Half of the idea groups are suboptimal

[Kryndude]

Economic and Trade: I spend money to earn monarch points not the other way around. Relative value of ducats needs to increase for these idea groups to be a consideration.

Naval and Maritime: the role of the navy in EU4 is not significant enough to make the two a worthy choice.

Espionage and Expansion: The effects of them are almost unnoticable. Especially Expansion as it requires admin points which, in my opinion, are twice more valuable than dip and mil.

Innovative and Aristocratic: these two are actually quite decent but evetually lose to other idea groups that out-perform them. Also the fact that benefits provided by Innovative and Aristocraric are spread across different areas of the game (e.g. I don't pick a military idea group to get a diplomat, I take it to get military related bonuses) is part of the reason why I don't get to choose them.

In the end I find myself picking the same idea groups whichever nation I play. Administrative and Religious (or Humanist) for admin groups, Exploration and Influence (or Diplomatic) for diplo groups, and any combination among Defensive, Offensive, Quality, and Quantity for mil groups.

Is it just me or does the game really need some balancing done?

 

[Northernwwater]

I just had an incredibly fun run with Oda to Japan. I only had about 100 provinces max. I took Naval, Maritime and Trade. I dominated the world's Navies. First game I've had naval 30 ship stack wipes. It was great fun. I had mega admirals. With Policies my navy was a super navy. I declared war on Britain, France, Ottomans, Spain and Portugal with impunity. Yes, yes I know I could done the same thing with a blobbing run, but I find those so boring and unrealistic.

I find these games more fun.

If you pick the same idea groups that's your fault. If you want more challenge then don't pick the same ones and do a world conquest. Don't follow the script. Have fun.

 

[Brynjar]

Suboptimal for what purpose? Saying Economic (and trade) is not worth it, while also saying you always end up picking exploration makes me wonder what kind of goals you have in your games, and which nations you play. Personally I like variety, and although there are idea groups that could use a buff, I don't see any problems with some groups being better than others in most situations.

I never (with the exception of a WC game) pick humanist ideas, they are just plain boring since they let you ignore major parts of the game. Religious can be very good, but its use is fairly situational, I usually end up not bothering after it got nerfed. Quantity is another group I rarely pick, it's just not needed these days.

 

[Blust]

I actually like the Aristocratic ideas
It's nice when you're playing a small nation, you get autonomy bonus, a free diplomat, cost reduction for mil tech and loyalty to nobility, which is quite decent in order to take manpower bonuses. But I gotta agree on most of it

 

[pimpek202]

While it might be all truth, I believe there are dozens of people (including me and my brother, we both played over 1k hours) who actually make a lot of plays whch are suboptimal knowing they are suboptimal for reasons like aesthetics, role play stuff, fun (squeezing everything out of the game sounds like more of a hard work than having a nice time) and other. I guess such ideas are rather for them than hardcore players.
Futhermore the better player you are (or rather the more expansionist/experienced) the better are those "better" idea groups. Casual player will find administrative ideas pretty poor (they won't go merc spam and reduced coring cost isn't really worthy since they won't expand that quickly so they lack admin power).

 

[hitchens]

Naval and Maritime: the role of the navy in EU4 is not significant enough to make the two a worthy choice.

They are probably there just to have X in category Y in order to balance it out, since EU is mostly a land based game. Here is an idea from the top og my head, naval idea=fort defense bonus on coastal provinces and transportation of unit speed. Finally a reason to chose anything naval.

 

[Sandermatt]

Expansion is actually pretty decent for colonization. Both because of the colonist and for the exploration policy.

 

[Kryndude]

If you pick the same idea groups that's your fault. If you want more challenge then don't pick the same ones and do a world conquest. Don't follow the script. Have fun.

Suboptimal for what purpose? Saying Economic (and trade) is not worth it, while also saying you always end up picking exploration makes me wonder what kind of goals you have in your games, and which nations you play.

I understand that mass conquest isn't the only way to play, but honestly choosing not to when the entire game system incentivises just that... isn't all that interesting to me. The game is about building a stronger nation and the most effective way to do that is by taking lands from someone else. Maybe 1k hours is enough for me with this game and it's time for me to move on to another one.

 

[Jules Brunet]

Be Date. Grab economic and quantity. Get -70% for developing. Laugh while the first world power is on 4 small island.

But to be honest, they may be sub-optimal for a ''conquer it all'' game, but not all game should be that way (and it is false to think EU4 push you into World Conquest). And even if you likes conquest: Nobility, bad? If nothing else, it is now a kinda quantity idea that gives you more of everything else. You get manpower, cavalry CA, Siege pip, Tradition bonus... while Quantity gives you basically more manpower and more troops that you can field normally.

Innovative? Sure this Idea Group is not that great. but the policy are there for a reason. +20% Infantry CA? +10% siege ability and +1 siege pip? And do not forget that with the latest update, the -25% cost for advisor will be a huge reduction when you want to roll with +5 advisor.

Economic? Mandatory when you play tall. And even if you do not, it is quite useful for start where you need to start institution by developing your country, or for country with lots of gold mines.

Trade? Fairly good, especially outside of Europe. When you play in Northern Asia you do not suffer from huge AE and do not need to vassal feed that much, and Trade is a good ''drop your diplo point here'' when you got too much. And Ducat, again, lets you hire +5 advisor.


Sure, there is some idea group that almost nobody will grab (Espionage and Naval are probably the least taken group) but it is more a question of what kind of game you play, which nation and what are your needs.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Espionage is a legitimate 7th idea group choice if you want an extra diplomat to annex vassals while improving with other vassals at the same time in the late game. You can make a case for taking aristocratic in that slot for the same purpose.

Your general point is accurate. Especially at the bottom (expansion, maritime, naval) some of the idea groups are major woofers.

Expansion is actually pretty decent for colonization. Both because of the colonist and for the exploration policy.

You will expand into overseas holdings more quickly/inexpensively by taking other idea groups. A colonist + slightly faster colonies is not enough to carry it out of trash tier. This is true even if you're not one-tagging the world since its military policies suck and even SP meta stuff is better for money.

 

[Kryndude]

Innovative? Sure this Idea Group is not that great. but the policy are there for a reason. +20% Infantry CA? +10% siege ability and +1 siege pip? And do not forget that with the latest update, the -25% cost for advisor will be a huge reduction when you want to roll with +5 advisor.

Yes but you have to pay monarch points for policies and often pick another suboptimal idea group to get the right policy in the first place. I'm not saying that Innovative is bad, but I think idea groups should be evaluated primarily on the ideas themselves.

Nobility, bad? If nothing else, it is now a kinda quantity idea that gives you more of everything else. You get manpower, cavalry CA, Siege pip, Tradition bonus... while Quantity gives you basically more manpower and more troops that you can field normally.

Honestly I added Aristocratic on the list just out of my bias from before the remake, but I'm almost convinced now that it's legit. I'll give it another try.

Espionage is a legitimate 7th idea group choice if you want an extra diplomat to annex vassals while improving with other vassals at the same time in the late game. You can make a case for taking aristocratic in that slot for the same purpose.

Sounds reasonable. Maybe I'm underestimating Espionage because usually I quit once the game is basically 'won.' But still, it sounds like a supplementary set of Influence.

 

[Cataphract887]

Couldnt agree more with the OP.

I just had an incredibly fun run with Oda to Japan. I only had about 100 provinces max. I took Naval, Maritime and Trade. I dominated the world's Navies. First game I've had naval 30 ship stack wipes. It was great fun. I had mega admirals. With Policies my navy was a super navy. I declared war on Britain, France, Ottomans, Spain and Portugal with impunity. Yes, yes I know I could done the same thing with a blobbing run, but I find those so boring and unrealistic.

I find these games more fun.

If you pick the same idea groups that's your fault. If you want more challenge then don't pick the same ones and do a world conquest. Don't follow the script. Have fun.

I usually roleplay my games, and I often like to pretend im in charge of a powerful nation with extensive power projection capability that can shape its region, continent or even the globe. Those ideas suck because they dont help with that, and weaken your nation comparatively.

I made a post a year or two ago inquiring about idea bonuses for a personal mod ive been cooking to rebalance idea groups, atleast in my own games, but that post got downvoted to hell and back. What I want out of EU4's idea groups are deep, meaningful impacts on gameplay with bonuses I can craft a strong strategy around. Humanism, Religious, Quantity, diplomatic, administrative and influence all have a huge impact on your nation. Some of the other military idea groups are nice. Economic was fun back when horse artillery gave 20% bonus, now I havnt taken it for awhile.

 

[Mr. G]

I do not understand why people do not like expansion ideas? They have an extra merchant, a nice CB, a diplo slot, trade power, and a colonist. For African countries not planning on colonizing the new world, but just fill some gaps and maybe colonize the Philippines, they are really handy. Sure they cost admin power but in my games I usually use so many vassals that I run out of diplo power, they extra diplo slot makes that strategy easier.

The only idea group I find almost useless are espionage ideas, and maybe - but just maybe - aristocratic ideas.

 

[Cataphract887]

I do not understand why people do not like expansion ideas?.

They compete directly with Humanism, Religious and Administrative. Picking Expansion means your choosing not to pick one of those three. And all three are awesome.

 

[Mr. G]

Why use both humanist and religious? Seems a bit wasted to have both conversion bonus and tolerance - even if the moral bonus from religious is nice.

 

[Badesumofu]

I just had an incredibly fun run with Oda to Japan. I only had about 100 provinces max. I took Naval, Maritime and Trade. I dominated the world's Navies. First game I've had naval 30 ship stack wipes. It was great fun. I had mega admirals. With Policies my navy was a super navy. I declared war on Britain, France, Ottomans, Spain and Portugal with impunity. Yes, yes I know I could done the same thing with a blobbing run, but I find those so boring and unrealistic.

Blah blah blah. Every last one of these threads ends up with a disclaimer that you can simply do what you like, pick what groups you, and do well. We know this. If you're such a pure roleplayer then why do you even care to open threads about game balance. We get it, you don't like 'blobbing'. We don't need to be reminded every time there is thread about game balance.

None of what you've added has any relevance, here. The fact that you can play sub-optimally does not mean that these idea groups being so bad is not a problem or not worthy of discussion.

 

[Cataphract887]

Why use both humanist and religious? Seems a bit wasted to have both conversion bonus and tolerance - even if the moral bonus from religious is nice.

Even if we ignored the existence of those three, then it also has to compete with innovative and economic. Innovative is has convenient bonuses like war exhaustion, advisor costs and the tech discounts etc. Economic has some nice policies and tons of moolah(that can be used to fund colonies)

The reason for me to combine Religious+Humanist is to never have rebellions. In my current Otto game, I literally didnt have rebellion meters counting down until I lowered autonomy on my empire to get high absolutism asap. Even after that its not a big issue, unrest is low.

 

[Northernwwater]

Blah blah blah. Every last one of these threads ends up with a disclaimer that you can simply do what you like, pick what groups you, and do well. We know this. If you're such a pure roleplayer then why do you even care to open threads about game balance. We get it, you don't like 'blobbing'. We don't need to be reminded every time there is thread about game balance.

None of what you've added has any relevance, here. The fact that you can play sub-optimally does not mean that these idea groups being so bad is not a problem or not worthy of discussion.

The fact that you can make up your own definition of optimal and pretend it's important is not really relevant either.

 

[Northernwwater]

I understand that mass conquest isn't the only way to play, but honestly choosing not to when the entire game system incentivises just that... isn't all that interesting to me. The game is about building a stronger nation and the most effective way to do that is by taking lands from someone else. Maybe 1k hours is enough for me with this game and it's time for me to move on to another one.

The game incentivizes many things. You just see the one you want to see. So much so you feel a compulsion to pick the same idea groups every game.

 

[RobRoy3]

I do not understand why people do not like expansion ideas? They have an extra merchant, a nice CB, a diplo slot, trade power, and a colonist. For African countries not planning on colonizing the new world, but just fill some gaps and maybe colonize the Philippines, they are really handy. Sure they cost admin power but in my games I usually use so many vassals that I run out of diplo power, they extra diplo slot makes that strategy easier.

The only idea group I find almost useless are espionage ideas, and maybe - but just maybe - aristocratic ideas.

There may be still some niche countries/strategies that can make use of Expansion. But they're generally strictly inferior to other groups and CBs. Espionage and Aristocratic, while still marginal, are far more useful since their extra diplomat eases the pain/boredom of having to spend so much time fabricating claims.

If they want to make Expansion more popular, at least situationally, they just need to roll back some of the more ill-conceived nerfs that have been applied to the group. There was a time when you could get two extra colonists (one via policies), and a good CB, for DIP points. So you would generally take it if you were playing a colonizer. Why they removed the good CB when it was already a fringe Idea Group is a bit of a mystery.

Ditto with Maritime/Naval - recombine them and people might be more willing to take them.

They could even things out by removing the restriction on the seldom used Plutocratic group and making both Plutocratic and Aristocratic available (could even design some fun events around them). Republics just aren't nearly as much fun as they could be/should be/used to be, so they don't seem to get played much anymore. Plutocracy would even make some sense in Admin, though they should probably undo some of the unnecessary nerfs applied to that one, as well.