Hegemons - a completly useless feature

[Delpheus]

I had my first successful game restoring Rome and once that was done I started looking into other mid to late game features.
The hegemony system has interested me, but all 3 of them have requirements so high you can't pick one until the game is already over. So what's the point?
I couldn't become the economic hegemony until AFTER forming Rome, and even then I had to spam the hell out of buildings that cost me millions of gold.
Military needing a million is steep, and again, you can't really get that until there is nothing left in the game to do, congrats you already conquered the world, now click this useless button.
Naval might be possible earlier, probably the only one attainable earlier, with a more relatively tame 250 requirement, but once you have that many I still assume the game is nearing an end.

SO why? Why do we have this completely useless feature? It is a damn shame, because the bonuses are actually very interesting. And the concept has potential for an extra layer of game play - fighting for control of the hegemon title. Imagine if this mattered in the later early game and the mid game. You would have to compete with other great powers to earn this title or take it away from them for the bonus. In its current state, it will NEVER matter because people tend to say games are abandoned before the hideous age of revolutions, and there isn't much left to do at that point anyway.

This seems like a terrible missed opportunity here. And the fix can be very simple and easy - cut the requirements down to 75% or 50% of what they are now, or something that can be reached earlier in the game before you control the entire continent or the world, so that it matters, and adds an interesting and fun layer to the game. Right now its just a button to click at the end of a long game before you leave that save forever.

 

[Tavald]

On the dev diaries it was told the hegemony is a feature designed for late game multiplayer.

 

[Jarvin]

On the dev diaries it was told the hegemony is a feature designed for late game multiplayer.

As someone who has been a MP only player for years I can only say one thing to that:

lol

 

[Tavald]

As someone who has been a MP only player for years I can only say one thing to that:

lol

Why?
I don´t play multiplayer.
And OP is right, it is useless on single player.

Is it bad on multiplayer?

 

[Meglok]

On the dev diaries it was told the hegemony is a feature designed for late game multiplayer.

Actually, the hegemon feature was to have two goals, the mp goal you mentioned to spice up the last century of play, and a goal of making the end game in so less tedious and more interesting in sp. I suppose this is to happen by giving you a bonus and encouraging the ai to attack you.

I personally doubt I would ever get to a point I would use the feature unless I got the requirement by accident. And I have yet to hear anyone rave about the feature. IMO it is right there with coastal batteries, pretty much ignorable.

 

[Waffle Knight]

On the dev diaries it was told the hegemony is a feature designed for late game multiplayer.

That was one of the stated designs. The other one was to help with end game conquest and tedium, which it does considering you get -0.1 war exhastion and the choice between:
25% goods produced, 20% gov. cap and 20% minimum autonomy reduction.
OR:
10% province war score cost, 20% siege ability, -3 national unrest and 10% move speed.

Naval hegemon is better left unmentioned.

 

[Lord Romanus II]

I recently acquired the economic one in an MP game and the naval one was contested between two powers. I was also eligible for the military hegemon, as was my land rival Russia (I was the Ottomans). They are useful and totally meant for lategame. The naval one is arguably the most powerful with the artillery bonus, but having any one of them is good. They made for a fun prestige/end game goals.

 

[EarlKonrad]

That was one of the stated designs. The other one was to help with end game conquest and tedium, which it does considering you get -0.1 war exhastion and the choice between:
25% goods produced, 20% gov. cap and 20% minimum autonomy reduction.
OR:
10% province war score cost, 20% siege ability, -3 national unrest and 10% move speed.

Naval hegemon is better left unmentioned.

And the +25 PP guaranteeing that you will have at least 50PP for the +1 MP in each category.

 

[Delpheus]

I'm seeing a lot of posts about it being intended for the late game... But why the hell would you need any of those bonuses in the late game if you're already done? What's the soonest anybody has been able to achieve hegemon? And why would you even care if you're already #1 world dominator at that time? At that point, it's time to screen cap your complete empire and close the game. It really does nothing for the end game. I can't imagine ever playing the age of revolutions again, and this is no incentive to keep going.

I see this as a much more interesting midgame thing to help give a weaker power an edge to potentially overcome their rivals, or something to help a rising power become stronger at the cost of losing reputation which seems like a fair trade. Why the hell would you care about reputation if you already own Europe?

And for multiplayer... I've never had a multiplayer game enter the age of revolutions.
On the contrary, this would be far more interesting in multiplayer if this was something to strive for midgame, when players are still interested in actuality playing and there is more left to do. It would be a great multiplayer challenge when people are still growing, not when they are ready to quit....

 

[RAID186]

As Timurids into Mughals you can hit Eco hegemon by around 1600 if you play it right. I could possibly do better as England if I can cheese trade enough.

In MP its interesting to see people fight over it, but the negative relations is pointless because you don't define your Multiplayer relationship with someone by in-game relations. That's not how it works.

 

[damnt512]

On the dev diaries it was told the hegemony is a feature designed for late game multiplayer.

So, they designed a feature only for 1% of the playerbase ? Where is the logic in that ?

 

[Jarvin]

Why?
I don´t play multiplayer.
And OP is right, it is useless on single player.

Is it bad on multiplayer?

It is sort of useless, yes
the bonuses are nice but not exactly fantastic, and all the mechanics around it make it just flat out bad. In SP you can just take the hegemony and chill because AIs are dumb; but in MP that doesn't really work that well.


I'd guess the biggest use of the hegemonies is for WC style SP campaigns; where its 1600s or 1700s already, you are the strongest country on the world by a wide margin and just want to speed things up

 

[petertju]

It seems to be aimed for late game WC, but it is really not that great for that because of the -100 relations with everyone and the fact that you can't lose a single war, which is often beneficial.

 

[klingonadmiral]

Naval hegemon is better left unmentioned.

That said, I still one day want to do a Naval Hegemon Bengal run in order to stack artillery damage from backrow.

 

[holyvigil]

As Timurids into Mughals you can hit Eco hegemon by around 1600 if you play it right. I could possibly do better as England if I can cheese trade enough.

In MP its interesting to see people fight over it, but the negative relations is pointless because you don't define your Multiplayer relationship with someone by in-game relations. That's not how it works.

O? Do tell.

 

[Silvanel]

The only problem i have with hegemonies is the -100 modifier to relations. Why does it apply to subjects?

 

[Delpheus]

The only problem i have with hegemonies is the -100 modifier to relations. Why does it apply to subjects?

Ouch they REALLY did not think about this system or test it at all, did they?

 

[EarlKonrad]

O? Do tell.

Not the same guy, but:

Could have done it at least 50 years earlier if I hadn't put the game on speed 5 because with this run I Just wanted to see the revolution in action. This was done on 1.30.

 

[holyvigil]

Not the same guy, but:

Could have done it at least 50 years earlier if I hadn't put the game on speed 5 because with this run I Just wanted to see the revolution in action. This was done on 1.30.

That seems like a very reasonable time.

 

[RAID186]

O? Do tell.

There's a way my cousin and I found to maximise income from TCs and states, it's not cheesy as such but it works. He's hit 800 income in 1620, we're doing another run to see if we can hit that 1k by 1600, on Very Hard and Ironman. This is as Mughals.

England is the same but can't directly blob for the land, but it's going to be the next try, since as Mughals we were losing a lot out of the Persia node to other nations.

It makes a metric sh!t ton of micro and is an absolute pain, but if our blobbing is good enough, fast enough, we think we can hit it easily, will post results in a thread if we can hit it.