Half of the idea groups are suboptimal

[jdavis86]

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

Professionalism of course is different from drilling -- it makes manpower more valuable. Higher regain and more manpower when using slacken recruitment, a pretty valuable tool.

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ssionalism-drilling-and-ideas-groups.1060085/

 

[Mr. G]

But professionalism also applies to mercenaries?

 

[hajutze]

Try playing multiplayer and you'll understand the point of economic and innovative idea groups

 

[Cataphract887]

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

Im been away for 7 months, what happened to religious? Was still thinking it was good from old data, or maybe it just fits my current playstyle well.

 

[bbqftw]

Deus Vult moved to finisher.

 

[Yxklyx]

I used to take Trade and Economics in nearly every game. Now there's no point because it's so easy to make lots and lots of money without them. These two idea groups are rather pointless now.

 

[zukodark]

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.

I think you're forgetting that probably the best idea in trade is +20% global trade power, which is the first idea. That extra cash is often enough to afford you either the extra troops you need to win your battles, or to afford advisors in the more important monarch point categories.

Also if you speak of India as an example, diplo or influence is not going to help you much more than trade would. It just isn't the region for these ideas. I could see humanist vs religious coming in here, but one required idea group is hardly eight.

I must say in the recent patches money has become more common than before, but that just means you can snowball with your economy if you focus on it. Also means you can afford advisors making your life much easier. Though I must say that economic ideas particularly is something only worth taking if you're playing a particularly poor country.

 

[Incompetent]

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.

I agree with you that not all idea groups should be balanced around WC-level blobbing. Economic is for more of a tall game for instance, and it does just fine in that role. Maritime and Naval really do improve your navy significantly if navies are important to you; their 'weakness' is not a matter of the idea group itself, but with the overall impact of the naval game (which I gather tends to be 'naval supremacy or don't bother', even in MP). The problem is with idea groups that don't do their job as well as other groups, even if your in-game aims are ideally aligned with the idea group in question. In some cases, such as Expansion, it's not even clear overall what job it's supposed to do. Maybe you happen to use all the bonuses somewhere, but it still doesn't feel like a decisive and satisfying choice.

Trade ideas can indeed make you a lot of money in ideal circumstances (i.e. you already have Quantity so you can run the policy, you somehow don't have enough merchants from CNs/TCs, and your provinces are lined up in such a way that trade steering is a big deal). But in practice, the idea group is typically some way down the priority list *even in a trade-focused game*, because what will really boost your income is getting the military/diplomatic leverage to seize that key centre of trade or what have you. 'Extra cash' from trade power is highly situational, because trade power in itself doesn't generate any money, it's only used in a zero-sum competition with other countries in the node. In the EU4 trade game, it's ultimately more efficient to eliminate most of the competition rather than to try to outcompete them with modifiers.

 

[Orkonkel]

If only half of the ideas or suboptimal then Paradox did a great job. Look at any other game and you'll see that that 90% of 'tech' options are suboptimal from a power standpoint.

 

[gia257]

I think you're forgetting that probably the best idea in trade is +20% global trade power, which is the first idea. That extra cash is often enough to afford you either the extra troops you need to win your battles, or to afford advisors in the more important monarch point categories.

Also if you speak of India as an example, diplo or influence is not going to help you much more than trade would. It just isn't the region for these ideas. I could see humanist vs religious coming in here, but one required idea group is hardly eight.

I must say in the recent patches money has become more common than before, but that just means you can snowball with your economy if you focus on it. Also means you can afford advisors making your life much easier. Though I must say that economic ideas particularly is something only worth taking if you're playing a particularly poor country.

influence is extra handy in india... you grab a single VJ and bahmanis core, let one win, release, reconquest and influence comes at the time of annexing
if you do heavy diplo annexing (india has a lot of cores for this, persia/tims is nearby and siam area nations as well) then diplo also helps although it is not necessary early on as you need admin/influence for that

If only half of the ideas or suboptimal then Paradox did a great job. Look at any other game and you'll see that that 90% of 'tech' options are suboptimal from a power standpoint.

hmm there are 8 slots, youd need 80 idea groups so that you hit 10% of UU groups

also, looking at them like builds, cnr 18, 8 = 43758 combinations of these 18 groups in a single game, and theres probably less than a dozen OU combinations (def initelyless than 4375)

 

[zukodark]

influence is extra handy in india... you grab a single VJ and bahmanis core, let one win, release, reconquest and influence comes at the time of annexing

I didn't say influence was not a good pick in India, I said it wasn't the only viable pick, while thinking about the diplo-based idea groups in particular. Saving diplomatic power long term is not even that good. The aggressive expansion and improve relations effects are the more important diplomatic modifiers, and those just aren't neccesary in India. It is so extremely easy to avoid or beat coalitions there. And I must say I usually the abundance of diplomatic power to appease subjects when I must.

If you're doing a hugely vassal-based game, influence is a must. But that is not by any account the only good way to conquer India.

 

[Kljunas]

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

But wouldn't idea groups being closer in power make the AI stronger, not weaker? Since they're obviously not as good at choosing them than the player?

 

[MiniaAr]

The MP perspective:
Economic is kind of mandatory in MP. No admin groups gives you as much benefits in the early game: money and policies

There is a case to be made for Innovative in a lot of instances as well (Innovative/Quality)
Religious is also a group that one might consider, if going for a Quantity/Religious/Quality build.

On the other hand, Administrative and Humanism have really low priority on MP games.

Regarding DIP groups, most MP games use the 50% MIl group rule, meaning after taking Economic and Innovative slot 2 and 4, your 6th slot is likely to be Trade. Some heavy cav builds take Espionnage when combined with Aristocratic (Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, Hordes).

Also, many MPs have a house rule that says something like: "one DIP group in the first 4". Which means again that Trade is regularly taken. Influence is also an usual replacement for colonisers once Exploration has lost its purpose.

Finally, groups like Maritime and Naval can be very useful for nations that go full naval, and break others only via constant devastation due to blockades. They need of course a strong land backer (or be England), but such builds can do huge damage.

My point is the following:
In SP, some groups lack behind others. But the balance is almost reversed in MP, making those very groups relevant again.

There are however one idea group that is disregarded both in SP and MP, and it needs dire attention, in my opinion: Expansion

 

[gia257]

I didn't say influence was not a good pick in India, I said it wasn't the only viable pick, while thinking about the diplo-based idea groups in particular. Saving diplomatic power long term is not even that good. The aggressive expansion and improve relations effects are the more important diplomatic modifiers, and those just aren't neccesary in India. It is so extremely easy to avoid or beat coalitions there. And I must say I usually the abundance of diplomatic power to appease subjects when I must.

If you're doing a hugely vassal-based game, influence is a must. But that is not by any account the only good way to conquer India.

its not so much about saving the dip (although too, points are points), if it costs less to dipannex you get the development earlier (significantly earlier when paired with admin), also you can get more development because reconquest has lowered cost and less ae than conquest

also you said influence was no better than trade, and trade is trash as an opener or 2nd so...

 

[zukodark]

its not so much about saving the dip (although too, points are points), if it costs less to dipannex you get the development earlier (significantly earlier when paired with admin), also you can get more development because reconquest has lowered cost and less ae than conquest

Fair point, though I'm just saying that you're getting cash even earlier with trade ideas for example, meaning you can do more conquests in the first place. In my case I sometimes like keeping my vassals consistent instead of doing the "integrate and get new vassals routine", which is just unnecesary busywork unless you're doing WC. Vassals can, when used efficiency, be a better use of all that land than integrating them and making them territories.

also you said influence was no better than trade, and trade is trash as an opener or 2nd so...

That's excactly when trade is good tho. That early game money will elevate you above your enemies. Saying it is "trash" is the same as avoiding the argument, which is that influence is far from always (though more than 50% probably) a better choice than trade.

 

[bly08]

I think you're forgetting that probably the best idea in trade is +20% global trade power, which is the first idea. That extra cash is often enough to afford you either the extra troops you need to win your battles, or to afford advisors in the more important monarch point categories.

Also if you speak of India as an example, diplo or influence is not going to help you much more than trade would. It just isn't the region for these ideas. I could see humanist vs religious coming in here, but one required idea group is hardly eight.

I must say in the recent patches money has become more common than before, but that just means you can snowball with your economy if you focus on it. Also means you can afford advisors making your life much easier. Though I must say that economic ideas particularly is something only worth taking if you're playing a particularly poor country.

20% trade power is 20% of whatever you have in 2 nodes, it's 20% of another small percentage. If you think trade is good you should go down the list of ideas in a console game and look at how many ducats each idea makes, it will be a lot less than you think. The entire trade system is complicated and most of the bonuses that seem good are surprisingly underwhelming.

If money is more abundant, it should mean that pure economic idea groups like trade is worth less, not the other way around.

 

[True_Heir_of_Rome]

Someone beat me to it, but the main thing OP forgets is that the ideas are quite balanced in MP, at least compared to the single player. I like this quite a bit even though I play much more SP than MP lately. The only idea group that really needs work is Expansion. Every other groups has at least some usefulness.

Also:

Which idea groups are optimal is absolutely objective, the only things that vary are the situations you are placed in and your goals. If you think that is incorrect math can be used to prove you wrong.

That said a good/great player can make just about anything work, especially if the goal is of a lower difficulty. I'm an average player and I have little doubt I could restore the roman empire with all "crap" SP ideas. That doesn't make maritime for instance, in any way optimal(Unless your objective is something different and naval related).

 

[afb]

Expansion used to be good for conquering Asia in earlier versions. The colonist was useful (if unspectacular) and you got a nice CB on Asian countries. It was perfect for Russia but also useful for Ottomans or anyone else in that area. And of course for full scale colonizers, especially those looking to go East (like Portugal). Now the CB is gone and the colonist is less useful (Russians have other stuff, colonizers need fewer as colonial nations expand faster on their own).

It's still a decent group economically with an extra merchant, +20% trade power and 25% reduced state maintenance. But it just isn't enough to really justify it for anything other than a full scale colonizer.

 

[gia257]

Fair point, though I'm just saying that you're getting cash even earlier with trade ideas for example, meaning you can do more conquests in the first place. In my case I sometimes like keeping my vassals consistent instead of doing the "integrate and get new vassals routine", which is just unnecesary busywork unless you're doing WC. Vassals can, when used efficiency, be a better use of all that land than integrating them and making them territories.


That's excactly when trade is good tho. That early game money will elevate you above your enemies. Saying it is "trash" is the same as avoiding the argument, which is that influence is far from always (though more than 50% probably) a better choice than trade.

Trade would require you to be well positioned on a trade node, because its static boosts are not that many (eg if you have 0 power it wont give you 200 free, you need 200 power already so that it gets boosted to beat the opponents, economics should boost you better from a crappy start), so for openers, its limited to some nodes afaik, certainly india can profit form the goods prouced once you own it, same for persia, but i would get something else anyway

speaking of that, something that surprised me this patch, vassals actually make you profit now apparently, I went admin influence and was getting up to 40 ducats a month from my vassals (one was timurids mind you, so they did have a lot of profit), coupled with the ability to build on their land, and the current patch's excess of money...

or maybe it was the cossacks expansion which i just bought (or whatever added the vassal income UI) but I wasnt used to this much money

Expansion used to be good for conquering Asia in earlier versions. The colonist was useful (if unspectacular) and you got a nice CB on Asian countries. It was perfect for Russia but also useful for Ottomans or anyone else in that area. And of course for full scale colonizers, especially those looking to go East (like Portugal). Now the CB is gone and the colonist is less useful (Russians have other stuff, colonizers need fewer as colonial nations expand faster on their own).

If you dont need quantity expansion can be taken at the perfect 6th slot to match client states, now you are taking it only for the extra vassal slot, and the colonist is a bonus, and you stop building it at the extra slot, but still, it allows to get one more overextended-at-100%-ws client state to annex later

 

[zukodark]

20% trade power is 20% of whatever you have in 2 nodes, it's 20% of another small percentage. If you think trade is good you should go down the list of ideas in a console game and look at how many ducats each idea makes, it will be a lot less than you think. The entire trade system is complicated and most of the bonuses that seem good are surprisingly underwhelming.

If money is more abundant, it should mean that pure economic idea groups like trade is worth less, not the other way around.

I said it out of experience from seeing my cash grow with a couple of ducats by taking certain of the ideas.