Financial Ruin should be a "Disaster"

[dvnitycker]

My Aztec game was completely ruined with this event. I had no clue what its triggers are and what might cause it. My economy is generally stable, running a sufficit, so no idea something like this could happen. My inflation is high (20%), but I would have put more effort into battling it if (spent points, hired advisors) I knew it's a cause of disaster. I was completely "wtf" when it popped up.

You need to make it clear to players that they risk such a disastrous event under certain terms.

 

[Granite]

Going over 10+ inflation is just one of the things you should 'know' the effects of, much like getting 100+ overextension or 50+ AE with neighboring countries. A disaster wouldn't quite fit, maybe a popup for high inflation like there is for low stability?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Going over 10+ inflation is just one of the things you should 'know' the effects of, much like getting 100+ overextension or 50+ AE with neighboring countries. A disaster wouldn't quite fit, maybe a popup for high inflation like there is for low stability?

No, inflation in the game is not like inflation in reality, and there is no intuitive reason 10 should be a magic number over others (it certainly is not in reality). The in-game UI gives a coalition warning now for going over 50 AE, but that's a nonsense mechanic still as well. OE as a percentage creates an obvious cutoff, unlike the others.

 

[IIWW]

No, inflation in the game is not like inflation in reality, and there is no intuitive reason 10 should be a magic number over others (it certainly is not in reality). The in-game UI gives a coalition warning now for going over 50 AE, but that's a nonsense mechanic still as well. OE as a percentage creates an obvious cutoff, unlike the others.

I think You missed his point. Going over 10 inflation is something even moderately expierienced player knows should be avoided. It's not intuitional, but it's a knowledge from experience.

This being said, I think there should be an information in game about it, preferably in the tooltip for inflation (and imilar for WE, OE etc)

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I think You missed his point. Going over 10 inflation is something even moderately expierienced player knows should be avoided. It's not intuitional, but it's a knowledge from experience.

This being said, I think there should be an information in game about it, preferably in the tooltip for inflation (and imilar for WE, OE etc)

Knowledge from experience? Experience of the financial ruin event?

EU IV is not the kind of game where "trial and error gameplay" is justified. Fake difficulty and strategy titles don't mesh. The game does give some minor cues with regards to the other thresholds mentioned, so they're not really comparable.

 

[dvnitycker]

I think You missed his point. Going over 10 inflation is something even moderately expierienced player knows should be avoided. It's not intuitional, but it's a knowledge from experience.

This being said, I think there should be an information in game about it, preferably in the tooltip for inflation (and imilar for WE, OE etc)

It should not be avoided if the costs of avoiding it are not justifyable.

In example, in an Aztec game in which master of mint is not often available as +1 advisor, and Admin points are much more needed for expansion and mitigating stability effects of Westernization, and then catching up with Ideas, spending 75 of them every two years will not get you far. If you have a 3 point Admin Monarch, you would be spending half of your Admin points reducing inflation. Alternative is to simply let it grow because you can afford it.

My inflation strategy was Master of mint whenever available + Economic Ideas as the third Idea group.

 

[IIWW]

It should not be avoided if the costs of avoiding it are not justifyable.

Thats the case with every of those rules. One does from time to time go slightly over 100% OE, even if not for long.

But it is true, there is something wrong with it. Maybe Indians should not get inflation from Gold? They already have a special rule that they gain less cash from gold, it would propably be good for gameplay. It is unnecessary penaltizing Aztecs and such.

 

[alpaca]

I don't like all the hidden information in the game, either. I know some players like the "sense of discovery" it brings, but for me, hidden effects that can completely screw you over if you don't know them are some of the most frustrating game mechanics and an egregious source of additional difficulty for new players. A game where a single campaign can take dozens of hours doesn't lend itself well to being destroyed by an event a player has no real chance to foresee. Turning these into disasters would be a good choice in my opinion.

There are many more events like that, some of them even country specific. So many, in fact, that I've made it a habit to check the game files for any potential events when I play with a country I have no experience with. Poland, for example, has the very hurtful Sejm events, which you can at least avoid for a time by trying to get heirs with at least 2/2/2, or the stupidly powerful Dutch revolt. On the flipside there are the only slightly less annoying super powerful positive events that in comparison also screw you over if you don't know about them, like the Iberian Wedding, Burgundian inheritance, Vasco da Gama, etc.

In my opinion, a game is very rarely fun if it doesn't have clear rules. If I want to play something where I have no clue what rules are in place, or even if there are any, I can go to the stock market.