Is there a "consensus" on mana?

[Don_Quigleone]

I think some form of monarch power should remain in the game, if only to have a resource not proportional to country size.

However instead of it accumulating and then spent, perhaps it should instead be a throughput you spend on different priorities. So if you earned 10 admin a month, you might choose to spend 4 of it on technologies, 3 on developing provinces, and 3 on coring.

Alternatively, it may be better if there was only 1 monarch point resource rather than 3, in that way you'd have more decisions in how you spend it.

 

[R.Graymarch]

The "in a day" argument ignores the fact that need yo amass the resource first. You can go from -3 to +3 in a day, but it requires close to 1K ADM MP, which can take upwards of a decade to amass.

In contrast, in EU 3 it would take around 1 year to increase your stab if you switched all of your research to stab -- which you absolutely should do by the way. So the end result is very similar: in both games you can force the bad stuff away if you spend all resources that you accumulated at once. However, EU 3 asked you to way a few years for the resource to generate while EU 4 asks you to wait before investing said resources.

I don't have much issue in the "end effect". It's more that going immediately from Stab -1 to +1, or dropping War exhaustion in a day seems more "magic" to me that clicking a button which "engages a process for improving the situation". Even if the end effect is the same, the journey is very different because if it's not instantaneous, you will have to undergo a period where it recovers slowly rather than enjoying "end effect" immediately. Maybe it's less fun this way though for many players. That's the only reason I could imagine to keep it because there is no rationality in believing that a country will forget about war efforts just one day after the peace treaty is signed, because you had enough DIP points in reserve.

 

[-DI- RivalET]

I don't mind how ruler capability influences the state capability. As it's fairly historical, incapable rulers weren't known to foster prosperity (or are rising nations assumed to have a capable ruler at the head?). Bad rulers can also be disinherited and/or have their affects mitigated by capable advisors.

 

[Vohen]

As a game mechanic, I feel Mana works somewhat fine.
But I do agree, for immersion it is the absolute worst.
It works like a board game currency, and for that reason EU4 tends more towards the arcady side of the spectrum, rather than simulationist.

But that aside, for gameplay the main issue to me is how it doesn't incentivizes long term planning.
When you can, on a dime, increase stab, decrease WE, develop land, etc etc, all pretense of long term consequences are dropped.
Of course, you have opportunity costs for everything, but that'd still be the case if mana worked like an over time investment in an action, instead of instant investment of a lump sum at once, these problems would largely not be there, I think.

 

[Froonk]

Mana is a fine abstraction when the alternative would have to be developing an overly complicated method. It's a fine line to walk however and shouldn't be abused lazily.

 

[Big Bad France]

I don't have much issue in the "end effect". It's more that going immediately from Stab -1 to +1, or dropping War exhaustion in a day seems more "magic" to me that clicking a button which "engages a process for improving the situation". Even if the end effect is the same, the journey is very different because if it's not instantaneous, you will have to undergo a period where it recovers slowly rather than enjoying "end effect" immediately. Maybe it's less fun this way though for many players. That's the only reason I could imagine to keep it because there is no rationality in believing that a country will forget about war efforts just one day after the peace treaty is signed, because you had enough DIP points in reserve.

I think it's extra jarring when you consider the game as a whole, where so much of what you do, like coring, converting religion, converting culture, annexing, etc are processes that take substantial amounts of time, while cities can turn into metropolises overnight. It's similar to how it takes a month for a diplomat to get to Europe from India, but a general can fight a battle on the other side of the world from where he fought one the day before.

 

[Silvanel]

I dont hate mana, i dont love it.
I do think it can use some improvements.

Either add cooldawn to province development, inflation reduction, war exhaustion reduction and the likes or make them work like war taxes (monhtly price).
Diversify mana sources --> less points from ruler stats and more from government, policies. Malus from devastation boons from prosperity etc.
I would love to see country court and ruling family vastly expanded, not in the way of CK with intrigues and such but around policies, government institutions etc.

 

[EarlKonrad]

I think it's extra jarring when you consider the game as a whole, where so much of what you do, like coring, converting religion, converting culture, annexing, etc are processes that take substantial amounts of time, while cities can turn into metropolises overnight. It's similar to how it takes a month for a diplomat to get to Europe from India, but a general can fight a battle on the other side of the world from where he fought one the day before.

It isn't as jarring as you are making it out to be. There are quite a few things in EU 4 that doesn't take any time at all to be made. To name a few: developing, hiring generals/admirals/advisors, accepting cultures, lowering/raising autonomy, strengthen government, raise stab, buy down war exhaustion, implement edicts, unlock tech/ideas, fully core, make state, return colonists, attach admirals/generals, send diplomats, among others.

Time as a currency is fine but it is also important to have stuff that doesn't consume time to balance it out. Why? Couple of reasons: A) It helps with multyplayer as there are less things that need your constant attention, B) Immediate effect is a powerful incentive for doing something, C) Immediace can make things feel smooth while having to wait can make it feel cluncky; among others.

 

[Cancerofthehead]

I suspect most would agree that it works well but shouldn’t be over-relied upon. Now, finding where that line is you aren’t getting a decision.

Imperator was clearly over the line with almost everything being “click this button and spend MP to do this immediately”.

Development is the one thing that really stands out to me in EUIV. Both for its weirdness and significance to the game. The ability to turn an arctic backwoods town into the most prosperous place on Earth immediately should not exist.

Stability I actually don’t think is as big of a deal, your ruler expends the political capital (which is what I view MP as representing) they have built up over years to bring other leaders into line and to help stabilize the realm.

 

[randomgamer71]

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 suggest you to try the mod "MEIOU & Taxes"

 

[AngelRay]

No problem with mana. All is mana in a game.

 

[McRold]

I really don't like it, but I can tolerate it as long as the game gives the player more than one reasonable way of generating it (i.e., more player agency and less RNG).

 

[holyvigil]

My opinion is in here:

A case of monarch power

Yesterday Johan wrote that in 1.1 patch they will rebalance the game in a way that will remove monarch “mana” and purchases done with it. May there be a slight chance that 1.29 will bring this change to EU IV too? You still have plenty of time...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

 

[Pellaken]

I used to love "mana" until I looked into it. I find the term offensive, as, "mana" is often equated to "magic" and the "mana" mechanics are supposed to represent complexities. I found it quite offensive for people to be implying the game was simply dismissing these complex things as "magic".
except
that's what the game is doing.
So yea, I'm not a fan of it anymore.

 

[Laurent1944]

I understand mana as the government means of actions, but I would like better to not have any "magical" instant effects. OK for using mana to develop provinces, but each jump should last a month for each current DEV point. So no more city rising from nowhere in one day. Ok for reducing war exhaustion, or inflation, but it should last one year. The same with stability, and most other things.
I'm fine with recruiting generals/admirals, or advancing techs, or ideas. Other instant uses of mana should be those that IRL will be a change of the law (like raising or decreasing tarifs, raising mercantilism).

 

[treb]

Personally I don't like that you can't turn money into mana, Every governments answer to any problem throughout history has been "throw money at it". I want to be able to do that too. At war? Throw money at the army. bureaucracy is screwed? Throw taxpayer earrings at it. Faux pas at court? a bribe and he forgets it ever happened. I want to be a corrupt jackass like all my historical idols!

 

[Travis_Bickle]

Personally I don't like that you can't turn money into mana, Every governments answer to any problem throughout history has been "throw money at it". I want to be able to do that too. At war? Throw money at the army. bureaucracy is screwed? Throw taxpayer earrings at it. Faux pas at court? a bribe and he forgets it ever happened. I want to be a corrupt jackass like all my historical idols!

They'll argue that Advisors are a way to increase mana.

In my opinion you make a good point. Resources should be able to be reallocated. It is frustrating when you end up with a 1/0/0 ruler or something when annexing a vassal and have no real mechanism for throwing whatever resources you have at getting that annexation done.

 

[Eruth]

I got mixed feeling about mana. I like this currency for tech, idea groupes and policies (and it's a good idea to make the first policy free), same for number of diplomatic relations or commanders. It's a level of abstraction that work quite well because it's relatively simple (to me, it's comparable to "levels" in pen and paper RPG where it's just abstract thresholds)
However I'm not comfortable when it's close to magic power : war exhaustion can vanish in a day, provinces can be super developed in a day, stability can go from -3 to +3 in a day. To me, it makes the game more casual (and maybe there is a need for that, in order to get a bigger audience) but tends more to "arcade" rather than "strategy or simulation". I never really played M&T mod (which is too complicated to be vanilla, alas) but I like that there are long term effects to grow stability for example. It means that you are more a guide-ruler than a god-ruler. So, it's more... strategic. But I suppose, less fun for people who like "immediate effect"


Not in the original version of the game though. But I admit that they were wise enough to hear the crowd to change this

I think a better system for all of these things, if mana is required, would be to invest in them over a period of time. You decide that you'll spend three dipmana on diptech a month, for example, and 2 on managing war exhaustion, 1 on deving Paris, and 1 on deving Bordeaux. The tech and exhaustion would change at a a speed based on how much you invested, and the province would gain 1 dev once you have invested enough poitns into it.

 

[treb]

They'll argue that Advisors are a way to increase mana.

In my opinion you make a good point. Resources should be able to be reallocated. It is frustrating when you end up with a 1/0/0 ruler or something when annexing a vassal and have no real mechanism for throwing whatever resources you have at getting that annexation done.

You made me think of another important point, if mana is supposed to represent a country's capabilities and institutions like the bureaucracy, MIC and merchant guilds, why do you lose them instantly when a ruler dies? Shouldn't they decay over time as a less competent ruler can't keep on top of things?

 

[Meglok]

Mana, to paraphrase Churchill, is the absolutely worst system of creating intangible game resources, except for everything else that has been tried.

Show me a better system that does it, and that isn't completely RNG, and I will agree to ditch Mana.