Half of the idea groups are suboptimal

[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.

Why not play a 1000 doing OPM WCs without following the WC scripts?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

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.

You can make a similar case by that logic via simply listing any idea group's benefits.

The problem is that the benefits you list are among the game's weakest, especially given opportunity cost.

Since one of humanist/religious and administrative will outcompete expansion in SP (and both economic and innovative outcompete it in MP due to policies), expansion is a borderline never-pick that would only be worthwhile in edge cases.

You can 100% colonize Africa while taking exploration and you will lose less in terms of opportunity cost by a margin while reaching the good money sooner.

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

No, optimal is an objective concept, even if sometimes information is missing to confirm an optimal choice.

Unless you are setting a goal along the lines of "do well despite picking poor idea groups" or "play poorly intentionally" or doing something like first come first served with a 50 point nation, the bottom tier groups are not optimal and you could easily outperform the same start with the same goal by choosing superior idea groups.

 

[Northernwwater]

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 pick all the ideas sooner or later, but I never role pay. I've never ever once pretended I was anything in a game. I simply play and try and work through small micro problems in the game. I never read any of the event text. I simply click based on what my wants/needs are.

 

[Mr. G]

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.

You could go admin, innovative, expansion and economic without any problem. I see your point with humanist + religious, but two whole idea groups just for lower unrest? Nah.

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.

Like I said, they are good as a balance between trade and colonization for African countries like the Mamelucks.

 

[Mr. G]

You can make a similar case by that logic via simply listing any idea group's benefits.

The problem is that the benefits you list are among the game's weakest, especially given opportunity cost.

Since one of humanist/religious and administrative will outcompete expansion in SP (and both economic and innovative outcompete it in MP due to policies), expansion is a borderline never-pick that would only be worthwhile in edge cases.

You can 100% colonize Africa while taking exploration and you will lose less in terms of opportunity cost by a margin while reaching the good money sooner.



No, optimal is an objective concept, even if sometimes information is missing to confirm an optimal choice.

Unless you are setting a goal along the lines of "do well despite picking poor idea groups" or "play poorly intentionally" or doing something like first come first served with a 50 point nation, the bottom tier groups are not optimal and you could easily outperform the same start with the same goal by choosing superior idea groups.

In MP-games I always take offensive, defensive, quantity and quality which only leaves room for four ideas anyway making the use of a diplo idea instead of an admin one useless in that respect.

 

[Northernwwater]

No, optimal is an objective concept, even if sometimes information is missing to confirm an optimal choice.

The word is objective, but the context it's applied to varies. Optimal is defined by the bounds and constraints defined by the player. No one objectively defines what I want to optimize.

Unless you are setting a goal along the lines of "do well despite picking poor idea groups" or "play poorly intentionally" or doing something like first come first served with a 50 point nation, the bottom tier groups are not optimal and you could easily outperform the same start with the same goal by choosing superior idea groups.

It's good you quoted your use of "poor" so we know it's of your own definition.

The way the WC scripts "win" is by simply acquiring massive dev. Obviously every problem in the game can be overcome by acquiring enough dev and ergo shrinking the other players dev.

 

[Viktor Vaughn]

I think there could be more variety to the idea groups, but I don't think optimisation should be the target. The player doesn't need more advantages in killing the AI. The problem is finding out what variety you could give. I like the idea of naval ideas giving benefits to coastal forts. Expansion should have increased unit movement speed. Maybe Espionage's bonus could have some sort of boost to ally's trust growth (or with Cossacks, favours gained passively)? Just some things to spice it up a bit

 

[Cataphract887]

. I see your point with humanist + religious, but two whole idea groups just for lower unrest? Nah.

That is by no means the only reason. That is the main reason I gave in the post...please dont put words in peoples mouths.

 

[bly08]

The word is objective, but the context it's applied to varies. Optimal is defined by the bounds and constraints defined by the player. No one objectively defines what I want to optimize.

This might be true, as optimal IG choices differ with varying skill levels, but in general these threads should assume a competent player. The difference in strength between something like expansion vs. admin is so vast that it should cover a wide enough range of skill levels.

 

[Brynjar]

No, optimal is an objective concept, even if sometimes information is missing to confirm an optimal choice.

Unless you are setting a goal along the lines of "do well despite picking poor idea groups" or "play poorly intentionally" or doing something like first come first served with a 50 point nation, the bottom tier groups are not optimal and you could easily outperform the same start with the same goal by choosing superior idea groups.

Sure optimal in it self is objective, after you have defined what you are optimising. As EU4 is a game I would prefer the idea groups to be optimised for fun. Fun is very subjective, and not defined as reaching a goal in the shortest possible time, even if that is how you personally have the most fun playing.

 

[Northernwwater]

Maybe Espionage's bonus could have some sort of boost to ally's trust growth (or with Cossacks, favours gained passively)? Just some things to spice it up a bit

That is a very good idea!

I would like to see espionage allow you to mess with the internal politics more, or maybe removing generals or advisors. If they did this though there would be a big uproar from those who won't take espionage because it's not part of the script they play. Anything that does not gain provinces or monarch points is of no use to them.

 

[zukodark]

I must disagree that the idea groups should all be balanced around WC or near-WC blobfests. As when you tone the scale to just a continent or less, focusing on only the conquest related idea groups is not that much better, even if that just means mixing only one of the "conquest" groups with an economic or unique one. It can lead the same result. You need a large amount of provinces to make up for the massive economic potential of trade group especially. You're just not making as much money while conquering lands you could conquer as easy anyways with that money. There's an opportunity cost there. Take one conquest focused group, and you can probably thrive in that sweet middle ground between tall and disgustingly wide.

Regarding the money versus monarch points debate, the MP-side is overrating the value of monarch points in a non-WC playthrough. You'd be right that a distant ROTW nation needs that extra monarch points, but Europe, India or China only has problems with a few of the institutions. Efficient usage of monarch power can circumnavigate these with ease. It is actually the institution embracement cost that is the largest problem for me. And it's not like you need to be up to date at tech or ideas at all times to do anything about the weaklings there. Most importantly, regions like India and China has a huge potential for economic growth just using trade and manufactures, making a cash-focused playthrough there skyrocket until you can abuse advisors freely to quickly catch up.

In general, I just don't lack in monarch points, even when creating Europe-sized empires. And I have only twice in all my EU4 history taken admin. If I want it, it's due to the state limit, not the unnecessary coring cost reduction. There's an opportunity cost in not taking another idea group. In the short term, other groups are just better. And short term brings long term wealth from my experience.

 

[bly08]

I must disagree that the idea groups should all be balanced around WC or near-WC blobfests. As when you tone the scale to just a continent or less, focusing on only the conquest related idea groups is not that much better, even if that just means mixing only one of the "conquest" groups with an economic or unique one. It can lead the same result. You need a large amount of provinces to make up for the massive economic potential of trade group especially. You're just not making as much money while conquering lands you could conquer as easy anyways with that money. There's an opportunity cost there. Take one conquest focused group, and you can probably thrive in that sweet middle ground between tall and disgustingly wide.

It depends on which continent and why you would restrict yourself to blobbing within one continent in the first place.

In any case, the opportunity cost for taking something like trade is much greater than taking influence or diplo, even if opportunity cost only means economic benefit. If you expand into India for example, taking 3-4 CoTs that can be added to trade companies will most likely net more income than not taking those provinces and getting the first 3-4 ideas in trade instead.

 

[Billy55]

I agree with OP. I think it's really weird that they continue to flesh out the game in so many ways, and yet people pick the same freaking idea groups almost every run.

The solution isn't even that hard. Combine the best of naval/maritime into one group, fix the trash tier espionage and expansion. Trade ideas? It's just vastly inferior to exploration, influence and diplomatic. Innovative could be good if half of the ideas weren't utter garbage. 1200 admin points for +1 advisors, -10% inflation reduction cost(!) and prestige decay? Really?

And I know good idea groups like religous and administrative have a couple of stinkers too, but at least they have some awesome ideas to make up for it. Innovative is just meh, except for that policy, which you never really need in SP.

Just please make me think twice about which ideas to pick.

 

[Mr. G]

Innovative also gives lower war exhaustion and -25 % advisor cost, the latter one really handy with the new advisor system.

 

[bbqftw]

I agree with OP. I think it's really weird that they continue to flesh out the game in so many ways, and yet people pick the same freaking idea groups almost every run.

The solution isn't even that hard. Combine the best of naval/maritime into one group, fix the trash tier espionage and expansion. Trade ideas? It's just vastly inferior to exploration, influence and diplomatic. Innovative could be good if half of the ideas weren't utter garbage. 1200 admin points for +1 advisors, -10% inflation reduction cost(!) and prestige decay? Really?

And I know good idea groups like religous and administrative have a couple of stinkers too, but at least they have some awesome ideas to make up for it. Innovative is just meh, except for that policy, which you never really need in SP.

Just please make me think twice about which ideas to pick.

To be honest they will just nerf adm / humanist into the ground and call it a day.

Religious already took a crippling nerf making it only viable as a pick after you already took humanist, or for Christians.

 

[Snake_Squeezins]

There's a lot of truth in the OP, especially how a large number of idea groups just don't compare favorably with others, but I disagree that it's better to *always* take the same ideas.

I also disagree that Econ/Trade don't have much value - Trade especially allows you to siphon income from your neighbors and rivals, empowering you and weakening them.

 

[jdavis86]

Doesn't professionalism make aristocratic pretty competitive?

 

[Mr. G]

Doesn't professionalism make aristocratic pretty competitive?

Not really. Army drilling is nice in one battle, but then it is gone.

 

[gia257]

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.

grab admin, humanist, religious, influence, diplomatic, now you can grab exploration if you want, but its late in the game already, might as well just fully annex the colonizers and get colonies that way

This is when you take expansion, gets the colonist, gets the final diplo slot (more vassals), nothing else except innovative or quantity is useful, and you can probably live without the diplomat (from aristocratic/espionage)