I haven't been on these forums long, nor do I really partake in much of the community outside of playing the game itself, so I'm fairly curious as to what the overall community take - if one even exists, on mana in PDX games, especially EU4.
My own experience with PDX titles started as a teenager with EU3 and Victoria II, and while both games had (and still have) extensive issues, I think the one thing I really enjoyed above all else with both titles was the feeling that you were guiding a real, substantive nation. Actions would long-term, and often not foreseeable consequences. One example, if I remember correctly, was an early game I played as Byzantium in EU3, after the 1399 expansion came out. I won a huge victorious war, however in the process my lands had been truly devastated by war, and fell into a long and difficult to counteract period of decline. Combating this was really difficult, and I had to essentially face off with the consequences of putting everything into this one devastating war. While my country eventually recovered, I was essentially unable to expand properly for a good century or so.
In contrast I recently played a likewise epic war as Russia in EU4, making extensive use of the scorched earth policy. But any debuffs I got from such a war were not only comparatively low (which is less of an issue imo), but could essentially be swatted away by spending "mana" of some form. I know this isn't without consequence - and my country did indeed end up even more technologically backwards, but from a historical-immersion perspective it just felt.. weird. Likewise the same applies to development - if you save up enough mana, you can essentially double the size of a city overnight. It just feels weird and gamey for me, especially given how many guides and strategies emphasize quite forced methods of squeezing out as many of these abstract points as possible. To go back to the war example, overextension was not a problem because I just hogged mana points beforehand, so these vast territories could essentially be almost immediately brought into the fold.
I guess my overall point is it doesn't feel very organic or immersive. Part of the joy of these games for me is seeing your nation grow outside of your direct input. I like the idea of playing as a sort of steward or guide for my nation - leading it down a particular path, but potentially unable to control all the adverse effects of bad stewardship. I know from conversations I have had though that to others this is actually a source of frustration, as it makes adopting "optimal" strategies extremely hard. I get that, and I understand how the mechanics with modelled - with the stats of your ruler now contributing to mana-production it almost feels like a sort of RPG-lite.
But like I said, I realize I am just one player, and I don't interact with the wider community much, so I am genuinely curious; mana, yay or nay? or a mixture of both approaches?
My own experience with PDX titles started as a teenager with EU3 and Victoria II, and while both games had (and still have) extensive issues, I think the one thing I really enjoyed above all else with both titles was the feeling that you were guiding a real, substantive nation. Actions would long-term, and often not foreseeable consequences. One example, if I remember correctly, was an early game I played as Byzantium in EU3, after the 1399 expansion came out. I won a huge victorious war, however in the process my lands had been truly devastated by war, and fell into a long and difficult to counteract period of decline. Combating this was really difficult, and I had to essentially face off with the consequences of putting everything into this one devastating war. While my country eventually recovered, I was essentially unable to expand properly for a good century or so.
In contrast I recently played a likewise epic war as Russia in EU4, making extensive use of the scorched earth policy. But any debuffs I got from such a war were not only comparatively low (which is less of an issue imo), but could essentially be swatted away by spending "mana" of some form. I know this isn't without consequence - and my country did indeed end up even more technologically backwards, but from a historical-immersion perspective it just felt.. weird. Likewise the same applies to development - if you save up enough mana, you can essentially double the size of a city overnight. It just feels weird and gamey for me, especially given how many guides and strategies emphasize quite forced methods of squeezing out as many of these abstract points as possible. To go back to the war example, overextension was not a problem because I just hogged mana points beforehand, so these vast territories could essentially be almost immediately brought into the fold.
I guess my overall point is it doesn't feel very organic or immersive. Part of the joy of these games for me is seeing your nation grow outside of your direct input. I like the idea of playing as a sort of steward or guide for my nation - leading it down a particular path, but potentially unable to control all the adverse effects of bad stewardship. I know from conversations I have had though that to others this is actually a source of frustration, as it makes adopting "optimal" strategies extremely hard. I get that, and I understand how the mechanics with modelled - with the stats of your ruler now contributing to mana-production it almost feels like a sort of RPG-lite.
But like I said, I realize I am just one player, and I don't interact with the wider community much, so I am genuinely curious; mana, yay or nay? or a mixture of both approaches?
Last edited:
- 23
- 2
- 2
