, be represented by a rework of the original Celestial Empire form of government, with its factions, at the national level, which is where elites tended to congregate, and as I thought you implied. Far, far simpler than "estates".

But then in your third post you state that estates would work on a provincial level, so I was mistaken. But if that were the case, the game would indeed shudder to a halt. On the one hand, X (ethnicity) x Y (religion) x ("rank"), on the other hand its interactions with all other such groups in your own realm; you would be forcing 3x3x3x3x3x3 different interactions which would need to be calculated, and that would be just one example. I would hope that my computer could cope with all these background calculations, but the level of complexity it would introduce would be a micromanagement nightmare. And that would not be all. You would have, say, three possible ways of dealing with the discontent that might arise, so add 3x3. So you, as a player, would be faced with nine choices per non-equivalent "estate" pair, each of which would have 729 ways of interacting with other "estates", of which there would be thousands, and the game would have to calculate all of this.

The idea behind modelling something is to keep it as simple as possible, not proliferate complexities to reflect a position which you believe is more accurate or interesting. The computer might be able to keep up; if I have to spend a day calculating how raising wartime taxes or whatever would effect my realm, I'll just throw my hands up in horror.

So, no, I don't agree with you.






Yes, hence my comment about late in the game.


...

You raise interesting points, but in my opinion have an unreasonable notion that estates are the way of dealing with them.

I wasn't trying to be dismissive. I was just saying that (as I am not a developer) any concerete suggestions of mine are going to be of limited value. It is very possible my specific idea on how I would like estates to function is entirely unmanageable: that does not mean my overall point necessarily has less value.

A simplified version of estates where you had one type of estate per realm + each minority religion gets it own estate (a 'Protestant/Sunni/Animalist/Shinto estate') would greatly reduce the amount of estates and could still be interesting. Internal feuding could be handled by semi-random events. Cultures could get their own estates in the age of nationalism, or that mechanic could be added in a DLC.


Either way any central mechanic will have to largely run in the uncontrollable background. The hope would be almost anything the players does interacts with estates in some way, but most lower level interactions could be automated and only indirectly affects estates (a la POPs in Victoria 2).

Edit: Alternatively each estate could be sorted by religion/type with a few exceptions (such as natives or nomads, which would be sorted by tribe/type). This would greatly cut down on the number of estates while still allowing them to feud and ally and fight amongst themselves. End game nationalism could be handled a few ways, such as creating an end game 'X culture estate' which pushes for the advancement of their ethnic/culture group regardless of religion or estate type.

Second edit: Heck, some special estates might not have their type and religion combined into one! We wouldn't need a Jewish/Noble or a Jewish/Clergy estate in Western Europe, just a Jewish /Diaspora estate. Other smaller religious groups, like the Jain, the Druze, and the Zoroastrians could potentially be handled the same way. Maybe if enough gathered in on location they could become the majority of the province and then begin splitting into smaller, more focused estates ('Zoroastrian/Burghers', 'Druze/Army', 'Jain/Jacobins' or whatever).

 

[Zhetone]

I find the dichotomy presented between estates and pops weird. Pops were already stratified by class in victoria 2, all you have to do is make the stratification by estate and you have a merger of the two - so where's the problem?

 

[MW4Merc]

I agree that Estates should be the driving force. But I think coming up with a way to show where they are and how influencial they are could be tied into a sort POP system.
I liked the Estate rework and think that using the pie chart method may be useful for other things to abstract population while making it just a little more granular.

For example we could have a class/estate chart somewhat showing how large/industrialized/urbanized a province is. A more urbanized province maybe would add influence to the Burger estate. While the larger swathes of lesser land would increase Nobilty influence. Clergy would have influence either way until you start to secularize. Another chart could show the percentages of cultures and another for religions. To abstract it and make the calculations more simple you could still ignore things like this very specific Dane is Catholic and this Swede is Protestant in the same province and just go by percentage.
Just a few ideas.

 

[alexti]

Because of effective caste systems in place for most of the world during EU5's timeline, people rarely transitioned out of what they were born into. I'd abstract away the lower classes' wants and demands through a new 'unrest mechanic' that doesn't just result in rebellions, but also crime and disorganisation and other provincial/state wide modifiers.

I am mostly familiar with European history, so won't generalize for the whole world, but there was certainly social movement. The route for the younger generation would often go via sailor/soldier/mercenary to small savings (or early death) that would allow one to become a merchant or open a small business. The evolution of pops would be slower than in Vic2 period, but over the period currently covered by EU4 it would be non-insignificant. Class/caste pops needs would evolve over the time.

As for my idea of estates, the biggest difference I see between them and POPs is that my idea of estates are active participants with stable dynamic plans, wants, relatioships, and dislikes. In this sense they are more like other nations than the POPs of Victoria.

Pops kind of have that, so it seems to be that you mostly want to expand interactions that can be done with pops as a group. In that view I would call estates "voice of pops"

 

[Ivashanko]

I am mostly familiar with European history, so won't generalize for the whole world, but there was certainly social movement. The route for the younger generation would often go via sailor/soldier/mercenary to small savings (or early death) that would allow one to become a merchant or open a small business. The evolution of pops would be slower than in Vic2 period, but over the period currently covered by EU4 it would be non-insignificant. Class/caste pops needs would evolve over the time.


Pops kind of have that, so it seems to be that you mostly want to expand interactions that can be done with pops as a group. In that view I would call estates "voice of pops"

There certainly was some movement! I don't want to overstate the difficulties of upward progression. But it is also important to talk about just how rare upward progression was for most of the game. IIRC only a small handful of nations (the Netherlands, several Italian states, etc) saw their agriculture population decline significantly before the 18th century. The Second Agricultural Revolution kick started rural flight, and urbanisation should bring about issues and opportunities that the player has to deal with.

And even then most nations in the world did not see a large shift away from agriculture until the 19th or even 20th centuries.

I agree with you 'estates should be the voice of the POPs' comment. As I said earlier, I would be happy to have a POPs system supplement an estate system.

I find the dichotomy presented between estates and pops weird. Pops were already stratified by class in victoria 2, all you have to do is make the stratification by estate and you have a merger of the two - so where's the problem?

There isn't a problem, and I might go back to modify my title. I'd like a POP system. But I'd like the player to directly interact with estates, not POPs. POPs should only be interacted with indirectly imo.

 

[The Colonel]

I think the idea of estates as a means to introduce some more depth to EU's modeling of a nation in the timeframe could be very cool, as like people have pointed out, managing serf pops who pretty much just stay serfs all game doesn't do much, but modeling influence of burghers and clergy and probably like high and low nobility would make sense, along with splitting them along broader ethnic lines (I think maybe keeping cultures somewhat like in EU4 but having estates only split by culture group or perhaps literally by regions (e.g. Italy, Balkans, Anatolia).

However, the idea that the implementation of this core mechanic is that your estates are constantly infighting and that the player's main gameplay is trying to manage this infighting to prevent civil war/rebellion/etc. sounds awful. Grand Strategy as a rule is about expanding your power and influence (and to a lesser extent literal map control). Turning the game into something where most mechanics hinder this in a frustrating way, i.e. the player's own nation fighting against them, rather than diplomacy leading to multiple other nations fighting against the player (alliances, coalitions, etc.) sounds very un-fun. I'm reminded of Total War Rome 2's awful internal politics mechanics which were unintuitive and led to a very un-fun civil war that just felt like a seriously second-rate version of Shogun 2's Realm Divide turning the remaining AIs against you.

 

[Ivashanko]

However, the idea that the implementation of this core mechanic is that your estates are constantly infighting and that the player's main gameplay is trying to manage this infighting to prevent civil war/rebellion/etc. sounds awful. Grand Strategy as a rule is about expanding your power and influence (and to a lesser extent literal map control). Turning the game into something where most mechanics hinder this in a frustrating way, i.e. the player's own nation fighting against them, rather than diplomacy leading to multiple other nations fighting against the player (alliances, coalitions, etc.) sounds very un-fun. I'm reminded of Total War Rome 2's awful internal politics mechanics which were unintuitive and led to a very un-fun civil war that just felt like a seriously second-rate version of Shogun 2's Realm Divide turning the remaining AIs against you.

Estates that could only ever help the state would be ahistoric and unengaging. The relationship between the state and the estates should change throughout the game, just like the relationship between countries can change.

A similar dynamic exist for CK3 and its 'character' mechanic, so we have proof that the concept can work. I believe the game would be even more enjoyable if the characters had more indepth agendas and desires. To give one example, deciding which vassals to give land to should be one of the most important decisions a ruler can make, with short and long term consequences.