Get rid of Missionaries

[208]

We should also rename the game to Monarch Universalis Points.

And EU4 players could all be MUPpets.

 

[DGuller]

Poker is not random in the traditional sense. You are making decisions with incomplete information, but it's not like the value of your bet is forced up or down randomly. Having your bets randomized in varying capacities is a good analogy to what EU IV and many other MP games do that they shouldn't be doing. The probabilities of the cards is a known quantity and you make odds-based decisions given other factors. The name of that game is specifically to manage those decisions. However, if the game made your decisions less important, by randomly altering your bets or forcing you to fold regardless of your hand, then you'd have a situation comparable to monarch points/other EU nonsense.

If you bet up on the better hand than your opponent, you will always win in poker, but sometimes your opponent outplays you and you get caught making a bad decision due to incomplete information/misreading. That outcome is very different from losing money at random or randomly being unable to play certain hands.

You're taking my analogy way too far (and IMO your counter-analogies are not entirely accurate). The point is that poker is a game with a skill component and a random (luck) component, whereas chess is a pure skill game. The best multiplayer games strike a good balance between rewarding greater skill, but at the same time not frustrating lesser skilled players. The optimal balance is not at all at the "all skill, no luck" mark.

 

[Outrider]

The point is that poker is a game with a skill component and a random (luck) component, whereas chess is a pure skill game. The best multiplayer games strike a good balance between rewarding greater skill, but at the same time not frustrating lesser skilled players. The optimal balance is not at all at the "all skill, no luck" mark.

I think you may be over-relating "good" with "popular". Farmville was popular, but few would call it a good game. Popularity isn't a tool to judge whether poker or chess are better games.

Poker is both a good and popular game, but it's hard to argue how much different elements of poker contribute to it's popularity, though with respect to chess, being able to involve more than 2 players and inequality of information allowing bluffing/deceit (whereas information is equal in chess) are major factors that have little to do with luck.

Even then, if a night of poker with friends involved only a single hand in which all players had to go "all in" it wouldn't be very popular. Enough rounds need to be played that player skill (at math, psychology, play strategy) has a chance to overcome the random component.

Within the context of EU4, many people feel that (especially for monarchies), there aren't enough "monarch hands" played such that skill can overcome it.

 

[Mad King James]

And EU4 players could all be MUPpets.

I prefer EUroweenies

 

[Mad King James]

Or maybe EUquistadors

 

[WSnova]

Here's an interesting tough choice: "Can I convert the provinces in my nation or not?"

Interesting Tough Answer: "Nope, sorry, you're playing in the ROTW. You need those points for tech."

But thats more of a problem with Monarch point generation for the RotW than anything else. But thats another issue in byzarro World where China is the most backwards and poor country in the World at the start date ^_^

 

[Ivashanko]

You know, it wasn't terribly long before the game when the arabs swept half the known world and converted them to islam. It was less than two centuries before game start when entire steppe tribes converted to islam en-masse. Arguably, the game doesn't let you convert *fast enough*. The issues with conversion time being too fast are entirely unique to christianity, based on structural issues like Rome being a control freak, and using that as a basis to punish the rest of the world on conversion speed is ludicrous.

The Ottomans controlled Orthodox territory for centuries without all that much of it converting to Islam. Islamic countries also held Hindu territories- same thing. And the Europeans... well, the Europeans controlled everything at one point or another and much of those lands did not convert.

 

[Outrider]

The Ottomans controlled Orthodox territory for centuries without all that much of it converting to Islam. Islamic countries also held Hindu territories- same thing. And the Europeans... well, the Europeans controlled everything at one point or another and much of those lands did not convert.

Is there an argument contained somewhere in here? I assume you're inferring that a lack of conversion meant that it was difficult/costly/impossible?

As for the Ottomans, the more accurate conclusion may be that there was little incentive to convert the populace (were there ever christian rebellions?) or that there were incentives to not convert the populace (non-muslims paid higher taxes, devsirme, etc.)

Understanding why inter-faith conversion didn't always happen is the way to go about determining how to model it in the game, rather than "it didn't happen, so make it hard/expensive".

 

[Ivashanko]

Is there an argument contained somewhere in here? I assume you're inferring that a lack of conversion meant that it was difficult/costly/impossible?

As for the Ottomans, the more accurate conclusion may be that there was little incentive to convert the populace (were there ever christian rebellions?) or that there were incentives to not convert the populace (non-muslims paid higher taxes, devsirme, etc.)

Understanding why inter-faith conversion didn't always happen is the way to go about determining how to model it in the game, rather than "it didn't happen, so make it hard/expensive".

I wasn't offering so much an argument as a counter-point. I'm saying that the Ottomans were not unique in their not sending 'government led missionaries'- indeed, the way missionaries are portrayed in the game is fairly anachronistic. For most of the game official government-sponsored and ordered missionaries were uncommon for most of the world. This actually includes the lands that converted to Islam before the game start, as those conversions usually resulting in discriminatory practices against non-Muslims and other non-missionary functions.

Did government-ordered missionaries spread their faith? Yes. But for the mass majority of countries on the map the missionaries were not tools that their leaders used or were able to use.

 

[Redwallzyl]

Is there an argument contained somewhere in here? I assume you're inferring that a lack of conversion meant that it was difficult/costly/impossible?

As for the Ottomans, the more accurate conclusion may be that there was little incentive to convert the populace (were there ever christian rebellions?) or that there were incentives to not convert the populace (non-muslims paid higher taxes, devsirme, etc.)

Understanding why inter-faith conversion didn't always happen is the way to go about determining how to model it in the game, rather than "it didn't happen, so make it hard/expensive".

yes there were lots of religious rebellions. also the non Muslim population of the empire for a long time outnumbered the Muslim population. trying to forcibly convert all of them to Islam would have shattered the empire. its not easy to make people change their religion, especially if they don't like you.

 

[Mad King James]

The Ottomans didn't convert people to Islam not because they couldn't but because it wasn't worthwhile, that was effort that could have been spent on conquering more territory or developing the army (in other words, monarch points).

Spain did spend a lot of time and effort converting the "Moriscos", and this drained away resources from Spain. The Inquisition was an immense undertaking.

 

[saegoto]

I would like to see other use of missionaries...:wub: after converting everything they are useless maybe to lower unrest or convert foreign territory (with strength penalties) or sth

 

[Carroarmato-P40]

I would like to see other use of missionaries...:wub: after converting everything they are useless maybe to lower unrest or convert foreign territory (with strength penalties) or sth

I like that idea, or even possibly as a small buff to increasing stability?

 

[spinoza013]

I'd like to see a more in depth building tree. I think it can be integrated a lot more into the game and also take into account new 1.8 features like autonomy etc

To address the topic of this post I'd like to suggest having to build a temple before you can religiously convert a province as an idea.

 

[Arilou]

Okay, people. Look at MKJ's join date. He's been on these forums for ages, he's responsible for some of the most important mods in the community. Show some respect whippersnappers.

I do agree with the basic point, also, the tendency should be for religious ideas to be advantageous for homogenous countries, while humanism is preferably if you're dealiing with many different religions.

Generally speaking I'd do:

Remove the religious tax/MP penalty. Instead make an equivalent base level of autonomy. (representing the various alternate structures represented by the religious orgs.)
Converting costs: I'd love to see a choice of *what* it costs though. (adm, mil, maybe even manpower or gold)
State religions should have a slim chance (but slightly more predictable than the random events? I'm thinking a scaled down model of the centre of reformation...) to spread the state religion, preferring accepted culture provinces passively, but shouldn't be able to completely convert the place. (basically, your state religion should get at least a small core of state religion but it shouldn't spread into the hinterlands much)
Conversion should be costly, but the benefits should be stability, and better autonomy scores/reduction.
Taking humanism should mitigate the penalties of religious diversity, but also neuter your ability to actually convert.

 

[Lumpy]

I wholeheartedly agree with the OP. Obviously the cost of conversion should be subject to balancing and fine tuning done by P'dox, no need to keep fighting about the exact amount of gold/MIL/whatever. RR resulting from lack of religious unity would probably be tweaked in the process, aswell. The details don't really matter at this point.

I find it amusing how the map painting crowd gets furious and even implicitly insulting towards the OP at the sole mentioning of such a concept. I think adding strategic decisions to the game is always a good thing. In addition to that, as it has been mentioned before, nations weren't achieving religious unity as fast as depicted in the game (in fact, most nations didn't ever reach a state of total religious unity; most of them didn't even strive for that... Ottomans, anyone?).

Want to blob hardcore but don't want to spend your MP on conversion? Fine, then you're going to need to find another way to handle this situation. Raise autonomy for instance. Or try hard for tolerance modifiers. Would this make senseless blobbing harder? Absolutely. But I don't see how this is a bad thing. If anything, this would make the game more authentic and add an issue historical leaders had a hard time dealing with.

I think the whole religion system could need an overhaul. But obtaining religious diversity in the game world and making it an actual issue would enrich this game tremendously, IMO, immersion and gameplay-wise.

edit: Is it just me, or is there a remarkable connection between some peoples (recent) join date and their unwillingness to embrace new features that interfere with their ability to blob in this game?

 

[Vedinu]

What if conversion happened automatically, speed depending on your missionary strength and luck?