Is WC really unrealistic in EU4?

[Sapa Inca]

Somethings to consider is that in a more realistic game even if the ruler have perfect knowledge:

- Conquest would not always result in short or even long term gains, maintain control of certain provinces and regions would be in certain cases a huge drain of resources and your core population in the capital including peoples important for the administration would not be happy with resources being wasted in distant wars for nothing, during centuries.

- Communications distance would be much more important, the idea of a province with 0% autonomy where reports and instructions take months to travel between the province and the capital is a complete absurd, you would need install some form of local government with enough autonomy to spend resources and make local decisions and these local government would not have your perfect knowledge, so, plenty of space to historical and administrative errors happen.

- The loyalty of key peoples for your government like advisors, local governors, military officials, family, clergy, local leaders etc is not guaranteed and in a realistic game would be impossible to maintain everyone loyal 100% of time during centuries and you can't just remove everyone that is disloyal based in your perfect knowledge without consequences because this would look arbitrary to everyone except you and would make loyal characters more disloyal and in a realistc game there would exist families and factions that you need give some degree of power even if they are disloyal.

- Even with perfect knowledge you are not guaranteed to win every war or squash every rebellion, even if you known that you have more troops and more competent generals in a realistic scenario there is much more factors during huge and decisive battles, some of them are completly imprevisible and even in face of previsible factors you are not controlling your troops in battle, your officials are controling and they don't have perfect knowledge.

 

[Quantum_AI]

I don't think WC was possible before because of communication and related issues. You would have to delegate and those guys would be the weak spot. The modern world fixes a lot of those problems but then we got nukes so no on has tried. Yet.

Napoleon, Genghis Khan, the Wehrmact - all had some tech/ tactic superiority like fast moving horse archers, the grand battery or armoured spearhead and blitzkrieg etc. But would the pace of conquest be fast enough that competitors can't find counters to it or you fall apart from your own bloat?

Eventually, the world WILL be conquered. But not by a man or a race. A united world government is an essential first step in the Kardashev scale. Its not a 100% given, but I think it is likely in the next ~100 years.

 

[Kapitalisti]

Unless you're the Immortal Emperor of Mankind, beloved by all, armed with Thunder Warriors then no, conquering the entire world AND holding it together would be impossible during this timeframe. The lack of quick communication alone would tank you.

 

[Koopa]

Could the person in your scenario conquer the world? sure! even easier by using religion and be muhadib.

but i would not use the word realistic. i find it more interesting to think about real nations possibility to do the same. How much more could have Alexander accomplish and how much more could his heirs take? or the Kahns. Or Rome after they took persien region (Parthorum or what was ist called?)

And what is a WC? full control? Or is it good enough if the conquered wave your flag but retain 100% Autonomy? If your empire is big enough that no nation could hope to win.. maybe a few would just join with the promise to not really have anything else to do but to say "sure you are the man, no let us be". A WC in name only.

 

[hrsmp]

Actually a good point, i don't know why you got so many downvotes. The main obstacle i think would be the limited ability to control the territories that you've conquered. I've heard this argument, suppose for example that Ottomans did capture Vienna in 1683, it's still unlikely that they would've advance much further than that since it's already take them almost half a year of march from Constantinople.
MEIOU has the mechanics for it, iirc it's called "communication efficiency" which is basically the further away from your capital the province is, the greater it's autonomy. This is more realistic, likely at some point in your conquests you'd be spending more on trying to control the territories that you would gain from having them. Wars are almost always driven by economics, after all.

 

[Torredebelem]

It’s often taken as a given in discussions about how EU4 works that it’s unrealistic for a player to be able to conquer the world, and that a realistic game would prevent it in some way. But is it actually unrealistic? Imagine the following scenario:

A person from our time is sent back to 1444. They are granted immortality and the ability to magically control the ruling body of their chosen country (even if it changes). They are completely ruthless with no regard for human life. The only thing they care about is conquering the world, and they can restart as many times as they want, while retaining all knowledge gained from previous attempts as well as being able to freely
use their 20th century knowledge about the world. Their only restriction is not being able to share technological secrets. Also, they are not the only such being; there are thousands and they all share notes.

Is it really unrealistic that they would eventually figure out how to break the “game”? Obviously I’m trying to challenge this assumption but I’m curious what people think the answer is and why. Is it too easy to conquer the world in EU4 because of how the world is modeled or the natural advantages the player has from being a player, that can’t be removed so long as EU4 is a game? Or is it some of each, and if so how much?

It's totally and utter nonsese from a game that is a kind of simulator in its own right. The game lacks the dynamic aspects that prevent the grabbing and holding together for long, vast tracts of land. And this not only about WC, but also includes painting the map of a sizeable percentage - say, for the sake of argument, 15% - of the whole world for a long time. Of course there can be exceptions to this, also based on a longer timescale of allowing the control of large tracts of land for colonial powers for instance.

Probably not a very popular opinion on this forum with the present posters that are obviously motivated fans but based on past experience a long time ago and of its huge success, I do know there is a substancial market for a much more balanced approach, other than simply painting the map employing a host of different mechanics all built for it and using a rational and cartesian min/max approach, where chance plays insignificant or no role on most of the players decisions.

Bottom line: To play the game realistically, you need to extensively mod it yourself, use MEIOU & Taxes for an already big upgrade and even then you are limited in some important ways that are hardcoded.

 

[love sweden]

Somethings to consider is that in a more realistic game even if the ruler have perfect knowledge:

- Conquest would not always result in short or even long term gains, maintain control of certain provinces and regions would be in certain cases a huge drain of resources and your core population in the capital including peoples important for the administration would not be happy with resources being wasted in distant wars for nothing, during centuries.

- Communications distance would be much more important, the idea of a province with 0% autonomy where reports and instructions take months to travel between the province and the capital is a complete absurd, you would need install some form of local government with enough autonomy to spend resources and make local decisions and these local government would not have your perfect knowledge, so, plenty of space to historical and administrative errors happen.

- The loyalty of key peoples for your government like advisors, local governors, military officials, family, clergy, local leaders etc is not guaranteed and in a realistic game would be impossible to maintain everyone loyal 100% of time during centuries and you can't just remove everyone that is disloyal based in your perfect knowledge without consequences because this would look arbitrary to everyone except you and would make loyal characters more disloyal and in a realistc game there would exist families and factions that you need give some degree of power even if they are disloyal.

- Even with perfect knowledge you are not guaranteed to win every war or squash every rebellion, even if you known that you have more troops and more competent generals in a realistic scenario there is much more factors during huge and decisive battles, some of them are completly imprevisible and even in face of previsible factors you are not controlling your troops in battle, your officials are controling and they don't have perfect knowledge

You arent playing the ruler or general of the nation you are playing the nation itself. Any instant order can be interpreted as there already being a person qualified to direct the order so your communication is mute and null. The loyalty is already represented in corruption, unrest and rebels. We already have events about treachourous people in the goverment wich gives you debuffs or penaltys. You arent playing the goverment but the nation itself so your brother having sex with your wife is about as important to the nations existence as a farmer accidentily hitting his toe on his chair. This isnt CK3, although yes we do need to feel the nobles churches and merchants existence beyond the estate screen I agree with you on that. You arent guaranteed to win every battle or squash every rebellion. I have yet to meet a single person who has never lost a war in EU4 or lost a battle to rebels. (Reloading a save cause losing the battle would cost you the war also counts as losing btw).

 

[master_kong]

WC is unrealistic as much as most other things in this game. Was it impossible in history? No, I definitely don't think so. Though that OneTagOneFaith runs are just ridiculous from a realism point of view.

 

[EarlKonrad]

WC is unrealistic as much as most other things in this game. Was it impossible in history? No, I definitely don't think so. Though that OneTagOneFaith runs are just ridiculous from a realism point of view.

What about OneTagOneFaithOneCulture? Surely nothing can be sillier than that

 

[Ivashanko]

You arent playing the ruler or general of the nation you are playing the nation itself. Any instant order can be interpreted as there already being a person qualified to direct the order so your communication is mute and null. The loyalty is already represented in corruption, unrest and rebels. We already have events about treachourous people in the goverment wich gives you debuffs or penaltys. You arent playing the goverment but the nation itself so your brother having sex with your wife is about as important to the nations existence as a farmer accidentily hitting his toe on his chair. This isnt CK3, although yes we do need to feel the nobles churches and merchants existence beyond the estate screen I agree with you on that. You arent guaranteed to win every battle or squash every rebellion. I have yet to meet a single person who has never lost a war in EU4 or lost a battle to rebels. (Reloading a save cause losing the battle would cost you the war also counts as losing btw).

Cheating and bastardry would be relevant to the state. Other members of your dynasty (including members that lead other nations) might claim they are the legitimate leader, your religion's leaders might preach against your state's leaders, your state's subordinates might become less loyal, etc.

And loyalty is not particularly well simulated. Neither your troops nor your advisors nor your regional heads can plot with an enemy nation or launch a civil war where part of your army defects. Events are a good start, but they aren't the be all and end all. EU5 will hopefully have more gameplay systems centered around internal developments.

 

[master_kong]

What about OneTagOneFaithOneCulture? Surely nothing can be sillier than that

Oh yeah, how I forgot about that? That is pure fantasy at that point.

 

[coldbreeze]

Assuming history is still railroaded into the same tech progression/institutions throughout the ages (as institutions/tech levels are always the same in a game of EU4), then no, World Conquest would not be possible, unless it is taken to mean something other than uniting the world under one sovereign by conquest.

 

[MatthewP]

Assuming history is still railroaded into the same tech progression/institutions throughout the ages (as institutions/tech levels are always the same in a game of EU4), then no, World Conquest would not be possible, unless it is taken to mean something other than uniting the world under one sovereign by conquest.

I would take it to mean uniting the world, full stop. Vassals and other somewhat autonomous subjects are fine (same as a WC in EU4). Uniting the world through means other than (though almost certainly including) conquest is also fine, again as in EU4. Does that affect your answer? I think we have to take as a given that the player can’t just bring tanks to the 15th century, or share knowledge about how they work.

 

[coldbreeze]

I think the technology, both material as in communications, transportation, etc and social as in methods of governance, theories of rule, implementation of laws and other methods of social control just would not be sufficient to make world conquest possible during that timeframe. Authority, no matter how powerful, just did not have the reach back then.