It's time to kill EUIV

[Ayoub13Berrahel]

All I hear from this post is blah blah wah wah, stop crying if you don't like the game don't play it and leave it be, this game has a large fanbase that want to see it grow, and if you don't have time for this game go play something else and don't waste your time wasting our time

 

[fabbyrob]

Really I think all the changes with each DLC have been great, the game is much more in depth now than it was at launch, and more immersive I feel. I've played well over 2500 hours and will continue racking up those numbers.

I am not sure how the sailors mechanic is working, other than a thread where I read it hurts mothballing due to wasting sailor manpower. But is that something anyone on these forums actually asked for? Did anyone ever really say "hey, I know! We need sailor manpower to build our navies with!" I think more people preferred, instead, new naval combat mechanics and an AI that didn't often allow their ships to be annihilated before retreating (though that has been mostly fixed in recent patches).

Also, just to point out yes this was a feature that was asked for. There were actually mods that people made to make boats take normal manpower. Though the only thing I really like about this feature is the fact that empires cant just spam boats after their navy sink at the same rate they used to be able to now. Mostly I think this feature is a solid "meh".

 

[VA GHOST]

Yes, let's kill the game when backend statistics show the game gaining in popularity with each expansion.

New game does not equal better AI, rather the opposite. The less gameplay changes there are, the greater chance of actually making the AI better. Now admittedly, it's a challenge to keep up with broad DLC changes as well.

I don't disagree on that certain things could be better, but again, it's entirely subjective and neither my or your preferences are automatically better than other people's. The designers need to consider multiple viewpoints.

>>>>
I respectfully disagree with the assumptions you made. The longer a game has been on the market, the cheaper the initial game "box" becomes as well as older expansions alowing new people to "try it out" correlating their increased interest to new expansions is a false market assumption. Anecdotally, I am someone who did not buy it early on because I was dissatisfied with past games from EUIII's random everything to earlier games being released before they were ready (this is going back quite a few years).

I respectfully disagree with the game designer is "listening to the public". The average player likes expanding their country albeit slowly or quickly. Adding corruption (which the players have to deal with indirectly only and have no easy cure for, as well as the horribly not thought out states system (which adds geographical complexity and poorer countries) without any meaningful benefit to the player. There is no "achievement" on the players behalf when making a state from a territory that you have gained. They simply reduce your money and drain your administration points.

Both ideas go against a great game designer's rules: Monsieur Sid Meier's:

1. Make sure the player is having fun, not the designer/computer. (Show me how the corruption system makes gameplay more fun for the player.) (Show me hoe the new state region rules moneydrain makes the game more fun for players) (Correlation - building things in your province gives bonuses and a sense of achievement. Makeing many countries have little or negative income early on is the exact opposite of fostering an environment where the game encourages the p;layer to have fun. The player is left fighting against new internal blockades in the game engine - corruption and regions - instead of the enemies they are supposed to have - other countries and keeping your country stable.)
   
2. Games should be easy to start playing, but hard to stop playing.
3. Simple systems work together to create complexity. (Adding corruption and regions violates this - they are not simple and impossible to combat directly - they are a designer's attempt to stop game play they don't like - see rule #1.
4. Know when to stop, more is not always better and just because we can, doesn’t mean we should (Because they can add artificial new game mechanices to make players poorer and slower to do what they want doesn't mean they SHOULD). Why are the way players play the game wrong? Could not the exact same result desired - slower huge blogging come about as a result of tweaking simple game mechanics (see rule 3) - lik stability hits for adding provinces, additional bad boy points for expansion, etc, etc.

 

[kontinos]

There are many things that could be changed, and whole mechanics would have to be revamped.
Thing is, i don't know if i want a more "realistic" representation of the world or a more fun one in this game.
Who can argue that it is suboptimal to conquer two provinces as a two province Hesse, get some marginal AE to avoid coalition, raise some autonomy and after some years without any problems be ok with the population of this provinces? Shouldn't conquest be more relative to own power?
Shouldn't liberty desire be proportionate to the wealth you get of your minion, but also to it's technological advance you allow it to have, and all this should be proportionate to the each other?
Is it normal for a merchant republic to not be represented on non-occupied lands despite its wealth and influence?
The game has many, many aspects, and all should be rethought.
Even corruption, is it the same for a continental or a mostly focused to trade state? How is it defined? Shouldn't states and their influence and power define the amount of corruption you get?
Why isn't Austria trying to ally Serbia, or Bosnia, not because it would be a valuable alliance in the sense of mutual support, but in the sense of stopping Ottoman's expansion?
Also, i feel the Ai is not aggressive enough. Having played many hours, the only war worth mentioning against me is a Timurids+allies against my Hormuz. Seriously?

The additions done to this game are nice, up to a point, but i think most people desire a more complex setting.

I have no idea how -and if possible- this can me introduced in the current or a new EU, but i think the gameplay at the moment has tired many players.

 

[Olaf the Unsure]

EU4 finally starting to get fun for me. Different strokes....

 

[Vivi_]

If you are not ok with some game mechanic, have a look at the existing mods or build your own.
There are a lot of mods and some of them bring a different experience.

How about a multiplayer matchmaking experience based on Steam?

The multiplayer is already based on Steam.

What do you mean exactly?

 

[Evan05]

But don't have a one-click search game multiplayer experience, right?

No, they don't. I also don't see how match making would improve the game, considering there is already a server browser.

 

[Dragomar]

Yep. Agree.

Lot of changes people want are engine dependent.

EU IV's engine is utter garbage. Crap late game performance even on an i7 6700k. Same with late game CK2.

 

[Wafthrudnir]

You, OP, present a highly subjective point of view and choose "It's time to kill EU IV" as the title.

The majority of users, of course, disagrees as there is no convincing answer to the question:

Is there anything that could make EU5 significantly superior over EU4, that could not be incorporated into EU4 via patch or DLC?

Currently nothing in your post that convinces me that the answer is yes.

Next thing, you get bitchy and imply everyone with a different opinion is too stupid / entitled / whatever to read (based on the first 6 down votes?). Seriously?

But really, your question could just as easily have been applied to EUII or EUIII. Go back and play EUII and you will find much of the game is the same. You still have the same three unit types, until recently the same forts system, all the same core diplomatic options (royal marriage, vassalization, annexation... the latter two with the same +190 requirement and the latter most with the same 10 years requirement), merchants (although the system there is different now), settlers that work similarly, missionaries that work similarly, the ability to assault forts which was identical until very recently, a technology system that has actually been a downgrade (I'd prefer an HOI style technology system)

If you boil it down this way, every succeeding game becomes more of the same. In essence, Super Soccer for the SNES is the same as Fifa 16 for PS4. You still have one pitch, two goals and 11 players per team (+substitutes), which are divided into the same basic categories - attackers, midfielders, defenders and goalkeepers. You still have to score more goals than your opponent in order to win, still within a 90 minute time frame. Shall I make the same example with e.g. an FPS game?

EU IV mirrors reality. Royal marriages, vassalizations, annexations etc. were all important parts of history. As were the classic trinity of unit classification or - and I can't believe something generic as that this is even part of your example - merchants. What's the alternative anyway? Do you want to leave them out of a historical strategy game?
Or would it feel better / fresh if the requirement was changed to, say, +150? No matter what system is introduced, it would still be as arbitrary, wouldn't it? That's the principle of abstraction.

Not to mention, your information is plain wrong. Merchants, missionaries and settlers all work differently in EU IV (in fact all three systems were changed for the better, especially the trade system) - as long as you don't criticize that they do commerce, try to spread their religion or establish a colony ; but what the hell would you expect them to do if not work in their professions?

And if you honestly prefer EU III's tech system and / or don't see EU IV as the huge improvement it is, what's the frigging problem? Go back and play the older iterations. It's much cheaper and if you can still enjoy them, more power to you. I used to love them, but can't imagine going back nowadays - to even think about the annoying old rebel system makes me cringe...

Yes, let's kill the game when backend statistics show the game gaining in popularity with each expansion.

Do you have any numbers? Wouldn't that be a great topic for a DD in between patches? Pretty please?

Everything I see nowadays is users complaining (like in this thread) and new expansions getting slammed in Steam user reviews.
I, however, still love the game and really appreciate the constant incremental improvements. So I was actually starting to ask myself, what's wrong with me...

 

[Arrowkill]

I personally think that EUIV is fine. I not only enjoy the new mechanics, specifically corruption. It requires me to plan things carefully and people who focus too hard, yes even the AI, on military gouge themselves later. I was behind because I specifically was ensuring that I kept a balance, and at times when I didn't it set me back somewhat but not enough to make me unstable. Later when I finally got myself on even footing, the AI around me had focused so heavily into military that they stayed stuck at the same technology levels for about half a century. I eventually eclipsed them in about 20 years and pressed onward in conquering Africa. I specifically chose to save my African Power achievement run til after Mare Nostrum simply because it would be more exciting to have to take into account the increase in direction I can grow and the espionage idea has given me the ability to maintain pace with other countries by converting to catholic early and spying on European countries to give me a sizable reduction to my technology costs.

 

[Jayavarman]

Is there any fan-made EU5 game design document or concept art?

 

[Dayledose]

I personally think that EUIV is fine. I not only enjoy the new mechanics, specifically corruption. It requires me to plan things carefully and people who focus too hard, yes even the AI, on military gouge themselves later. I was behind because I specifically was ensuring that I kept a balance, and at times when I didn't it set me back somewhat but not enough to make me unstable. Later when I finally got myself on even footing, the AI around me had focused so heavily into military that they stayed stuck at the same technology levels for about half a century. I eventually eclipsed them in about 20 years and pressed onward in conquering Africa. I specifically chose to save my African Power achievement run til after Mare Nostrum simply because it would be more exciting to have to take into account the increase in direction I can grow and the espionage idea has given me the ability to maintain pace with other countries by converting to catholic early and spying on European countries to give me a sizable reduction to my technology costs.

Let me ask you, was it challenging or did it just take longer? I only ask because I plan out most of my campaigns even before I start the game, I set my rules up and think of what would be a challenge, I have never considered something that just takes more time a challenge, is it for you?

I'm not trying to be combative I honestly want to know what constitutes a challenge to you since you support the patch and DLC to hopefully get a better understanding. Who knows maybe I've been playing wrong or have the wrong Idea about what is and isn't a challenge in EU4.

 

[Jayavarman]

This is a fair enough comment, but yes. My idea on tactics cards, removing the stupid mana system, etc. But really, your question could just as easily have been applied to EUII or EUIII. Go back and play EUII and you will find much of the game is the same. You still have the same three unit types, until recently the same forts system, all the same core diplomatic options (royal marriage, vassalization, annexation... the latter two with the same +190 requirement and the latter most with the same 10 years requirement), merchants (although the system there is different now), settlers that work similarly, missionaries that work similarly, the ability to assault forts which was identical until very recently, a technology system that has actually been a downgrade (I'd prefer an HOI style technology system), etc. I am really tempted to find my disc of EUII and see if there is a way I can get it running on a modern system just to see how much the same it really is.

Yes, please do a side-by-side comparison of EU2-EU4 and AAR.

 

[Arrowkill]

Let me ask you, was it challenging or did it just take longer? I only ask because I plan out most of my campaigns even before I start the game, I set my rules up and think of what would be a challenge, I have never considered something that just takes more time a challenge, is it for you?

I'm not trying to be combative I honestly want to know what constitutes a challenge to you since you support the patch and DLC to hopefully get a better understanding. Who knows maybe I've been playing wrong or have the wrong Idea about what is and isn't a challenge in EU4.

Honestly, it was in my opinion more challenging, I have had to take steps back and re-access how I accomplish moving through the game. I had to slow down my pace a bit, but it was steady like a march forward in careful unison, rather than sprint as fast as I can until I can just trample everybody. I started off blobbing everything I could, but had to then accommodate how quickly I blobbed, changing to catholic early on threw a wrench in my plan, but gave me the opportunity to peak into Europe a little faster and start siphoning technology.

I think overall, it was harder simply because I had to be more careful in what I did, it was a different approach to the game that I typically do not use unless I play a republic of some kind, i.e. HRE or Venice/Genoa. That is the way I have seen it play through so far, and I like it.

*I am also slightly biased because I finally have useful ways to spend money, and use my military in peace. The corruption has just added to, what I consider, a much more solid foundation to build my empire. However, everybody is entitled to their own viewpoint and I am not here to discredit another persons idea of challenging or fun.

 

[Dayledose]

I see, well thank you for your answer, after I finish abusing the mechanics in my France game I will do an African game and see if I can abuse them there.

 

[Arrowkill]

Your welcome. Always happy to give my opinion. I will admit I abused the hell out of the Condottieri option and after blobbing, controlled as best I could (even sending them in for free) the state of other nations to give myself an added advantage later for taking the few steps back to account for corruption and my steady pace.

 

[Wafthrudnir]

The longer a game has been on the market, the cheaper the initial game "box" becomes as well as older expansions alowing new people to "try it out" correlating their increased interest to new expansions is a false market assumption.

When did the game first hit the ~10$/€ mark? It's been a while, isn't it?
While your statement holds true in general, it's not really the case with EU IV. The price of the base game has stagnated for a long time. Everyone remotely interested has had so many opportunities to check it out by now. The price of the expansions shouldn't matter much (besides, anything older than a year has been reduced multiple times by 75% as well), since I seriously doubt many would buy expansions to try out a new game.

I respectfully disagree with the game designer is "listening to the public". The average player likes expanding their country albeit slowly or quickly. (...)

Both ideas go against a great game designer's rules: Monsieur Sid Meier's:
Make sure the player is having fun, not the designer/computer. (Show me how the corruption system makes gameplay more fun for the player.) (Show me hoe the new state region rules moneydrain makes the game more fun for players) (Correlation - building things in your province gives bonuses and a sense of achievement. Makeing many countries have little or negative income early on is the exact opposite of fostering an environment where the game encourages the p;layer to have fun. The player is left fighting against new internal blockades in the game engine - corruption and regions - instead of the enemies they are supposed to have - other countries and keeping your country stable.)

While I do think corruption and states/territories need some balancing (we always need to wait for the next patch to see new mechanics starting to work, don't we?), I don't get your argument in general.

The main complaints I hear all the time about EU IV (which I, personally, can support as well) are:
1) The game is too easy.
2) Nothing to do except expansion.
3) Hardly anyone reaches late game / finishes their campaigns most of the time.

As far as I see, the developers are constantly trying to find a solution to these problems, which is absolutely requested by a large part of the players judging from forum posts, now in the form of corruption and states/territories.

So, how is the challenge to have a stable/ affluent realm an inherently bad thing? Since EU III, money has never been an issue after a few decades into any campaign, which is somewhat unrealistic and has always been complained about (and rightly so). How is it bad that money realistically becomes another constraint besides monarch power?

How is it bad that you can't blob as easily anymore while keeping absolute control over even remote parts of your empire, which, again, is unrealistic and has been criticized many times before. It was high time for a change here, so why not try it with the increased autonomy of territories?
The new system even provides players with much more control than e.g. the flat autonomy increase of overseas provinces. Now, we can at least decide which provinces/regions we value more and like to have better integrated in our realm.

The funny thing is, if we would just play at higher game speeds a bit more, there shouldn't even be a big difference compared to before. Except, we actually would reach mid/late game and smaller nations had a chance to survive the first 50 years for once. How would that be less fun?

The one thing that is getting harder are world conquests. But I can see balancing those with a viable mid/late game with any challenge left to be incredibly difficult in any case.

Again, this doesn't mean corruption and territories work perfectly as of right now. I do think they need balancing!
In my recent campaign, the AI has lots of problems to deal with the new economic constraints. Scotland has been in severe debts for decades following three rebellions and after they subsequently dishonored their alliance with France, they got conquered by an Irish 2PM it apparently couldn't afford to keep more than 3000 men under arms.

Because they can add artificial new game mechanices to make players poorer and slower to do what they want doesn't mean they SHOULD). Why are the way players play the game wrong? Could not the exact same result desired - slower huge blogging come about as a result of tweaking simple game mechanics (see rule 3) - lik stability hits for adding provinces, additional bad boy points for expansion, etc, etc.

The way players play the game is absolutely not wrong. However, where is the fun, when you're bigger than anyone else 50 years into the game? Shouldn't the game designer's acknowledge if the game doesn't work as intended / there are game design flaws and try to address those?

How is introducing new artificial mechanics worse than tuning / expanding existing artificial mechanics?
And - that may be personal - how on earth would getting a stability hit of all things be better? Am i the only one getting nightmare from the mere sound of it?
Next thing you propose is fixing things by introducing more increased coring cost penalties.

 

[Sousuke123]

Truth be told I'd like to see EU V than new dlcs mostly because of lackluster trade and production aspect of the game. In current setup it matters not if you own every single iron mine in the world or not. Well you can get pathetic -5% regiment cost and that's all if you're production leader. Abundance or lack of resources means nothing. Moreover you can't make let say Tokyo as trade center because of trade winds are pulling everything to Europe, so you can make dough as long as you put in Zanzibar or Cape to collect there. It's impossible to pull trade form e.g. Iraq to Japan to make money from imported goods. Smuggling and Embargo are non existent. Embargoes should be on trade goods not reducing trade power only - it's pretty obvious embargoed country is banned from trading there and if happens embargoing country is the only way you can bring good to country your trade should collapse unless you can find another trade routes(or cut through them) just like expansion of Ottos caused Portu find other way to India. Protecting those routes from pirates should be of utmost importance sou your trade would be not disrupted. We need manufactured goods especially like ammunition and cannons cause now it looks like every single country in the world got some huge war industry. Obviously countries should be more reluctant to sell strategic goods to their would be in time enemies. There is tons of things should be other way around in EUIV but that would mean scratch some core mechanics thus starting from the beginning would be much better.

Technology is another matter, now you can be perfect at everything and stay ahead of time that's quite stupid. I'd rather see tech tree like in Empire Total War . IIRC there were many tech trees for warfare/naval/trade/production so you knew you had to sacrifice something. Now you just take tech level and you're good at everything.

Oh let's not forget about provinces with one culture/religion which is beyond everything.

 

[LokiusMaximus]

You, OP, present a highly subjective point of view and choose "It's time to kill EU IV" as the title

Yes, a highly subjective view that was an opinion. Hence a title which is an opinion and a title meant to attract people to view the thread and read said opinion.

The majority of users, of course, disagrees as there is no convincing answer to the question:

And what answer could have been to that question from EUIII to EUIV? The main change was the mana system. That is a system that could easily be overhauled and/or changed again. It's a boring system that should be changed.

As for the majority of users. I'd say those on the forums are where most of the "hardcore" EUIV players are. I see many people here talking about having over a 1,000... or even 2,000 hours on the game. I bet if you looked at statistics for all users (doesn't Steam have these somewhere?), the average would probably be around 100 hours. But the majority of users also appear to have demanded the ability for regency councils to declare war. Seriously, how boring does the game get when your ruler dies with a one year old heir? Leaves you with a crappy mana producing regency and 15 years of watching a map and doing nothing unless you are fortunate enough to have someone else declare war on you. And how many users also want an end to the 15 year truce and the five years truce after breaking an alliance?

Next thing, you get bitchy and imply everyone with a different opinion is too stupid / entitled / whatever to read (based on the first 6 down votes?). Seriously?

No, I am fine with the opinions that have been posted on here in response. What I am not fine with is people posting "disagree" without even reading the post. Unless those first six people are able to photo read, there is no way they did. That is why the like/dislike system is totally stupid. People should have to leave a comment if they disagree. Not click some stupid button because they are incapable of leaving said comment.

If you boil it down this way, every succeeding game becomes more of the same. In essence, Super Soccer for the SNES is the same as Fifa 16 for PS4. You still have one pitch, two goals and 11 players per team (+substitutes), which are divided into the same basic categories - attackers, midfielders, defenders and goalkeepers. You still have to score more goals than your opponent in order to win, still within a 90 minute time frame. Shall I make the same example with e.g. an FPS game?

Those games add new modes. I doubt Super Soccer for the SNES had manager mode, be a pro, or ultimate team. In addition, the difference between those games is how many iterations? I NEVER buy an annually released game every year. There is no point because all EA sports games are essentially just the previous version with one or two changes. Same goes for Football Manager. Every other year I buy Football Manager. Just happens to be odd years in my case. But I'd never buy it every year. Not enough changes to justify. Even two years is almost too soon.

EU IV mirrors reality. Royal marriages, vassalizations, annexations etc. were all important parts of history. As were the classic trinity of unit classification or - and I can't believe something generic as that this is even part of your example - merchants. What's the alternative anyway? Do you want to leave them out of a historical strategy game?
Or would it feel better / fresh if the requirement was changed to, say, +150? No matter what system is introduced, it would still be as arbitrary, wouldn't it? That's the principle of abstraction.

Maybe a new system? Such as how many times you protect the vassals from rebels that arise because you overfed them? Or perhaps how many provinces you liberated from other nations for them. You can force vassalize a nation that has -350 opinion of you built in (of course, only -200 visible... Not sure why they ever put a limit on it because the added numbers is what really matters. Which is why I am glad Stellaris is using +/-1,000 for relations) from AE and no matter how many cores of theirs you liberate or how many provinces you give them... or how many times you defeat rebels, you still have to wait 75+ years to even get a positive rating with them again. Why not implement a system based more on actions (without such small ceilings) rather than simple numbers?

Not to mention, your information is plain wrong. Merchants, missionaries and settlers all work differently in EU IV (in fact all three systems were changed for the better, especially the trade system) - as long as you don't criticize that they do commerce, try to spread their religion or establish a colony ; but what the hell would you expect them to do if not work in their professions?

Merchants do work different. I haven't played EUII in 15 years, but I do remember having to send them to trade nodes and hoping to get them to rank up (by getting multiple merchants in the same node). I remember liking that system better than now. Although, I admit the system is likely far more complex now. I read a strategy guide once on how merchants work in this game and I admit I couldn't follow it enough to ever care and use it properly. But missionaries are essentially the same. Send them to a province and wait for them to finish. Settlers are a bit different because the increases in settlers are constant and settlement is guaranteed to start if you send a colonist there. Whereas in EUII, you had to send them and hope the settlement would take based on a percentage chance.

And if you honestly prefer EU III's tech system and / or don't see EU IV as the huge improvement it is, what's the frigging problem? Go back and play the older iterations. It's much cheaper and if you can still enjoy them, more power to you. I used to love them, but can't imagine going back nowadays - to even think about the annoying old rebel system makes me cringe...

Because EUIV is bigger. More provinces and better graphics. Hence why I would like to see an EUV. So the limits of EUIV can be increased. And I agree, the old rebel system does make me cringe, but for those wanting more "challenge" to the game, it was better. The new system makes rebellions almost irrelevant after about 100 years of game time.

Everything I see nowadays is users complaining (like in this thread) and new expansions getting slammed in Steam user reviews.
I, however, still love the game and really appreciate the constant incremental improvements. So I was actually starting to ask myself, what's wrong with me...

This is the result of the game not being the game it was. Imagine if you bought this game based on an IGN review. You'd be clueless as to wtf they are talking about. Sure you can revert the game to 1.0, but who is really going to do that? And when you make dramatic changes, a large portion of the population is going to be upset. Some things will never be argued. Additional provinces and more detailed non-European nations is a good thing that no one will complain about. Completely revamping the forts system (which makes no sense in regards to how movements are blocked) and adding mechanics to slow the players is going to cause complaints.

At this rate, I could foresee it eventually being to where your nation can never get above 100 provinces and people would still come to the developers defense and say "it just makes the game more challenging!" No, that would make the game boring.

 

[LokiusMaximus]

The main complaints I hear all the time about EU IV (which I, personally, can support as well) are:
1) The game is too easy.
2) Nothing to do except expansion.
3) Hardly anyone reaches late game / finishes their campaigns most of the time.

I think these complaints are mainly on these forums where the "hardcore" EUIV players live. As I stated in my previous post, I think most of the posters on this forum are those that have put in over a 1,000 hours on this game. Anyone who plays any game for that amount of time is probably going to master it and be lacking for challenge. I'd say the vast majority of users have probably averaged no more than 100 hours on this game. For them, the game is probably not too easy, and if it's not too easy, then their fun is probably expanding as much as possible. If that is their goal, then #3 is not an issue. I always play games to the end unless I rage quit (which is rare, but does happen). My latest game as England, my first ever playthrough as them on EUIV, resulted in the conquering of all of Spain, France, the HRE, Scandinavia, northern Russia, North Africa, some of the Commonwealth and a small amount of the Ottoman Empire (Greece area). While I was unstoppable at that point, I wanted to finish my conquest of the Ottomans and the Commonwealth and work my way into Asia. That was a goal I had for future. In fact, I wanted to start a new game as Serbia to see if that starting point could allow me to complete those goals more effectively.

A better player could do far better with England, I don't doubt that. But I don't like constant micromanagement, so I lose some time due to that. I think the vast majority are more like me and would rather not micromanage everything and thus the vast majority of us have the goal of beating our previous empire.