Government reforms seem poorly designed.

  • 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.

Piotrzeci

Complaining is my hobby
1 Badges
May 27, 2017
1.849
886
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
Government reforms replace government types for owners of Dharma and to be honest, aren't impressive, even on paper. They are completed way too quickly.
Let's say an OPM theocracy, if I understand correctly:
  • They generate 1 point per month, so 12 yearly,
  • Need 100, 150, 200, 250, 300 to pass reforms,
  • First is already taken.
Leaving tree of reforms completed in (150+200+250+300)/12 = 75 years.
1444 + 74 = 1519, so early Age of Reformation. What am I supposed to do, if I don't want to change government type, stay on bonus absolutism for two eras?

The only variable seems to be average autonomy and it certainly isn't the only factor actually contributing to the progress of a country. The two possibilities I see are technology level and number of embraced institutions.

Technologies

Previously government types were tied to it. Can't have a Constitutional Monarchy/Republic before the concept of constitutions is invented... and here we go; A Modern Theocracy is Admin tech 10 with the year of 1531 attached to it, but aren't theocracies modern for 12 years already?
The possibilities are many:
  1. Give more/less points generation for being ahead/behind time in technologies.
  2. Make certain technologies give flat amount of points when researched (or flat amount towards certain reforms).
  3. Make researching ADM technology give flat amount of points.
  4. Tie points generation to technology level.
Don't do it on top of already ridiculously fast generation, but modify the values. Maybe keep autonomy as a variable, but a less important one and add more contributing factors.

Institutions
On this day the people of Aztec Empire establish a Parliament, for the protection of Rights of every Man. Also we've seen some white people on shores.
Institutions are a mechanic of progress; if you lag behind, you lag behind in technology and if you focus on them, you lead. It's not a flawless mechanic, but can certainly help with reforms. Europeans lead in technologies (or at least they should, damn you technological equality of late game!) and they are the first to research certain technologies and embrace progressive ideas, so why would the Incas be just as fast?
They don't even share the calendar, how they know it is time to reform on a certain year?
By tying Institutions and Reforms we can get even better results, than with technologies, though it isn't much of a change, as both systems are already connected.
  1. Simply divide Reform points generation by technology cost penalty from Institutions.
  2. Increase points generation by number of Institutions Embraced. Which would be a catch-up mechanic as well.
Basically the same thing, but an effective one. Institutions themselves need changes, but it isn't the reason not to use them. They present the exact thing reforms need; another variable, which will prevent too quick reforms for not advanced countries and presents a possibility of modifying already set values.

Now about the possibility. As you can probably see, I say it's too fast and say, that certain mechanics can speed it even more, but the obvious thing I mean is: After needed changes are applied.
For example we could have a generation of 1 monthly, which would go from 0.5 to 1 based on autonomy and be multiplied by Tech Cost penalty, the base costs also can be increased.
The problems I see are:
  • Reform points generation isn't tied to anything other than autonomy leaving non-Europeans just as quick as the technologically advanced Europeans.
  • Countries with low autonomy just go nuts and pass reforms too quickly and just spiral out of control. If their generation is bigger, than one of a bigger country: They pass second reform X years quicker, then third X+Y, then fourth X+Y+Z years quicker... etc. They will run out of reforms, while more autonomous countries lag behind. And it kinda seems like a really poor "Let's make tall gameplay more interesting", by just throwing buffs at still boring small countries.
  • Theocracies don't have enough reforms. As someone suggested in Dev Diary: add another one after "Secularisation?.
  • Those reforms are very speedy bois, it was visible in Dev Clash and proves itself in numbers: reforms are passed too quickly and countries go for reforms, that aren't even ideas on paper yet. Why would anyone establish a parliament, if every political thinker in their country wonders "If going protestant dooms your soul into eternal flames?".
  • Countries changing their government type might lag behind too much. Government Reforms are nothing but buffs (and maybe luckily some nice events too) and if changing the type of government pushes me back and I need to take the reforms I already have; it might be just deleting me already taken ideas, as it would do the same. Countries that decide to switch will be behind in buffs and there is nothing to help them catch up. It would be fine, if they would be weaker for some time, but climb back after some years. Maybe they would have less reforms, but by being behind (with number of institutions compared to number of reforms or with high tech and low number of reform), they would earn them faster until they catch up. What is the point of changing, if I am going to lose hundreds of refom points put into buffs and be behind everybody?
 
Last edited:
I assumed you can't incorporate certain government reforms until you research specific techs. That's not written anywhere, but that was my assumption.
 
They are pooly implemented becasue the european generic ones for monarchies are trash, while muslims and indian get OP ones. Which is funny because all are paid for. The system is going to be unplayable without a mod to balance them. So no achievements for a long time if you want the game to be fun.
 
Last edited:
They have said that new world natives have to get through their special mechanic first, alot of less advanced places are going to be tribal aswell. I think you give some decent points, however I dont think it follows that the reforms are "poorly designed". I see alot of, oh because of this, that will happen, without telling us why it is a bad thing.
 
They have said that new world natives have to get through their special mechanic first, alot of less advanced places are going to be tribal aswell. I think you give some decent points, however I dont think it follows that the reforms are "poorly designed". I see alot of, oh because of this, that will happen, without telling us why it is a bad thing.
You are right, I've thought about Aztec, Mayans and Incas as monarchies, while in fact they are tribal. It makes the Parliament invalid. My biggest complain is that reforms are disconnected from technology level, depend solely on autonomy (making small countries pass reforms way too quickly) and overall feeling of too fast progress in them.
I think poor design is quite a correct term for countries passing certain political reforms way too early and possibility of running out of possible reforms before even the half of the game.
If Theocracies were given one more reform, costs for reforms risen and added some correlation between tech level (or institutions) and reform speed, then I guess I wouldn't really have problems with the mechanic. It would solve the main issues I have with current implementation.
 
-It's 10 per year, not 1 per month.
-Unless you're playing a very tiny nation, it's basically impossible to get the full points, with estates already giving you a minimum of 25 autonomy in multiple provinces.
-The time it takes grab reforms can't be extended too much, as countries that change government type need to be able to grab their new reforms. This is particularly important for Republics as they have a lot more reforms to go through.
-Tying it to tech or institution won't really change much, as small countries that don't grow tend to also be able to grab tech and insitutions faster.
 
They are pooly implemented becasue the european generic ones for monarchies are trash, while muslims and indian get OP ones. Which is funny because all are paid for. The system is going to be unplayable without a mod to balance them. So no achievements for a long time if you want the game to be fun.

Not to mention those groups already have better military pips and by mid game most of the world is embracing all institutions very rapidly anyway.
 
-Tying it to tech or institution won't really change much, as small countries that don't grow tend to also be able to grab tech and insitutions faster.
I can't see the problem in a smaller country being able to change its government in a swifter way compared to the colossus next door. While the sheer money cost can and was a problem pretty often, for smaller countries, the truth is that having less ground to cover does give an advantage.
 
-It's 10 per year, not 1 per month.
-Unless you're playing a very tiny nation, it's basically impossible to get the full points, with estates already giving you a minimum of 25 autonomy in multiple provinces.
-The time it takes grab reforms can't be extended too much, as countries that change government type need to be able to grab their new reforms. This is particularly important for Republics as they have a lot more reforms to go through.
-Tying it to tech or institution won't really change much, as small countries that don't grow tend to also be able to grab tech and insitutions faster.
-Obviously no player country will be on 100% efficiency, the example I gave is however entirely possible as OPM Theocracies are present in HRE. It's more of "Look how bad it can get".
On the other hand countries with autonomy progress quite quickly as well. Long story short; it shouldn't be possible to fully reform by 1519 and it is.
-It was said to be 10 yearly, but in recent Dev Diary it's 12 instead. I guess it would look better to scale every cost times 1.2 to avoid fractions for monthly increase, but they didn't do that.
-Then they should have catch-up mechanics.
-It's not exactly about making it slower for small countries in relation to bigger ones. It's a mechanic to slow reforms of countries, that are behind time in technology.
 
Institution tech penalty and innovativeness could both apply, and point generation could grow with tech. Perhaps a tenth of your lowest tech number per month? That starts the game at .3 and ends at 3.2 per month
 
Fully agree.
Basically the only thing you do is to keep autonomy as low as possible, something you do anyway, and get to pick a bonus from time to time. Thats it.
Granted, the previous governments weren't much either, but this could have been so much more. And EU4 needs "more". New things to do, other way to play than to vomit your map color instead of even more bonuses as a side benefit something you do anyway.
 
-Obviously no player country will be on 100% efficiency, the example I gave is however entirely possible as OPM Theocracies are present in HRE. It's more of "Look how bad it can get".
On the other hand countries with autonomy progress quite quickly as well. Long story short; it shouldn't be possible to fully reform by 1519 and it is.
-It was said to be 10 yearly, but in recent Dev Diary it's 12 instead. I guess it would look better to scale every cost times 1.2 to avoid fractions for monthly increase, but they didn't do that.
-Then they should have catch-up mechanics.
-It's not exactly about making it slower for small countries in relation to bigger ones. It's a mechanic to slow reforms of countries, that are behind time in technology.
-And unless it's a OPM no AI country is going to be at 100% efficiency. I honestly don't see a problem with the small Theocracies in the HRE getting to the point where they stop improving their government unless they secularize during the Age of Reformation.
-Dev diary has been corrected to be 10 yearly.
-They do with changing government removing a couple of reform levels instead of setting you back to 0. If they have something else like a point bonus, in either case you still need to have enough time to accumulate enough points to build your government back up.
-And what countries are the ones that get behind in tech? The small ones that don't expand and only use their monarch points on tech or development (thus speeding up institution)? Or the large ones that are constantly expanding and have to put their monarch points into other things like coring, and have naturally higher autonomy?
 
Last edited:
Like I wrote in the DD: Having high stability, why would there be reform desire? All is perfect already. But with low stability, sure we could try to reform or even switch into another gov type, eg from monarchy to republic, cause that may be better suited to guarantee stability?
 
Most of the reforms are worth about one average national idea. It doesn't matter if they're unlocked a a few decades earlier or later. Dharma's mechanics are bland and the reworks target areas of the game that didn't need much fixing. This would be okay if a lot of bugs are fixed but I doubt that's the case. There still hasn't been any mechanic post 1.23 that isn't just a button or a slider. Professionalism was the most interesting one but it's been abandoned apparently much like mandate.
 
-And unless it's a OPM no AI country is going to be at 100% efficiency. I honestly don't see a problem with the small Theocracies in the HRE getting to the point where they stop improving their government unless they secularize during the Age of Reformation.
-Dev diary has been corrected to be 10 yearly.
-They do with changing government removing a couple of reform levels instead of setting you back to 0. If they have something else like a point bonus, in either case you still need to have enough time to accumulate enough points to build your government back up.
-And what countries are the ones that get behind in tech? The small ones that don't expand and only use their monarch points on tech or development (thus speeding up institution)? Or the large ones that are constantly expanding and have to put their monarch points into other things like coring, and have naturally higher autonomy?
  • I see a problem with countries getting reforms for absolutism generation, decades before absolutism is even a thing.
  • Well I guess it moves the dates then... 1540-ish?
  • Okay? So I guess they still need a catch-up mechanic.
  • In grand scale? The ones I want to have less reforms, so African and Asian ones. Europeans may differ by 2 or 3 levels of tech and 10-20 years lag in embracing institutions, but it's the less advanced countries outside Europe, that will really feel the difference.
 
Usually pure rates/modifiers aren't final in dev diaries. There's a good chance these are slower on patch release.

Though you never know until the patch actually drops. Sometimes this stuff is tweaked, other times we have 1.14 super hordes after years of chain nerfs. Usually, some not even much-talked about change in patch notes does more damage than anything that showed up in dev diaries, perhaps 1.26 will be an exception with the whole state cap/corruption/buff strongest territory in the game silliness.

But until we see the patch, no idea.
 
Usually pure rates/modifiers aren't final in dev diaries. There's a good chance these are slower on patch release.

Though you never know until the patch actually drops. Sometimes this stuff is tweaked, other times we have 1.14 super hordes after years of chain nerfs. Usually, some not even much-talked about change in patch notes does more damage than anything that showed up in dev diaries, perhaps 1.26 will be an exception with the whole state cap/corruption/buff strongest territory in the game silliness.

But until we see the patch, no idea.
It's still worth to talk about the changes even before they happen, so we can point out what is good and bad about them, and possibly encourage rethinking the decisions behind the mechanics. It's the best time to make changes, isn't it?
As long as it's not spam like the one for missionaries, then it seems only beneficial.
 
It's still worth to talk about the changes even before they happen, so we can point out what is good and bad about them, and possibly encourage rethinking the decisions behind the mechanics. It's the best time to make changes, isn't it?
As long as it's not spam like the one for missionaries, then it seems only beneficial.

I agree, just a bit jaded. I've experienced such discussion about previous TC buffs, > 5 year truces, horde nerfs, primitive ship nerf, and movement lock in the past. We know how those went, even when the change objectively did not align with the stated rationale for it (truces, ship nerf, TC buffs, move lock).

Of course I'm extremely dubious about how this will work in the new world. They've had zero regard for gutting gameplay in favor of...nothing but waiting there in the past, with no need to do so. Then we got that out-of-touch nonsense alteration requiring ADM 8 unless you buy DLC to attain still-slower times to actually play the game than pre-El Dorado. So government reforms there have a potential to go pear shaped super fast, further stripping agency compared to now. It might get better too though, especially if they finally drop the "must have Euroborder" and "arbitrary tech boost" from the game and make progress contingent on agency.

I'd like that, but I don't anticipate it happening.

And certainly, I'm not intending to squelch interesting discussion. I'm just pointing out that some things you can realistically expect to see happen (progression speed of reform for government), while others are unfortunately unlikely to change regardless of what you point out in advance (infamous example is the game lying about the reason you can/can't take provinces in peace deals - identified in public beta for common sense DLC and still in the game right now, years later).
 
They are pooly implemented becasue the european generic ones for monarchies are trash, while muslims and indian get OP ones. Which is funny because all are paid for. The system is going to be unplayable without a mod to balance them. So no achievements for a long time if you want the game to be fun.

Muslims? Not so much. Only the Mughals and Indian muslims.

Looking at most of the reforms, the only very OP one I see is Mansabdari Reform, and I have the distinct feeling that -3% army tradition decay is a massive typo otherwise Mughals could very well mark the return of perma-100% army tradition.

States General Reform has a real question mark around it, since... statists vs monarchists is normally the Dutch Republic mechanic... what is it doing as a monarchy reform?