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

[Ivashanko]

I just want to say good luck to Johan with all these genious game designers on the forum.
It reminds me my boss that was hardly criticized for its decisions. As an answer toward us, he sent us an excel file with a list of possible decisions and asked us to choose in our view the better decisions (without even justifiying it). The conclusion was that in our department, none of us had the same decision outcomes combination.
All I can see with all these recent threads is a huge Dunning-Kruger effect with people thinking things are easy while they are not. The goal of a company is not to design the game which is cool for you but the game that will create the highest sales. And I am not sure if anyone of you are capable of this.

I don't think anyone posting in this forum is naive enough to believe our suggestions will be adopted by Paradox. Multiple posters, in this topic and others, have acknowledged that we lack the programming skills necessary to even know if what we are suggesting is even possible.

The importance of the example is explicitly not to demand that any specific suggestion be adopted. The value of the suggestion is to spark discussion, which is, after all, the primary value of these (and almost all other!) internet forums. There is nothing wrong with that.

 

[Ivashanko]

I just wanted to mention that V3's Interest Groups are similar to some of the ideas I advocated for here. I believe that a modified form of the mechanic can and should appear in EU5.

 

[DominusNovus]

I say 'both and' instead of 'either or.' Pops are needed for EU5 because this time period saw some of the largest population shifts across the planet, with the pandemics that came with the Columbian Exchange, the settling of the New World by European settlers and adventurers, and the Atlantic slave trade. Pops are the best way to model this.

 

[Masyanya028]

In some mods, you get also penalties for high crownlands and it seems legit, so you may consider what you want or even balance estates and crown lands. Now it's just dumb, "low crownland bad, a lot crownland is good"

 

[PedroLuiz]

I say 'both and' instead of 'either or.'

you can't have two "the central mechanics", he is not arguing for not including POPs, but rather that Estates should be the priority, as you would know if you had read the OP

To be clear: I would also like to have a POPs system in EU5. But estates would be what the player directly interacts with, while POPs would instead be in the background.

Pops are needed for EU5

OP didn't say otherwise but that is debatable and mostly come down to personal taste

because this time period saw some of the largest population shifts across the planet,

the Largest shifts of Population across the planet happened *after* the game ends when most slaves were bought to the Americas due to demand for slave labor caused by the Industrial Revolution (my professor is an expert in slavery in America (landmass), especially Cuba and Brazil) and most of the new world immigration happened after 1820

with the pandemics that came with the Columbian Exchange,

we don't have data about the population of Peru and Mexico (the two most important regions of America at the time) to even start speculating how much population you should put on them nevermind the rest of this continent and the world. The new world's devastation should be represented with modifiers that improve over time as the population recovers, and the same should be true about Europe as its populations took hundreds of years to recover from the black death and wars that popped up at the time

the settling of the New World by European settlers and adventurers

there weren't that many European settlers migrating to America (landmass) before the 1820s, the number I could find was merely 2.5 million. while *the lower* estimate for Mexico after an apocalypse worthy 95% reduction of its population was 1.5 million people, so it doesn't seem to need pops to represent it, but rather new Colonization mechanics

and the Atlantic slave trade.

Pops are the best way to model this.

the Atlantic Slave trade could be better represented by other mechanics in the game, including Estates for new-world nations and more involvement in the slave trade than it simply being a "good" that gives one of the weakest bonuses there is

 

[Leo0502]

Combination of Victoria POPs (culture and religion) with Stellaris' factions (individual goals and wills)? I love it!

This could include some interactions between estates and neighbor states. Merchant republic Venice coming to save burgers/merchants oppressed by Milanese Duke. Hungary welcoming Jews expelled from Spain. Bavarian nobility's pretender supported by Bohemia. Polish szlachta being Polish szlachta in XVIII century.

Dutch East India Company would also fit into game of influential estates perfectly.

 

[alexti]

the Largest shifts of Population across the planet happened *after* the game ends when most slaves were bought to the Americas due to demand for slave labor caused by the Industrial Revolution (my professor is an expert in slavery in America (landmass), especially Cuba and Brazil) and most of the new world immigration happened after 1820

Largest in terms of absolute numbers, relative proportion of population or in terms of power redistribution? I am not sure if your statement is correct, it's difficult to find the data because by most part the changes in population were also at the time when there were territorial changes between the data points. Regardless of whether the shift was larger after 1820 or before, there was a very large population shift during EU era (largely caused by the discovery of a new crops in Americas). China population went from something like 25% of world population to close to 40%, Russia saw a massive increase in population (in part due to conquest, but the natural growth was also very big).

there weren't that many European settlers migrating to America (landmass) before the 1820s, the number I could find was merely 2.5 million. while *the lower* estimate for Mexico after an apocalypse worthy 95% reduction of its population was 1.5 million people, so it doesn't seem to need pops to represent it, but rather new Colonization mechanics

The size of the impact of discovery of America wasn't that much in what Europeans were producing in America, but in bringing maize and potato (and, later, guano) to the Old World.

 

[Vohen]

I don't see much point in arguing whether an EU5 would have pops or not at this point, from the information we have at this point this seems like a foregone conclusion.
This is why this thread was actually interesting, rather than focusing on pops alone, the topic here is on how to improve the game even beyond that by using estates.
And yes, I do agree with OP, IGs from Vic3 does seem like the full realization of the estates mechanic.

 

[Orkonkel]

I wish Eu4 would be a bit more like the Meiou and Taxes mod, including things like creating centers of trade, production, and art/culture (as in actually creating them). Getting artisans to your cities and producing luxury goods. Spreading salt in the fields of Tunis and carting home wagons of gold. Spending thousands and thousands of ducats on the infrastructure of my capital and see it become the largest city on the subcontent, and then the continent, and then the world. Investing blood, sweat, and coins on beaurocratic infrastructure (road networks, administrative centers, etc, etc). If I blob mindlessly my new land has a ceiling of like 90% local autonomy but if I play smart I can get taxes from every corner of the world.

I love being able to play a game and be competitive if I blob and be competitive if I don't blob. I can aim towards claiming the border of whatever nation I play as and then just focus on going tallish, or I can can on whatever map painting spree I want. It's a more fun game design than 'internal mechanics' of base game eu4 imo.

 

[PedroLuiz]

Largest in terms of absolute numbers, relative proportion of population or in terms of power redistribution? I am not sure if your statement is correct, it's difficult to find the data because by most part the changes in population were also at the time when there were territorial changes between the data points. Regardless of whether the shift was larger after 1820 or before, there was a very large population shift during EU era (largely caused by the discovery of a new crops in Americas). China population went from something like 25% of world population to close to 40%, Russia saw a massive increase in population (in part due to conquest, but the natural growth was also very big).

Probably both but as you said finding numbers is quite hard

The size of the impact of discovery of America wasn't that much in what Europeans were producing in America, but in bringing maize and potato (and, later, guano) to the Old World.

This has absolutely nothing to do with what was being discusses

 

[alexti]

This has absolutely nothing to do with what was being discusses

It shows that the effect of discovery of America can't be modeled as colonization process alone.

 

[Shiny Dog]

I'm inclined to agree with OP, partially because I've been thinking about estates playing an internal balancing role for a while.
Pops going on in the background, away from interacting with the player, seems good because EU4's time lacks the all-important force of Mass Politics and consciousness.
The individual needs of your population don't really matter, because they have practically no voice and hardly any way to organize. Those who can organize, such as your clergy, your Janissaries, your nobility, burghers, etc. are the ones a king needs to take care of.

Now, the main idea in my mind is that Estates bridge the gap between CK2's character interaction and Victoria 2/3's POP interaction, and I'll use EU4 mechanics and terms for this.
First up, you would have "core" estates which make up your court and generally the people who make up your empire's bureaucracy: Nobility, Burghers, Clergy, Janissaries, etc. They don't represent provinces, but generally represent your main culture, your state religion, and traitorous snakes that want your crown. How you play determines their strength and interests. The nobility like conquest/glory and autonomy while hating the fact you allow burghers to continue existing. The clergy like pious actions, Holy Wars, donations, while hating the fact you allow heretics to continue existing. The burghers like money and development, while hating the fact you allow foreign traders to continue existing. They give powerful bonuses, but you'll have to declare a silent war against them to consolidate power. Upsetting too many of them will paralyze your nation.
Secondly, you would have minority estates. These represent all your non-state religion/culture groups in your states. For non-main cultures and religions it would be based on the majority culture, so no Catholic Irish vs. Protestant Irish vs. Sunni Irish vs. Hindu Irish vs. Shinto Irish. It would be majority (Catholic, probably) vs. your State Religion in the minority culture. Will you attempt to enforce your orthodoxy on these estates, taking time and money, or will you let sleeping dogs lie? Each culture can give a powerful bonus, but only if they're happy...
Thirdly, colonies. They generally just want more land, autonomy from your state religion/culture, and will become a live grenade in the Age of Revolutions. Oh well, at least you get paid.
Finally, the territories. I believe the best way is for any territory areas to be coalesced into a single estate based on trade zones. So you have a diverse set of people put under a single governor and now that hot mess is your problem, have fun. They have very questionable loyalty, and will need copious bribes to not attempt defection (in the form of revolt) to the nearest power of their religion/culture.

In broad strokes as France: You start with an illiterate majority populace, the nobility being the preeminent power in your nation, and the clergy being an albatross around your neck. Each "Age" should bring about a change to your nation, where the Age of Exploration has burghers upset the Nobility, the Reformation both forces you to tackle the Reformation and tackle the Clergy's influence over your nation, Absolutism would be where you (try to) sideline all your core estates, Revolutions would be where half your populace slowly realizes they don't have rights and will challenge your position as King.

Of course, this might be, in practice, a complete nightmare to play and even more to create. I'd like to hear any ways to improve on this idea.

 

[Ivashanko]

I don't see much point in arguing whether an EU5 would have pops or not at this point, from the information we have at this point this seems like a foregone conclusion.
This is why this thread was actually interesting, rather than focusing on pops alone, the topic here is on how to improve the game even beyond that by using estates.
And yes, I do agree with OP, IGs from Vic3 does seem like the full realization of the estates mechanic.

I agree. I think Johan even already confirmed that POPs will be in EU5, so debating about whether they belong is a sucker's game. I'm trying to argue that Estates/Interest Groups are a more appropriate central mechanic. POPs should be in the background influencing IGs for sure, but I don't think players should directly interacts with POPs much.

 

[Restless Native]

I like this idea a lot. Estates central mechanic. Run your country. Not your individuals.

 

[fr-rein]

I think this could reflect well the difference between centralized country and decentralised.

And even in obscure cases like China bureaucracy can still make sure to note that it is not a centralised state of XX century but something different.

A good thread. I love this idea.

 

[Ivashanko]

I think this could reflect well the difference between centralized country and decentralised.

And even in obscure cases like China bureaucracy can still make sure to note that it is not a centralised state of XX century but something different.

A good thread. I love this idea.

Absolutely! This would provide large internal differences to nations that wouldn't be set in stone like national ideas and many modifiers are, but still accurately depict how these states were different from others.

V3 seems to be based on the same idea, and I'm here for it. All in, 100 percent.

 

[grommile]

A similar dynamic exist for CK3 and its 'character' mechanic

Characters as opponents and obstacles work in CK because you're playing one yourself.

 

[abedfo]

What a well thought and articulate series of posts. It almost got me excited thinking about an EU5 with these ideas implemented.

 

[Ivashanko]

Characters as opponents and obstacles work in CK because you're playing one yourself.

POPs work as a central mechanic in V3 despite the player not playing as one.

But if you're arguing that the character mechanic as a whole only works because the player is a character, then I mostly agree.

 

[dragonluke]

My idea for estates would not just cover elites (the Jewish diaspora, for instance, would be covered by estates. So would the Druze in Lebanon and Zoroastrians in India), which is why calling them 'elites' doesn't really work.

this would be really offputting if pops were also a thing, caue you'd have estates that represent pops that don't exist(so no jews to represent the jewish estate)
but I might have missed something
edit:I don't know how I confused tags with pops