Is the new "Inovation" mechanic is a pointless adition?

[XYN]

I like this idea, it fits the narrative and it creates another way to gain innovativeness.

Power projection can be quite wacky. Sometimes you get plenty of easy rivals ready to be milked for power projection, sometimes you have barely any and they all are stronger or in strong alliances and use the same nodes so even privateers don't help and so on.

It also doesn't help when AI Moscow rivals Castile...

 

[Dakka]

It also doesn't help when AI Moscow rivals Castile...

What are you talking about? They totally have the same sphere and influence and are completely and utterly at odds with each other for the same land

 

[Nyrael]

I think it is the one mechanic I will end up never using. You need to be an OPM to properly focus on it, and for them it probably exists.

 

[tommassi]

I think it is the one mechanic I will end up never using. You need to be an OPM to properly focus on it, and for them it probably exists.

For OPMs it's even more useless than for anyone else. If you want to remain a one province country, your only realistic chance is develop your province as much as you can, and then develop it even more. Throwing away MPs for a tiny bonus won't help with that.

 

[Tuscany stronk]

Innovation is just useless and doesn't improve tall gameplay.
Knowledge sharing makes institutions even easier to get than how they are.
My idea would be to rework institutions and base the innovation gain on this.
Institutions should only be accepted automatically when at least 50% of the development accepts it,since it's too simple to take some loans and pay.
Basic Innovation gain would be the same for everyone but modified by institutions accepted In country and provinces,being ahead or behind in tech and building.I refer especially to universities,which should increase institution spread.
In this way innovation and share knowledge would have sense to exist.
Also the math in innovation is overpowered,as you already said,and should be fixed.

 

[Maldazar]

I agree that the feature is weak and will not really be used, or, when used, will not change the game in any significant way.

The reward is too low for the invested effort, it's just more % over more monarch points spend.

Imho it should be changed to making a list of current innovative countries, with the top 10 (or 5, needs to be balanced) most innovative getting some strong bonus. Maybe getting a very high prestige bonus, getting an attration of immigrants, giving unique events (that can raise development, reduce tech cost, completly remove ahead of time penalties for a while, giving unique especial advisors, stuff like that) maybe make a list of inventions into the game that can be created my innovative countries (like some of the events that trigger changes in prices in trade goods), and giving the inventor a permament extra bonus (like finding the 7 cities in the new world).

Right now it's just another modifier, not a lot of flavor, no reason to worry much about it or any real necessity to keep up with it.. (not having it doesn't give any negative modifier)

 

[Incompetent]

Absolutism was good in a way, Professionalism was fun to experiment with until the nerf came up and just put it on the pile of things that shouldn't exist, alongside Estates and Revanchism.

My biggest disappointment about recent announcements is that the devs haven't announced any sort of modifier that favours more pluralistic governments, as an alternative to the huge benefits of Absolutism. It's especially topical if we're talking about the *England* patch and *Rule Britannia* DLC, when you consider England/Scotland/GB's unusual political evolution and contributions to the philosophy and practice of liberalism (plus their subsequent development in British colonies, notably the Thirteen Colonies). I'll be sad if for owners of Rule Britannia DLC, playing as England, there's still no point in keeping a Parliament during/after the English Civil War, and you're still strongly encouraged to crank up Absolutism to the max.

 

[raikaria]

Seems to be. You invest monarch points on taking technology early; and get some back in all power cost reduction that builds up very slowly over time.

It's reliant on having good rulers/advisors as well. And even then; you're basically just recouping the costs of taking the technology early in the first place.

My biggest disappointment about recent announcements is that the devs haven't announced any sort of modifier that favours more pluralistic governments, as an alternative to the huge benefits of Absolutism. It's especially topical if we're talking about the *England* patch and *Rule Britannia* DLC, when you consider England/Scotland/GB's unusual political evolution and contributions to the philosophy and practice of liberalism (plus their subsequent development in British colonies, notably the Thirteen Colonies). I'll be sad if owners of Rule Britannia DLC are still strongly encouraged to abandon Parliaments at the earliest opportunity and crank the Absolutism to max.

Yeah; Absolutism needs changes badly to make Republics and Parliaments [The latter is a particularly fun mechanic] not completely screwed over.

Come Age of Absolutism Republics basically lose in combat and cannot expand as quickly as Monarchies and Theocracies [Most people forget Theocracies are just as good as most types of Monarchies with Absolutism]. Going Consitutional is basically Roleplay-only because you're gimping yourself doing so.

 

[Horn and Ivory]

Imho it should be changed to making a list of current innovative countries, with the top 10 (or 5, needs to be balanced) most innovative getting some strong bonus. Maybe getting a very high prestige bonus, getting an attration of immigrants, giving unique events (that can raise development, reduce tech cost, completly remove ahead of time penalties for a while, giving unique especial advisors, stuff like that) maybe make a list of inventions into the game that can be created my innovative countries (like some of the events that trigger changes in prices in trade goods), and giving the inventor a permament extra bonus (like finding the 7 cities in the new world).

Right now it's just another modifier, not a lot of flavor, no reason to worry much about it or any real necessity to keep up with it.. (not having it doesn't give any negative modifier)

That sounds amazing. You should put that into a proper suggestions post.

 

[peenerz]

I wish that there were "inventions" like in Vicky 2, and that the more innovativeness you had the higher chance you'd discover these inventions. For example the "spinning jenny" could be available for discovery after admin tech 27 or 28, and "dragoons" after mil tech 18. These inventions would give little bonuses.

For those that don't know
https://vic2.paradoxwikis.com/Inventions

 

[solidprice]

If the innovative idea group is buffed to take advantage of this new mechinic, I'll be ok with this.

 

[GoatMagic]

EU4 development seems to be really stagnant. Jade Dragon added some interesting and fun options to CK2 and this upcoming Stellaris patch/dlc is going to be (from what I can tell) the best update to any Paradox game yet. CK2 has game rules, and Stellaris has the sliders that let you customize aspects of the game to your liking to make things harder/more dynamic. All EU4 has is the generic AI bonus difficulty modifier. Every update just adds scaling % bonuses or mana buttons... no real interesting mechanics or events, no engaging/challenging realm management. Just arcadey powers for painting the map better.

 

[erneiz_hyde]

You know, we're not that long apart since around MoH and 3rd Rome, when the echoes among the fans were that they are confident that EU5 is still a long ways ahead because they're confident EU4 can still be improved. Now we're hearing shouts of creative burnout.

 

[Badesumofu]

EU4 development seems to be really stagnant. Jade Dragon added some interesting and fun options to CK2 and this upcoming Stellaris patch/dlc is going to be (from what I can tell) the best update to any Paradox game yet. CK2 has game rules, and Stellaris has the sliders that let you customize aspects of the game to your liking to make things harder/more dynamic. All EU4 has is the generic AI bonus difficulty modifier. Every update just adds scaling % bonuses or mana buttons... no real interesting mechanics or events, no engaging/challenging realm management. Just arcadey powers for painting the map better.

I will agree that Stellaris' 2.0 patch and DLC look amazing. I don't know that you could do something like that for EU4, though. Stellaris is still early in its life-cycle and has had systems in need of total overhauls.

The problem I think we are approaching and have perhaps reached with EU4 is that PDS have stated that they will keep making DLC as long as people buy them. I think the approach should be more like: we will make DLC as long as we have compelling ideas for them (and people are willing to buy them). So many things have been added that it becomes harder and harder to overhaul an entire game system. Things keep being added that then don't function properly together (a good and relevant example being parliaments and estates) and won't be made to.

So instead all you can do is keep adding more and more features. Perhaps a better option would be to take all the feature in the current game, look at places where they don't work together or need to be reworked, figure out which systems need to be completely overhauled or rebuild, then recreate the whole thing as a more cohesive product. That of course would take a couple of years and the result would be EU5.

Perhaps I am part of the problem because I will keep buying the DLC in order to keep refreshing my game experience. But I do hope at the very least that this is something the team are giving thought to when trying to devise a road-map forwards for the game.

 

[GoatMagic]

I will agree that Stellaris' 2.0 patch and DLC look amazing. I don't know that you could do something like that for EU4, though. Stellaris is still early in its life-cycle and has had systems in need of total overhauls.

The problem I think we are approaching and have perhaps reached with EU4 is that PDS have stated that they will keep making DLC as long as people buy them. I think the approach should be more like: we will make DLC as long as we have compelling ideas for them (and people are willing to buy them). So many things have been added that it becomes harder and harder to overhaul an entire game system. Things keep being added that then don't function properly together (a good and relevant example being parliaments and estates) and won't be made to.

So instead all you can do is keep adding more and more features. Perhaps a better option would be to take all the feature in the current game, look at places where they don't work together or need to be reworked, figure out which systems need to be completely overhauled or rebuild, then recreate the whole thing as a more cohesive product. That of course would take a couple of years and the result would be EU5.

Perhaps I am part of the problem because I will keep buying the DLC in order to keep refreshing my game experience. But I do hope at the very least that this is something the team are giving thought to when trying to devise a road-map forwards for the game.

Estates could easily serve as the backbone of an internal politics system which they could expand on. It would be great to see any mechanics that feel "internal" to the nation you're playing. Even though Stellaris is still early in it's life-cycle I feel it's already leaps and bounds ahead of EU4 in internal realm management. Ascension perks actually noticeably affect mechanics, the same can hardly be said about 90% of the ideas in EU4, which are just 10% this 15% that. Factions, although needing a lot of work, combined with pops on various planets actually add an internal layer to the game that put the current estates and county:culture/religion to shame. It's not like Stellaris is still "catching up" to EU4, EU4 just doesn't seem to care about expanding on anything that isnt % vs %

 

[Dakka]

Estates could easily serve as the backbone of an internal politics system which they could expand on. It would be great to see any mechanics that feel "internal" to the nation you're playing. Even though Stellaris is still early in it's life-cycle I feel it's already leaps and bounds ahead of EU4 in internal realm management. Ascension perks actually noticeably affect mechanics, the same can hardly be said about 90% of the ideas in EU4, which are just 10% this 15% that. Factions, although needing a lot of work, combined with pops on various planets actually add an internal layer to the game that put the current estates and county:culture/religion to shame. It's not like Stellaris is still "catching up" to EU4, EU4 just doesn't seem to care about expanding on anything that isnt % vs %

Or, now here me out, it could also have something to do with the fact that you are comparing a five year old game being handled by a newer developer to a two year old game being handled by arguably the best developer in the company.

 

[GoatMagic]

Or, now here me out, it could also have something to do with the fact that you are comparing a five year old game being handled by a newer developer to a two year old game being handled by arguably the best developer in the company.

You realize I was responding to someone who said, that since Stellaris was new, it's updates could be much more dramatic? The implication was that the changes are much better because there is more to improve on. It sounds like you agree with me but are saying it in a disagreeing manner, which begs the question what do you think I meant? The only possible problem I have with what you said would to point out how CK2 still gets mechanic additions and considerable content and it's older than even EU4. I don't think that matters in this case.

 

[Dakka]

You realize I was responding to someone who said, that since Stellaris was new, it's updates could be much more dramatic? The implication was that the changes are much better because there is more to improve on. It sounds like you agree with me but are saying it in a disagreeing manner, which begs the question what do you think I meant? The only possible problem I have with what you said would to point out how CK2 still gets mechanic additions and considerable content and it's older than even EU4. I don't think that matters in this case.

see, this is what happens when I’m not paying attention and press “reply“ on the wrong post
I Apologize

 

[Badesumofu]

The issue, in my view with EU4, is that its systems have had mechanic upon mechanic built onto them, and with them in mind. Then you have the apparent near-sanctity of some DLC features like Estates that just don't get iterated on or improved on, or even properly integrated with other mechanics for the most part.

Stellaris is different firstly in that it's had fewer new mechanics added on its systems and so it's much easier to rework those systems. It's also different in that Wiz has put far, far more of the stuff that's been made for the game into the free patches rather than the DLCs. He's also shown willingness to move features into the base game where it is required. That means that new features and old features get to play properly together rather than simply exist in the same space without actually interacting.

I don't want to turn this into a who is the better developer argument at least in part because we don't actually know who is making all the decisions. For all we know Jake wants merge a bunch of DLC features into the base game but is not being allowed to do so. Perhaps Stellaris is somewhat of an experiment to see if people will still buy the DLCs even when most of the best stuff is in the free patches anyway.