HRE still nonsensical despite fluffy mechanics

[Pugman]

Agree with OP. HRE has sucked for a *long* time. It's a broken, stupid system. I haven't played it since the patch but there weren't really any changes to it so my assumption is it still sucks as bad as it always has. The liberation CB doesn't last nearly long enough and even if it did the HRE would never cease being at war. I think part of the problem is coring happens so fast the HRE doesn't even get a chance to put the unlawful territory buff on many countries. Playing the HRE is like herding cats.

 

[TheChronoMaster]

This is what kills me. Prior to EU3, there was a much bigger focus on historicity. But as the series got more popular, somehow the sandbox crowd became the largest and loudest voice, so much so to the point that the devs even just call it a wargame now.

If you really enjoyed events forcing you onto a historical railroad that you could barely deviate from, choo choo, Vicky 1 and EU2 are still there.

 

[oblio-]

To stop the game being pointless, has it occurred to Paradox to add things to do while at peace and generally provide alternatives to Paint The Map Your Colour 4?

It has occurred, but they won't do anything about it. There are no peace time mechanics planned that we know of and from their announcements the general impression is that "EU4 = multiplayer conquest; peace time mechanics = plotting with other humans the next war".

Any attempt to make the game more static will turn it into "Europa Snoriversalis 4".

 

[TheBromgrev]

The emperor would take the reins against an external aggressor or the HRE states would band together in alliance preferably. I don't see why you think that's unbelievable.

This happened in my recent Burgundy game. I wanted to take Sundgau from Austria, but it was allied to Brandenburg, France, and Sweden and had PUed Hungary and vassalized about 4 more member states. Rather than face sure-death at the hands of Austria's allies, I attacked Utrecht instead, which was allied to two HRE OPMs, thinking that only Austria would get dragged in. Nope, what happened what that Austria was able to call in its allies, so I got stomped by France. Thinking back on it, I'm not sure if the emperor being able to call in his allies when protecting a member from an external attack is a bug or not.

 

[Big Blue Blob]

It has occurred, but they won't do anything about it. There are no peace time mechanics planned that we know of and from their announcements the general impression is that "EU4 = multiplayer conquest; peace time mechanics = plotting with other humans the next war".

Any attempt to make the game more static will turn it into "Europa Snoriversalis 4".

Then it should occur to them. Personally I find yet another ahistorical war game slightly boring.

 

[Afterthot]

I guess I'm not sure what people want this game to do. No blabbing by internal wars in the HRE, so really it's diplo annex or stay the same - all held together by the Emperor. And to prevent external aggression, the Emperor would be able to get all members to fight off countries like France, so they don't blob. Essentially meaning the whole middle of Europe would never change, leaving all the non HRE members to deal with each other - except of course they'll all have to ally to keep the HRE from blabbing.

Damn - sign me up for an Ulm game so I can discuss with my neighbours the merits of cooperation so we can both sit and do nothing together for 400 years.

It's a bold strategy Cotten, let's see how this plays out

 

[Xara]

This happened in my recent Burgundy game. I wanted to take Sundgau from Austria, but it was allied to Brandenburg, France, and Sweden and had PUed Hungary and vassalized about 4 more member states. Rather than face sure-death at the hands of Austria's allies, I attacked Utrecht instead, which was allied to two HRE OPMs, thinking that only Austria would get dragged in. Nope, what happened what that Austria was able to call in its allies, so I got stomped by France. Thinking back on it, I'm not sure if the emperor being able to call in his allies when protecting a member from an external attack is a bug or not.

The Emperor is automatically a co-belligerent in a war started against the HRE by an outsider. Co-belligerents can call allies in.

 

[Cèsar de Quart]

Ah yes, the map painter response to the issue of adding mechanics to try and actually make existing mechanics matter: BUT DAY ONE UNPAUSE = ALT HISTORY

If the mechanics don't represent real historical institutions or situations, they're bad mechanics. Right?

Besides, stuff like the role of Emperor or the nature of PUs should be adressed. PUs especially don't work as they should if the objective is them reflecting personal unions in history. Vassals need to be made more challenging. Limits on number of vassals or on their power is silly, just a workaround. Just import the influence minigame from Victoria and use it to create vassals through diplomats, trade and intrigue.

What are vassals supposed to represent anyway? The French appanages? They didn't exist anywhere else in that manner. Dependent kingdoms? Well, they don't seem very lively. Client states or "under the sphere" realms? That seems to be it, but I don't see any diplomatic game being played in those countries. And many that were are not presented that way anyway. Poland in the 1700's was effectively a vassal of Russia, with the Tsar basically calling the shots on who should be elected King.

There are things in EU that are fossiles from the first EU games. It's time to make up for them and upgrade them. PUs and royal marriages need to be upgraded, vassalship and coallitions need to be tweaked... and the HRE needs some love. Quite.

 

[Fantaisie]

If the mechanics don't represent real historical institutions or situations, they're bad mechanics. Right?

Besides, stuff like the role of Emperor or the nature of PUs should be adressed. PUs especially don't work as they should if the objective is them reflecting personal unions in history. Vassals need to be made more challenging. Limits on number of vassals or on their power is silly, just a workaround. Just import the influence minigame from Victoria and use it to create vassals through diplomats, trade and intrigue.

What are vassals supposed to represent anyway? The French appanages? They didn't exist anywhere else in that manner. Dependent kingdoms? Well, they don't seem very lively. Client states or "under the sphere" realms? That seems to be it, but I don't see any diplomatic game being played in those countries. And many that were are not presented that way anyway. Poland in the 1700's was effectively a vassal of Russia, with the Tsar basically calling the shots on who should be elected King.

There are things in EU that are fossiles from the first EU games. It's time to make up for them and upgrade them. PUs and royal marriages need to be upgraded, vassalship and coallitions need to be tweaked... and the HRE needs some love. Quite.

Good post.

 

[TheChronoMaster]

I absolutely agree with the intent of Cesar's post, though it is worth noting that some fossils aren't that old (The heir and PU systems as they are now debuted in EU3 Heir to the Throne, and were considered one of the most important improvements made to the series at the time). But the thing a lot of people miss is that 'the mechanics should generally lead to a result approximating something historical' does not mean 'the historical result should be the likely result', nor does it mean 'the player should be heavily punished for going beyond what would be possible in reality'.

 

[Freudia]

Just import the influence minigame from Victoria and use it to create vassals through diplomats, trade and intrigue.

You are aware that, aside from infamy, the sphere of influence minigame is often the only major thing people complain about in regards to Victoria 2, right? It was a really garbage system and easy to game once you understood how the AI worked, but it was still a huge micromanagement hell and wasn't fun to do.

 

[Big Blue Blob]

I absolutely agree with the intent of Cesar's post, though it is worth noting that some fossils aren't that old (The heir and PU systems as they are now debuted in EU3 Heir to the Throne, and were considered one of the most important improvements made to the series at the time). But the thing a lot of people miss is that 'the mechanics should generally lead to a result approximating something historical' does not mean 'the historical result should be the likely result', nor does it mean 'the player should be heavily punished for going beyond what would be possible in reality'.

What should be the case is that every step is plausible and makes sense given the circumstances. So no forced events railroading things, but also no nonsensical happenings like the HRE reducing to a few blobs while the emperor does absolutely nothing about any of them.

 

[Cèsar de Quart]

You are aware that, aside from infamy, the sphere of influence minigame is often the only major thing people complain about in regards to Victoria 2, right? It was a really garbage system and easy to game once you understood how the AI worked, but it was still a huge micromanagement hell and wasn't fun to do.

Really? I had no idea. I don't dislike it at all. Micromanagement, yes, but to be honest, there's not much to do at any given time of a Victoria II game.... so I don't mind. It's not the best idea, granted, but I like to imagine the diplomatic embassies, bans, prohibitions and the like. Anyway, I'd like to see a way to actively influence other countries' policies and diplomacy. Vassals should be the result of a game of influence, not this kind of zombie country that has no soul and no spirit. PUs, inheritances and royal marriages should also be a result of influence, prestige, diplomatic action and intrigue. Just see how the Burgundian inheritance worked: the heiress was courted by everyone. Everyone. Eventually, Maximillian of Habsburg won, because he was one of the richest and because he had manoeuvred the best. Others tried, very powerful ones, but failed. I'd like to see that kind of intent whenever a kingdom is left "without an heir". I'd like to see the kingdom itself reject the bride or the groom (like Philip of Spain was rejected in England, Philip of Burgundy was kind of rejected in Spain or Ferdinand the Catholic was rejected in Castille). I'd like to see events and mechanics molded on historical examples that can serve to make interesting games and plausible outcomes.

Does Burgundy need to disappear in every game? No. But to know if it has to be likely, examine the reason why it disappeared: failed state creation, lack of common identity and zero tradition, for starters. Then, no heir, that was bad, but regardless, Burgundy probably wouldn't have continued to exist much more, even with Charles the Bold being victorious.

But now, Castille and Aragon. Likely? Not necessarily. Spain could have formed y Castille and Portugal just as well, since it was decided in a civil war in Castille between Portugal and Aragon, each backing one candidate. The game doesn't even bother to model it right, or include Portugal at all.

Poland-Lithuania. Likely? Not really! Jadwiga could have been courted by Hungary, Austria, Brandenburg, even Muscowy... Lithuania won against all odds (a pagan nation after all). The game doesn't consider that either.

And I don't say "make an event for all these little things". All I say is "model your mechanics after historical examples and you won't need to!".

 

[icon41gimp]

Imperial Liberation/Ban CB should cause lost cores on province that are part of released states when the emperor wins, or at least allow cores to be removed in the same war as the state is released.

 

[ahyangyi]

Really? I had no idea. I don't dislike it at all. Micromanagement, yes, but to be honest, there's not much to do at any given time of a Victoria II game.... so I don't mind. It's not the best idea, granted, but I like to imagine the diplomatic embassies, bans, prohibitions and the like. Anyway, I'd like to see a way to actively influence other countries' policies and diplomacy. Vassals should be the result of a game of influence, not this kind of zombie country that has no soul and no spirit. PUs, inheritances and royal marriages should also be a result of influence, prestige, diplomatic action and intrigue. Just see how the Burgundian inheritance worked: the heiress was courted by everyone. Everyone. Eventually, Maximillian of Habsburg won, because he was one of the richest and because he had manoeuvred the best. Others tried, very powerful ones, but failed. I'd like to see that kind of intent whenever a kingdom is left "without an heir". I'd like to see the kingdom itself reject the bride or the groom (like Philip of Spain was rejected in England, Philip of Burgundy was kind of rejected in Spain or Ferdinand the Catholic was rejected in Castille). I'd like to see events and mechanics molded on historical examples that can serve to make interesting games and plausible outcomes.

Does Burgundy need to disappear in every game? No. But to know if it has to be likely, examine the reason why it disappeared: failed state creation, lack of common identity and zero tradition, for starters. Then, no heir, that was bad, but regardless, Burgundy probably wouldn't have continued to exist much more, even with Charles the Bold being victorious.

But now, Castille and Aragon. Likely? Not necessarily. Spain could have formed y Castille and Portugal just as well, since it was decided in a civil war in Castille between Portugal and Aragon, each backing one candidate. The game doesn't even bother to model it right, or include Portugal at all.

Poland-Lithuania. Likely? Not really! Jadwiga could have been courted by Hungary, Austria, Brandenburg, even Muscowy... Lithuania won against all odds (a pagan nation after all). The game doesn't consider that either.

And I don't say "make an event for all these little things". All I say is "model your mechanics after historical examples and you won't need to!".

Yeah, this is what I really wished for. Instead of modelling for a particular historical event, study what is the root cause of said event, and create a generalized version of that, which makes both the original event likely and similar events in other parts of world possible.

That said, I do not object railroading in the first 100 years, which is also the period over which you pick your national ideas. For me it's the more "hardcoded" part of the game. It makes different countries different, so I'm fine with it.

 

[Cèsar de Quart]

Yeah, this is what I really wished for. Instead of modelling for a particular historical event, study what is the root cause of said event, and create a generalized version of that, which makes both the original event likely and similar events in other parts of world possible.

That said, I do not object railroading in the first 100 years, which is also the period over which you pick your national ideas. For me it's the more "hardcoded" part of the game. It makes different countries different, so I'm fine with it.

Me neither, although in those initial 100 years it's where the most interesting alternative realities could develop. Burgundy consolidating, Hungary-Austria-Bohemia being a thing under the Hunyadis, Ferdinand the Catholic Emperor of Byzantium, etc.