And a player with a ruler who terrible in both DIP and ADM will be totally doomed.
Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations - Dev Diary 10: Balance Changes
- Thread starter Wizzington
- 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.
And a player with a ruler who terrible in both DIP and ADM will be totally doomed.
Why? Why do you need to constantly be expanding militarily? Just conquer slower, and focus on colonizing, or tech boosting, or breaking apart your enemies instead of outright conquering them. Deal with the hand you've been dealt. It's more strategic, then conquer conquer conquer, conquer.
Because conquest makes you win the game. Between a player who can annex 10 provinces a decade vs a player who can only annex 1 province a decades, who gonna win? Conquer is the best way to win in this game, but only lucky player have the luxuries to use that road. Unlucky player have to stuck with inferior path. This is strategy game, not gamble.
Random number generator. Not sure ROTW.
Do you play MP? I feel this is more of a multiplayer problem. There isn't really a win the game in single player where the random monarch makes your decision more important and you're playing more of a simulation. Single play you set your own goals really so the Monarch isn't really a big deal, just something has to be dealt with.
Regardless you aren't always going to get shitty monarchs, the times you get your 4+ monarchs are times you can advance drasticly.
One major problem with what you just said is that tech boosting is BASED on MP. If you get a garbage ruler in both ADM and DIP, you can't tech up in those areas either. Even colonizing is pretty weak, considering it's mostly a waiting game. Wait for the colonist to arrive, wait for the bar to fill up for it to become a province. Etc.
With low MP, you can't build buildings as easily as well. You can't increase stability. Even signing a peace deal costs DIP last time I checked.
Well you can, you just don't conquer. I've played england games with 0/0/0 king lasting until he was almost 80, so hes around for near 50 years or so. I gave up my holdings in france, focused on vassalize ireland and scotland, and I was able to keep tech equal with the rest of the world. The negatives aren't as dramatic as many make it seem to be. If you can nearly keep up with a 0/0/0 king, anything above that is much easier. In fact my next ruler after him was something like 4/4/5 and I was able to catch up and overpass nearly all of europe, get a ton of ideas, infrastructure (though thats because I gave up any idea of european expansion past scotland, ireland, and norwegian north island). It made for a very fun colonial british game.
What are you talking about? Even if you needed to stay current in tech, which is rare (new idea group), you don't do a full tech level each decade.
To stay current as a westerner you need aprox. 461 points of AMP (10/13*600), leaving you with almost 400 spare points. You can't core nearly 400 AMP worth of territory in a decade once you get remotely sizeable.
Hell, even the 200 points you think are needed to boost stab twice a decade would almost allow you to permanently core up to 100% OE.
Random monarch only gives you less option, and make your decision irrelevant. Random stuff that take away the control from players make it less of a simulation. Between a driving game with give you control over the pedal vs once that does not, which one is the better simulation? A good simulation is once that allow player to have stronger impact on the surround world, not the once that only allow player to watch and have very little control.
Yes, if you are willing to cut expansion and deliberately negate skillful play in a game centered around expansion, then you can underperform compared to competent players and pretend not to notice.
But that has nothing to do with the fact that MP skill-equalizes the game and that such is bad design.
Hyperbole doesn't help you make your points, it just makes you sound like you don't know what you're talking about.
So you have obviously seen that the difference between a garbage ruler and an above-average ruler can completely change the pace of the game, regardless of your own abilities?
Now imagine for a second, with the changes to vassalization costs, Ireland and Scotland are even harder to vassalize. In 1.6 you will be spending even MORE points than before. You are at the mercy of the RNG even more than now.
On top of that, why are you boosting stab so much? hovering the -1 to +1 mark seems to work incredibly well, nearly never having to boost stability. All the random events seem to level out, Ive actually ended up +3 from a few for years and years at a time. before dropping to +2 or +1 I rarely invest in stab unless needed.
I feel thats another place a lot of these monarch point complaints are coming from. Wasting points on stab to keep at +3 like was the best decision to do in EU3, or wasting dip points on cultural conversion which can be useful, but isn't neccessary. its more something you do if you have a very good dip monarch and excess dip points.
Really with 0/0/0 king is only time you're really limited by the monarch, and even then if you play reserved you can keep up.
Then I will adapt to it? My point was I was able to keep up with such a shitty ruler, thats the strategy. I made use of my terrible situation to the best I could, and then when I was given a better situation I used it fully to my advantage. I see no problem with this unless I played multiplayer where instead of nation simulation, conquest is the goal.
I like that it is going to be more challenging. I had all of the european places taken really early on. It left me with not much to do until colonization (even with a great ruler I wouldnt have risked jumping into france again). Now it'll give me more to manage until I can begin colonizing, I may not even get those norwegian isles.
Skill-negation, not skill-equalization.
Skill-equalization helps players who are doing poorly and hurts players that are doing too well. MP doesn't work like that. It just blesses/curses on a random basis.
You adapt to your situation. Its realism. Not every country was always internally strong. The shit monarch is that situation. Its not skill negation or equalization. Its managing a situation. multiplayer I can see the issue with this, where competition is the goal. But singleplayer this is great. It makes you decide whether conquering or not is really a good idea.
And really even as a conquering nation I have never had a problem with monarch points. Only time its been limiting is with a 0/0/0 monarch which is rare. anything above that and you should be able to do most things. The only thing I had to limit with something like a 2/2/2 monarch was expand slightly slower, and not build infrastructure. Which I was then able to do later in the game with a much higher point monarch.
Really it is no issue. Most monarchs are in the median range, and the game runs perfectly smooth with them. even with a 1 point monarch, that area can advance steadily if you monitor it well, and usually at some point you'll get a monarch with higher points in that area to make up for it. Low point monarchs are very rare. as are very high point monarchs. Its usually median, so all these complaints seem to be null.
Dont waste on too high stability or culture conversion if you don't have the points, or infrastructure if you're even that low.
Last edited:
Once I size enough, I sold my core to vassal. Never run to the coring times problem, just run out of ADM.
You have been proven wrong already, unless you care to address earlier arguments made against this assertion that you're ignoring.
You don't get to make up definitions. The MP system fits the definition perfectly. Accept reality, even if it's hard for you.
How? Do you try for too high stab? Do you tech ahead? Use a lot of ADM ideas? I have never run into this problem even with monarch with 2 adm. If I have a 2 adm monarch and an adm idea tree, I keep up in tech, and invest in ideas when I can, or take land if that is the situation at hand. If Im using vassals even better. No ADM cost.
I don't believe I ignored anything, unless I missed something. I am not making up any definition. That is what I'm saying is it not? Accept the reality of your situation, even if its hard for you.
This? I have already stated how you don't have to cut expansion unless your monarch is complete garbage. It's not underperforming, it's performing with what you're given. Truth is, any median monarch is more then enough to constantly expand while keeping level with tech and internal stability, even some minor infrastructure.
The game centered around smart expansion. Not WC. How can it be underperforming compared to competent players when they are just as likely to get shitty rulers as you? Do you play multiplayer? If so your complaints are more valid. But in single, its not a competition, you cant underperform compared to anyone because there are 100's of variables to your success, revolts, different, wars, different random events, all contribute to your success or failure monarch points are not the only thing that can make you seem "incompetent" to other players, and this should not even be a factor in a single player game. You aren't competing with anyones skill, your building your empire based on your skill, and the events that occur and how your skill determines how you handle those events (turmoil, stab shots, Bad/good monarchs, Revolts, wars you were unprepared for).
The way you put it, everyone should always have equal circumstances. Sure skill would be involved in how they advance there to. But skill is also involved in the current system, in the decisions you make or dont make with what you have. The size of your empire is not the showing of how good you are, not over near 400 years of gameplay where 1000's of things happen that could either enhance your possibilitys, or give you more of a challenge.
The better player may have the smaller empire depending on those circumstances, so what? He did what he could with the situation given, and had fun with it.
Last edited:
