For the love of god, lower the coring costs.

[CrabHelmet]

Britain went "wide, with a tall heartland" - and even the British Isles were nowhere near uniformly developed. (Heck, parts of Scotland arguably lost development.)

Britain only goes wide post ~1789 and the collapse of the First British Empire. It is capable of going wide only because it was already a very wealthy and populous nation. Britain is the obvious example of a tall nation in the *EU4* era.

 

[WeissRaben]

Yes, they weren't equal - tall did better, hence why the first nation to undergo the Industrial Revolution emerged as the winner of the era.

This is complex, mainly because Paradox divorced income completely from research. Tall did better in the sense that it encouraged the emergence of a middle class, which in turn ended up being a winning asset in the last part of the timeframe (in production, trade and innovation).

 

[FrigidSoul]

Victoria, not EU4. Nice try, though.

You're the one who mentioned the industrial revolution. I find it amusing that you can handwave Britain's overseas assets on the pasted map on the basis that they didn't necessarily arise from direct conquest.

But sure, I'll be serious for a moment: this is an issue of semantics. In real life, there was no gameplay relevant dichotomy between purely tall and purely wide. In practice, you needed to do both to truly dominate. Arguably the best example of a tall country, as we understand the term in strategy game forums, was Prussia, and Prussia's famous in large part because it expanded against great odds (due to luck, due to genius), and ultimately set the table for the formation of Germany, which in game terms was and is a massively expansive state.

As for Britain? Even if we only look at their assets in the isles, Britain was by no means a small country by European standards.

The idea, implicit in the term 'tall' as most people here use it, that you can sit around with 2-3 provinces and develop yourself til you compete with continent-spanning or even moderately expansive countries is both blatantly ahistorical and (based on EU4's current structure) counter to good game play.

Still, your numerical estimate is off; wide isn't five times better than tall because the first province provides vastly more benefit than any subsequent conquest. Thus, 5 OPMs in Common Sense will tend to kick the crap out of a 5 province or even (likely) a 10 or 15 province country.

 

[WeissRaben]

You're the one who mentioned the industrial revolution. I find it amusing that you can handwave Britain's overseas assets on the pasted map on the basis that they didn't necessarily arise from direct conquest.

But sure, I'll be serious for a moment: this is an issue of semantics. In real life, there was no gameplay relevant dichotomy between purely tall and purely wide. In practice, you needed to do both to truly dominate. Arguably the best example of a tall country, as we understand the term in strategy game forums, was Prussia, and Prussia's famous in large part because it expanded against great odds (due to luck, due to genius), and ultimately set the table for the formation of Germany, which in game terms was and is a massively expansive state.

As for Britain? Even if we only look at their assets in the isles, Britain was by no means a small country by European standards.

The idea, implicit in the term 'tall' as most people here use it, that you can sit around with 2-3 provinces and develop yourself til you compete with continent-spanning or even moderately expansive countries is both blatantly ahistorical and (based on EU4's current structure) counter to good game play.

Still, your numerical estimate is off; wide isn't five times better than tall because the first province provides vastly more benefit than any subsequent conquest. Thus, 5 OPMs in Common Sense will tend to kick the crap out of a 5 province or even (likely) a 10 or 15 province country.

The problem is that "Germany" is not wide, by EU4 standards. A Pan-European union is. Even without being able to conquer the world (because of skills or boredom or both), doing exceedingly ridiculous things like Urals to Gibraltar and making it stick is trivial. Just keep expanding, with no trace of internal problems, no costs, no threats, and you'll get there. Hell, I remember people being asked "why are you so small" after presenting Italy plus the Balkans.

 

[Korashy]

Going tall in europe doesn't constitute going tall though, it just means your conquests are somewhere else (India for example). And if they'd won the HYW they would most certainly been wide. And even that was after consolidating Scottland and Ireland.

Going tall makes more sense in Vicky, where you can definitely do so successfully.

 

[Korashy]

The problem is that "Germany" is not wide, by EU4 standards. A Pan-European union is. Even without being able to conquer the world (because of skills or boredom or both), doing exceedingly ridiculous things like Urals to Gibraltar and making it stick is trivial. Just keep expanding, with no trace of internal problems, no costs, no threats, and you'll get there. Hell, I remember people being asked "why are you so small" after presenting Italy plus the Balkans.

That's the core problem. Lack of internal management. Instead we get MP increases, AE and OE to stifle conquest speed. If you look at vanilla EU IV and remove Trade, it's basically Risk on crack. Risk is a wargame, and nothing but a wargame, and honestly, that's essentially what EU IV is. It's a wargame to which a lot more stuff got added over the expansions, and now it's kind of suffering an identity crisis.

edit: didn't mean to double post :[

 

[CrabHelmet]

You're the one who mentioned the industrial revolution. I find it amusing that you can handwave Britain's overseas assets on the pasted map on the basis that they didn't necessarily arise from direct conquest.

The Industrial Revolution begins in the EU4 era. I'm also not hand-waving them. The First British Empire's extent, Bengal and Quebec aside, is provinces which, in EU4, you colonize. There are no coring costs involved (which is what "wide" play in EU4 involves), only development costs ("tall"). I agree this is a very loose interpretation of reality - but it is Paradox's, not mine.

But sure, I'll be serious for a moment: this is an issue of semantics. In real life, there was no gameplay relevant dichotomy between purely tall and purely wide. In practice, you needed to do both to truly dominate. Arguably the best example of a tall country, as we understand the term in strategy game forums, was Prussia, and Prussia's famous in large part because it expanded against great odds (due to luck, due to genius), and ultimately set the table for the formation of Germany, which in game terms was and is a massively expansive state.

Yes. But it is easily possible to do much better than Prussia much earlier than Prussia in game. By playing "wide" - i.e., focusing on conquest and coring, not development - I can form Prussia by 1550 and Germany by 1650 without having to put much effort in. By your own example, this does not lend credence to the argument that wide is now too difficult/too expensive relative to tall.

The idea, implicit in the term 'tall' as most people here use it, that you can sit around with 2-3 provinces and develop yourself til you compete with continent-spanning or even moderately expansive countries is both blatantly ahistorical and (based on EU4's current structure) counter to good game play.

I'm not saying you can sit around with 2-3 provinces and be as good as France. That's obviously nonsense. What I'm saying is that a France which spent the entire game focusing on development should be more powerful than a France which spent the entire game focusing on conquest.

Still, your numerical estimate is off; wide isn't five times better than tall because the first province provides vastly more benefit than any subsequent conquest. Thus, 5 OPMs in Common Sense will tend to kick the crap out of a 5 province or even (likely) a 10 or 15 province country.

No, you've changed the comparison. I have 55 ADM points. I have a strategic choice of what to do with them. I can either a) pay to increase my base tax by 1, giving me 1 extra ducat a year, or b) pay to core a province with 2 base tax, 2 manpower, and 1 production; giving me an extra 2 ducats a year at least plus trade good value plus the ability to wage more conquest. a) is so strongly inferior to b) it isn't even funny.

 

[WeissRaben]

That's the core problem. Lack of internal management. Instead we get MP increases, AE and OE to stifle conquest speed. If you look at vanilla EU IV and remove Trade, it's basically Risk on crack. Risk is a wargame, and nothing but a wargame, and honestly, that's essentially what EU IV is. It's a wargame to which a lot more stuff got added over the expansions, and now it's kind of suffering an identity crisis.

edit: didn't mean to double post :[

No problem, it happens. Last week my mouse kept doubleclicking, and I did a lot of doubleposts.

Now... well, we stand on the same spot, but look in opposite direction, it seems. I want to see EU4 stop being Risk on crack, gain a deep internal system and move from Splatoon: the Strategy Game (thanks for the new analogy, Nintendo!) to an actual Grand Strategy game.

 

[Korashy]

No problem, it happens. Last week my mouse kept doubleclicking, and I did a lot of doubleposts.

Now... well, we stand on the same spot, but look in opposite direction, it seems. I want to see EU4 stop being Risk on crack, gain a deep internal system and move from Splatoon: the Strategy Game (thanks for the new analogy, Nintendo!) to an actual Grand Strategy game.

I'm fine with that. Vicky II is probably my favorite Pdox game. But I don't agree that it's working well with EU IV as it is now. CK2 has characters and plotting and dynasty management (though arguably since old gods it got a lot more painty), Vicky II has pops, politics, crisis, and industrialization. What does EU IV have? Click button to raise basetax... that's my "peacetime" content. There is only war.

 

[Lunghei]

How to lower coring costs:

Go to ~steam_directory/SteamApps/common/Europa Universalis IV/common/defines.lua. Open with notepad. Search for PS_MAKE_PROVINCE_CORE. The current value is 10, but you can lower it as much as you like. To enable in multiplayer, make sure everyone has the same value.

Alternatively, in single player you can press ` and use the commands add_core = prov_id and adm = value to offset the higher coring costs.

Hopefully this provides the fun if you feel patch 1.12 is outrageous.

 

[WeissRaben]

I'm fine with that. Vicky II is probably my favorite Pdox game. But I don't agree that it's working well with EU IV as it is now. CK2 has characters and plotting and dynasty management (though arguably since old gods it got a lot more painty), Vicky II has pops, politics, crisis, and industrialization. What does EU IV have? Click button to raise basetax... that's my "peacetime" content. There is only war.

The main theme of EU should be, I think, "from country to nation-state". Centralization of power, modernization of government, the birth of bureaucracy, magnates, technology and - at the tail end - industrialization and nationalism. But it's just my opinion.

 

[Yevheniya]

Look at that ahistorical Austria. Lol, Qing, what a minmaxer. Russia stop being a tryhard. Mughals wtf, thats not ironman. Ottomans pls, exploit more.

Basically if by 'very few nations' you mean the princes in the HRE, then yes, very few grew more than a 'couple of provinces'. Other than that? Yeah.. history speaks for itself.

This argument is beyond idiotic. In the old system, it was extremely possible for the likes of Russia and Qing to conquer all of Asia with minimal effort. Ottomans was frequently a candidate for WC, if not absolute domination of Eurasia. Bohemia and Hungary are also all but guaranteed to Austria thanks to missions. It is *still* guaranteed those things. These "historical" blobs circa 1718 are still very attainable in the current "unblobbable" system.

Blobbing is still the best strategy. It is still worth it to core a province with 17 development for the cost to boost an existing province by 4 development. This will essentially always be the case barring "realistic" barriers to conquest and expansion which are quite simply not adequately modeled by EU4. I applaud Common Sense for at least attempting to introduce an extra consideration between conquering every single one of your neighbors every time and pursuing different avenues of growth. Paradox still has all their work cut out for them in terms of making peacetime an equally engaging part of the game as war, but punchy mechanics like parliamentary debates and development are a step in the right direction.

 

[Korashy]

The main theme of EU should be, I think, "from country to nation-state". Centralization of power, modernization of government, the birth of bureaucracy, magnates, technology and - at the tail end - industrialization and nationalism. But it's just my opinion.

Which is mostly click button to spend MP. Too bad that everything and their mom now costs MP. Maybe if coring or the tech system need to be overhauled to deal with all the new mechanics, but I doubt that will happen.

 

[net.split]

This is complex, mainly because Paradox divorced income completely from research. Tall did better in the sense that it encouraged the emergence of a middle class, which in turn ended up being a winning asset in the last part of the timeframe (in production, trade and innovation).

Actually the biggest problem is that it's precisely the inverse of this. Spending your MP on development slows your acquisition of technology and innovation (ideas), and it does so at a rate that is several times worse than conquest even with the current increases to coring and diplo-annexing.

One of the best changes EU4 could make is to eliminate the use of MP to acquire tech. I'd recommend a new set of resources like MP that can only be used on technology and ideas, and the amount of those you gain depends on your average development levels, autonomy, and intolerance. This means nations that rule over primarily accepted cultures and faiths, then develop those provinces, will get tech and ideas much faster than nations that expand instead, as those provinces with intolerance and high LA won't contribute many points. This will also help nations in places like Asia who struggle to afford either expansion or development because of the high cost of tech.

With a mechanic like that in place, coring could be changed to require all three types of MP in amounts that depend on the three development levels of a given province. Diplo-annexing is an issue but the time requirement (+ eating the diplomat) is the most important component of that mechanism anyway.

Many of the mechanisms that currently improve MP could then be modified to improve the tech/idea resources instead. PP would probably still give MP, but advisors would be better for tech/idea points (so that expanding nations that take lots of cash can use this method to keep up; thinking of Russia and Spain here). Might even be worth considering another super-expensive tier of +4 advisors.

Alternatively, you could get tech/idea point bonuses for dominating lots of trade nodes; that increased exchange of goods and ideas makes a lot of sense for this and provides an expansive alternative to internal development.

 

[WeissRaben]

Which is mostly click button to spend MP. Too bad that everything and their mom now costs MP. Maybe if coring or the tech system need to be overhauled to deal with all the new mechanics, but I doubt that will happen.

How do you know? It's all nonexistent. Unless you are able to gaze into nothingness and see what could be, I don't see how you can say "it's all MP and buttons".

 

[FieldMedic]

A lot of people reference the lovely space aged Europeans when talking about MP, but what about the lowly primitives. I'm playing Ming and except for legitimacy (F U Mandate of Heaven) MP is the most valuable resource by far. I need to commit almost every point I make to tech and have very very little left over for the myriad of other things I could be spending points on. Now I get that primitives are suppose to be...primitive but isn't being hamstrung by 160%+ tech cost enough! Why does everything and it's mother cost MP?

 

[klingonadmiral]

One of the best changes EU4 could make is to get rid of monarch points altogether

FTFY

In my opinion they should just bring back automatic core events, only for accepted cultures at first, for all cultures once dip/admin tech 22 has been reached. Overextension should also probably scale logarithmically, a few recently annexed provinces can be pacific relatively easily, but each one added would slowly tip the scale. The event should probably require the province to be held for 15 or 20 years or so, and should have a significant MTTH.

 

[net.split]

The MP mechanic is good because it's proactive. Having things be automatic / over time is far less interesting from a gameplay perspective.

The problem with MP is that it encompasses too many things. It's a trade-off on where to spend it, which is sometimes good, but often counter-intuitive and poor for simulation. Many times the investments you make with it should improve something else, but that something else costs the same MP, so you're doing the opposite -- delaying that other thing.

There should be more acquire-and-spend resources like MP and cash, not less. That way the things you spend them on can be made more appropriate, and your choices on which of those things you acquire (& how) would be a very interesting and integral part of the game's strategy.

 

[Colt42]

I like it, the more you expand then the worse your admin upgrades get. So as you expand your country becomes worse and worsely administered. But the further you get behind, the cheaper the admin upgrades get... So you never fall too behind. It just means that countries constantly expanding and absorbing foriegn lands and people (are very logically) not as well run. Meanwhile the countries that just chill and sit there get more admin points and so are better run. I think this makes perfect sense.

Before CS you could absorb (core) a small country very quickly and it seemed unrealistic.

I think there needs to be another mechanic for extremely rapid expansion to mirror what warlords did, they maintained control through military means. You should be able to use either troops or military points to interact with non-cores somehow. And I don't mean unrest. Maybe use troops to reduce OE? or use troops to go beyond 100% OE? or spend military points or to extend OE beyond 100%?

MP are great and make EU4 fantastic, every time you use them you are stunting your development... it's so clever to exchange technology for stability or whatever, it is my favorite bit of EU4.

 

[klingonadmiral]

The MP mechanic is good because it's proactive. Having things be automatic / over time is far less interesting from a gameplay perspective.

The problem with MP is that it encompasses too many things. It's a trade-off on where to spend it, which is sometimes good, but often counter-intuitive and poor for simulation. Many times the investments you make with it should improve something else, but that something else costs the same MP, so you're doing the opposite -- delaying that other thing.

There should be more acquire-and-spend resources like MP and cash, not less. That way the things you spend them on can be made more appropriate, and your choices on which of those things you acquire (& how) would be a very interesting and integral part of the game's strategy.

Good points, but I also think that EU4 has made having a core on a province far, far too important. Historically many nations (i.e. Russia, Ottomans, Mughals) acquired vast areas without really integrating them to their core realm at first, sometimes it worked out (i.e. Russian Siberia), other times it didn't (i.e. Aurangzeb's conquests in India). One could even argue that for example all the Polish land Prussia, Russia and Austria got wasn't cored, especially Prussia's part.

In my opinion the penalties for not having a core should be severely reduced. Something like half the OE it gives currently and -20% BT/Production/MP, +30% development costs.
And a "recently occupied" modifier that persists for the first few years after a conquests and does pretty much the same a non-core province does nowadays.

I like it, the more you expand then the worse your admin upgrades get. So as you expand your country becomes worse and worsely administered.

The problem is that with sub-par kings 1 development/year cored is too much to keep up in Admin tech if one wants to also try out Economic ideas.