As a strategy, storing monarch points in EU4 will probably be as strong as the strategy of not buying property in Monopoly. (Not very strong at all!)
Europa Universalis IV: Developer diary 5: The Return of the Kings
- Thread starter unmerged(1823)
- 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.
As a strategy, storing monarch points in EU4 will probably be as strong as the strategy of not buying property in Monopoly. (Not very strong at all!)
Well, given that each advisor in the screenshot, at the moment, costs 2 gold/month, and whatever country was being played in the last DD was earning 101 gold/month, I think everyone will be able to afford at least some advisors. If advisor costs go up linearly, that would put the max cost at 18/month (assuming a 3 star advisor costs 6).
I wish the kings and queens would have a little generalized portrait too, like the advisors. But that's indeed the hottest map of England I've ever seen.
No mention of counts or dukes or archdukes or grand dukes or emperors or tsars or...
Sounds really cool. I really like that you are addressing the fact that once you get powerful enough, it gets pretty hard to lose the game.
The real beauty of this system (in addition to modeling decay through weak leaders) is that it will allow for great country-specific differentiation because I'm sure that the base values of everything will change based on a host of modifiers tied to national ideas, adviser types, buildings, neighbors (I'm betting the neighbor bonus from tech will lower the cost of the technology), technology researched, amount of time land has been held (as was pointed out up thread), and perhaps even religion.
So yes, it will matter if you've got a 1 or a 6 monarch, but a highly naval England (multiple naval NIs, a naval adviser, high naval tech, and naval buildings) will still rule the waves with a 1 monarch because everything naval will be incredibly cheap and will still find it harder to keep up on land even with a 6 monarch if they are going against a highly land Prussia because everything land based will be closer to the base cost while Prussia gets it for cheap. I'd love some things to even increase the base value of something, because you've pushed your country so far in one direction that it lacks the ability to even reach the baseline in another (e.g. narrowminded national ideas like Divine Supremacy increase your tech costs), but I know Paradox doesn't like maluses from things like NIs.
So yes, it will matter if you've got a 1 or a 6 monarch, but a highly naval England (multiple naval NIs, a naval adviser, high naval tech, and naval buildings) will still rule the waves with a 1 monarch because everything naval will be incredibly cheap and will still find it harder to keep up on land even with a 6 monarch if they are going against a highly land Prussia because everything land based will be closer to the base cost while Prussia gets it for cheap. I'd love some things to even increase the base value of something, because you've pushed your country so far in one direction that it lacks the ability to even reach the baseline in another (e.g. narrowminded national ideas like Divine Supremacy increase your tech costs), but I know Paradox doesn't like maluses from things like NIs.
I'd just like to throw my voice in with those pointing out how important a somewhat expanded dynasty window will be if you can throw your heirs into the military fray. If the player has no idea how many heirs he or she has, the risk/reward is too unbalanced under the current (assumed) system, not to mention the realism and immersion factors.
The developers haven't responded directly to any inquiries about this though and, coupled with Johan's comment in the tier thread about features/mechanics yet unannounced AND the success of CK2's dynasty simulator, I hope there will be a DD about dynasties/heirs/royal marriage, something!
The developers haven't responded directly to any inquiries about this though and, coupled with Johan's comment in the tier thread about features/mechanics yet unannounced AND the success of CK2's dynasty simulator, I hope there will be a DD about dynasties/heirs/royal marriage, something!
That's all covered by the starting setup : what tech, what land, what forces, what navy, what manpower, what alliances, wars and truces each country has is ALL tributary to previous rulers, so in game terms, it's all tributary to how all the previous rulers spent their monarch points. Why would monarch points have to be set for each and every country ? Except maybe in very specific cases, such as a country that historically underwent a major change very soon after game start, and that would require a capital of monarch points to do the same ingame. Otherwise it seems a waste of time and a big call to nationalist trolls, again.
OK, only read the first page. First thought: somebody needs another lesson on English grammar, or an editor.
Second thought: This seems, to me, to be how a highly centralized state should run, but not every state (even look at the examples given). Feudal states or tribal federations would have much smaller emphasis on the power of the monarch and his/her top advisors. In fact, in these situations the monarch was generally quite impotent!
Second thought: This seems, to me, to be how a highly centralized state should run, but not every state (even look at the examples given). Feudal states or tribal federations would have much smaller emphasis on the power of the monarch and his/her top advisors. In fact, in these situations the monarch was generally quite impotent!
Given that generals and assaults cost MIL points, I think nations that begin the game at war probably will need to get a number of MIL points at game start.
That's all covered by the starting setup : what tech, what land, what forces, what navy, what manpower, what alliances, wars and truces each country has is ALL tributary to previous rulers, so in game terms, it's all tributary to how all the previous rulers spent their monarch points. Why would monarch points have to be set for each and every country ? Except maybe in very specific cases, such as a country that historically underwent a major change very soon after game start, and that would require a capital of monarch points to do the same ingame. Otherwise it seems a waste of time and a big call to nationalist trolls, again.
And given that, to balance things out, nations that begin the game at peace will get a number of points spread across all three categories. Sort of like how you begin with some cultural/military tradition in EU3.
If everyone begins with the same number of points, or the same number modified by the current monarch's skills, then it's not a big task.
I very much like the general idea, but it would be good to see some other things that were mentioned, like how many heir you have. Having the cap tied on your ruler and onthe size of your country could be interesting too. But one thing I don't really get is why assault should cost some military points. I understand it wouldn't be that much, but I fear it could be a strange choice to make, given an assault is in itself already more costly in men than a siege. Maybe it would be better if some sieges-linked actions would be enabled by some points, but assault could stay free.
However, I also fail to see how stacking points would be beneficial or an exploit. You would indeed have to sacrifice your good years in order to have something like a flat line of general performance while you could also be risky and always be at the last point. Even with that, a crappy reign of 20 years isn't automatically followed by an extraordinary ruler, so if you have too crappy reign, you did all this saving only to delay your decadence of two decades.
However, I also fail to see how stacking points would be beneficial or an exploit. You would indeed have to sacrifice your good years in order to have something like a flat line of general performance while you could also be risky and always be at the last point. Even with that, a crappy reign of 20 years isn't automatically followed by an extraordinary ruler, so if you have too crappy reign, you did all this saving only to delay your decadence of two decades.
I took that to be 1) a good way to balance the game mechanics (assaults are powerful), and 2) because troops are more likely to go once more unto the breach if they have King Hal leading them.
Can I conver the heir into an admiral? I shall be very glad to see my own Henry the Navigator.
If so,when I have an idol heir, I will convert him into an admiral, let him go to America and let the ship sink and he go to heaven, then get a better heir:laugh:
And since there will be many historical rulers and advisors and generals and admirals, why not creat a wikipedia link like CK2? It would be very useful
And,WHY DON'T LET THE RULERS AND HEIR HAVE THEIR PORTRAITS?I don't think the small icon of advisors (Now that it is still comes from EU3, and there is only five types)is important, it should be better to leave the place for the portrait of rulers and heir. It is not difficult, for there is successful DNA systems of CK2.
If so,when I have an idol heir, I will convert him into an admiral, let him go to America and let the ship sink and he go to heaven, then get a better heir:laugh:
And since there will be many historical rulers and advisors and generals and admirals, why not creat a wikipedia link like CK2? It would be very useful
And,WHY DON'T LET THE RULERS AND HEIR HAVE THEIR PORTRAITS?
I don't think the small icon of advisors (Now that it is still comes from EU3, and there is only five types)is important, it should be better to leave the place for the portrait of rulers and heir. It is not difficult, for there is successful DNA systems of CK2.
What does that matter, at all? There may be a few too many commas, but I'd say there's no lack of clarity in the diary.
Or Barbarossa, or even that pesky Dane they are singing about. I like the idea.
Uhm, I'm not completely sure about this system... The idea of ruler points and of a tradeoff among the different strategies you can adopt is really good, but I don't feel like the randomness of the system is a great thing. The player may feel like his success in the game depends too much on chance and not on her own ability.
For instance, I'd prefer a system in which you are given a certain amount of skill points (say, 9) and then "create" your ruler by allocating them to the three attributes. There would still be a strategical trade-off, but you would be able to decide your own approach, instead of being forced to follow one by the ruler stats. A random system may provide a challenge, but it could be frustrating too...
Finally, a question: does the cost of actions or the number of ruler points scale with the dimension of the country?
For instance, kingdoms with more borders and provinces need more buildings and have relationships with many countries. If the amount of ruler points doesn't change with the country dimension, I fear that major countries could be seriously limited... I'm not sure though, as I don't precisely know how the system works.
For instance, I'd prefer a system in which you are given a certain amount of skill points (say, 9) and then "create" your ruler by allocating them to the three attributes. There would still be a strategical trade-off, but you would be able to decide your own approach, instead of being forced to follow one by the ruler stats. A random system may provide a challenge, but it could be frustrating too...
Finally, a question: does the cost of actions or the number of ruler points scale with the dimension of the country?
For instance, kingdoms with more borders and provinces need more buildings and have relationships with many countries. If the amount of ruler points doesn't change with the country dimension, I fear that major countries could be seriously limited... I'm not sure though, as I don't precisely know how the system works.
That's kind of the point. Growing big should come with difficulties and hard priorities.