Just a tiny, tiny request.

[stoferb]

Perhaps it's even easily moddable. I don't know. But can this game please stop killing my heirs because they are good? It's ridiculous that every heir with great stats is almost guaranteed to die while every completely worthless heir is almost guaranteed to survive. Great ruler stats are rare enough as it is. It doesn't add to gameplay, strategy, immersion nor realism to kill most of them prematurely. It seems to be merely a feature for trolling the player. And don't pretend like there isn't a hidden hier death modifier for the human player tied to stats.

 

[grommile]

Completely off-the-hook monarch stats was fine in eu3, where they did not have such a direct impact on everything that you were trying to do!

Running war taxes indefinitely with high ADM. Drinking event cores from the firehose (and cooking off badboy more efficiently and having a higher badboy cap) with high DIP. Getting spontaneous badboy out of nowhere from low-DIP events. Being unable to Westernize (as in, absolute block) without above-average ADM.

And that's just off the top of my head. I think it's safe to say that "off-the-hook" monarch stats were not materially less problematic in EU3 than they are in EU4 - it's just that in EU3, it was much easier to become a republic.

 

[Karnak]

I think it's safe to say that "off-the-hook" monarch stats were not materially less problematic in EU3 than they are in EU4 - it's just that in EU3, it was much easier to become a republic.

I don't deny that monarch stats were USEFUL in eu3, but they are required for just about everything in eu4.

 

[net.split]

An easy short-term fix without requiring an entire new subsystem is to just flatten the curve. For example, shrink monarch stat ranges from 0-6 to 0-4 and add a static +2 MP (this is effectively the same as having min monarch stats of 2 under the current system; that's another solution, but it might look strange).

I'd also love to see the advisor system overhauled. It's bizarre to be technically able to recruit +3 dudes hanging out in your country right out the gate, but you can't afford to pay for them until much later. Because the costs scale so greatly, it's not possible to simply take a +3 dude and skip the other two for awhile to make up for lopsided monarch stats, either, because the +3 dude is much more expensive than three +1 dudes.

National Focus helps a little, but it's not a large enough shift by itself.

One possibility here is to make advisor costs depend on monarch stats. So, the higher the monarch's stat in that category, the more expensive the related advisor is. Have a 5-mil monarch? Military advisors will be a lot more expensive, because your monarch is already running quite the military department. But if you have a 1-mil monarch, you can probably afford to recruit that +3 military advisor.

The more I think about it the more I like that idea. You can still get screwed in the case where you don't get the right set of advisors to complement your monarch, but that just makes the mechanisms for boosting advisor count that much better. And while it's possible to be screwed, it's less likely to happen because there's more random factors included. And even if it does happen, you do get a marginal benefit -- your +1 military advisor is super cheap when you have that crappy 1-mil monarch, so maybe you can put the money into other areas to help make up for it (like going past your force limit or constructing some more armories).

I sort of wonder if I should start a new thread, since this one was already tainted by the confirmation bias shenanigans and may no longer be visited by Paradox staff.

 

[ChildeR]

An easy short-term fix without requiring an entire new subsystem is to just flatten the curve. For example, shrink monarch stat ranges from 0-6 to 0-4 and add a static +2 MP (this is effectively the same as having min monarch stats of 2 under the current system; that's another solution, but it might look strange).

I'd much rather have a smaller range on the *sum* of stats and let the stats themselves fall where they may. So you could still have a military genius who sucks at everything else (even 0/0/6), but could no longer be completely screwed on points.

Having to work with what kind of points you happen to get is, at least in theory, an interesting challenge. (In practice, national focus makes it too easy and better dynasty mechanics would help with longer term predictability.) Having to "adapt" to getting almost no points isn't fun at all, and disadvantages small nations who usually can't afford to allocate more budget to advisors.

 

[net.split]

I'd much rather have a smaller range on the *sum* of stats and let the stats themselves fall where they may. So you could still have a military genius who sucks at everything else (even 0/0/6), but could no longer be completely screwed on points.

Having to work with what kind of points you happen to get is, at least in theory, an interesting challenge. (In practice, national focus makes it too easy and better dynasty mechanics would help with longer term predictability.) Having to "adapt" to getting almost no points isn't fun at all, and disadvantages small nations who usually can't afford to allocate more budget to advisors.

+1, great modification. Would require nerfing republics a little though.

 

[kralex]

Currently, the only way to influence MP income (other than becoming Republic) is through choice of advisors, and perhaps missions. Both are a matter of sheer luck whether you get the kind you need/can afford/can complete. For advisors, you can stack the odds in your favour a bit with idea groups that give extra possible advisors, but you still have to get lucky.

I wish I had a bit more control over advisor benefit and funding, both for wealthy nations that can afford to buy MP at pretty much any price, and for very poor ones during difficult game starts that would otherwise have to re-start over and over until, e.g., the make-or-break-the-game level 1 statesman comes along.

I think I'd like a "Funding" slider for each advisor, with low, normal, or high setting, that give -1/+0/+1 MP, resp., and change the advisor cost to that of the one lower level for low funding, or the next higher level for high funding. A skill 1 advisor at low funding would not give MP, only the benefit (e.g., +2 Dip Rep), and would be quite cheap (0.5/month?). A level 3 advisor at high funding may well cost 50/month, and give +4 MP. Since the maximal possible MP gain from advisors is now 1 higher, rulers should probably have stats in the range 0–5.

That would give the player some means of directly influencing MP income, very slightly reduce the effect of luck in ruler generation, give poor nations a better chance of being able to afford the advisor they need to survive by hiring one of higher skill and cutting his funding, and rich nations a means of spending more of their cash on MP.

 

[BritNavFan]

After all, the current model has a lot of staunch defenders with a hefty lack of any reasoning why it's good for it to be this way

It's a matter of taste. But I get that you think that the way you enjoy the game is the only right and correct way for me to enjoy the game.

 

[Karnak]

It's a matter of taste. But I get that you think that the way you enjoy the game is the only right and correct way for me to enjoy the game.

Well, a compromise can always be reached in my opinion. If we are just bickering over what mathematical model we like more, of course we cannot reach consensus.
Maybe we should flesh out the system until it becomes apparent what these values mean, and how this MP generation works.

It seems to me that MP is a type of legitimate support. A type of official administration between the three primary spheres of governance.
It's all about official documentation, of placing the right people in the right places, and also acting as a type of legitimacy/authority in matters of governance.

For some reason the regent ALONE has the power to dictate up to 50% of a nation's administration. With a base of 3 and with advisors for 3, it adds up to 6 with a regent with zero skill.
A regent WITH skill can double that amount!
And a regent with zero skill, has NO help from the court. They all watch the king tank the entire nation.
There should be events or mechanics that improve the MP generation of a poor king, at the cost of RR, legitimacy, local autonomy etc as people step up to help him govern.
Hell, disasters that start to tick to overthrow the king if he is poor and refuses outside help is not a bad idea.

If you ask me, a regent should have the same effective MP generation that advisors do currently.
+0 for a poor king, +1 for an average, +2 for a good, and +3 for a mastermind.
Hell, advisors and the court in general take too much of a back seat in MP generation, and they would be a guarantee against RNG.

Most of the work in the court WOULD already be seen to by its administration. Sure, the king signs things, but he signs what other put in front of him!
I do not see how an entire court would just stand by when their 0/0/0 regency starts. I do not see how craftsmen, researchers, armies and artisans out in the land would just sit on their hands, entirely free of governance.
A 0/0/0 regency is the same thing as the court being unable to function efficiently, such as major behind-the-scenes power struggles etc, which could conceivably throw the entire nation off its game.
Even then people would compete for power, and some work WOULD get done.
But then i'd really like for these events to be actual events of that sort.

Something like a disaster that applies -3 MP generation in all areas for instance. Or that spawns pretenders, or that enforces a more competent regency council standing in for the king.
Of course then regencies should have the ability to declare war.

 

[IIWW]

Hell, advisors and the court in general take too much of a back seat in MP generation, and they would be a guarantee against RNG.

They are the guarantee against RNG, they make up to half of possible MP gain. The court is completely impossible to influence, it provides the same amount of MP everytime. Where do You think the base +3 comes from? It's a simmplification, but I think it's good. You have a stable part (court/base) a totally random part (rulers, beside republics) and a paid, semi-random part (advisors). I thinks it's balanced pretty good, it's not too random IF You don't forget about the base +3 MP across the board.

 

[Karnak]

The +3 is required in order to not stagnate. You can not expand in any fashion with a base +3. Just technology eats up those +3. Assuming there is a new technology every 12 years, an income of just 3 would provide 12*12*3 = 432 MP of the required 600 every 12 years.
You will have to choose which way to lose the game. Falling behind in military tech is a death sentence by itself.
You might keep your nation running on fumes, maintaining miltech, stability, war exhaustion, inflation etc. But you will fall behind.

I myself run nations that always run on a deficit of money, i rarely hire even +2 advisors. When i have an army costing 8 gp/month, i cannot afford a +2 advisor that costs the same amount!
Nations that can afford to hire advisors to pad out their MP regen, clearly are not in need of help.
With the prices of advisors it is clear to me that they are not intended to act as a safety measure against a crappy monarch. Only the richest nations can afford them. They are meant to be a money sink.

It's fine to have a base of +3, it's also fine to get up to a +3 bonus from advisors on the top of the base and monarch generation generation.
It's however not fine to have the middle monarch part of MP generation which constitutes up to 6 MP/month which is half of the maximum possible income, to be as sensitive to RNG as it is!

Whenever a monarch falls below the average MP generation of 3, the game should offer some type of trade-off in order to increase MP gain.
I am okay with chance being in the game, but i am not okay with the fact that i cannot help myself in any way out of said predicament!

 

[Buladelu]

Believing in loaded dices in RNG reminds me of conspiracy theories.

Maybe it's not Paradox devs who made the game kill your heirs. Maybe it's someone else. Maybe those people are watching you right now.

 

[Sachko]

Believing in loaded dices in RNG reminds me of conspiracy theories.

Maybe it's not Paradox devs who made the game kill your heirs. Maybe it's someone else. Maybe those people are watching you right now.

Blame the jews.

 

[Ktanzei]

Karmatic retribution for the countless heirs CK2 players have murdered, banished or blinded for the Kwisatz Haderach that was just born?

 

[kralex]

Yet another random thought (that just crossed my mind so I better post about it before I get a chance to think it through):

Allow "reversed" policies that give a malus, but for +1 MP/month? You'd deliberately neglect some aspects of your nation to focus on others.

Implementing it by merely giving the negated effects of a policy is probably OP; something like Tariffs/Vassal Income would simply mean a permanent +1 MP/month for free if you don't have vassals or colonies. Balancing it would take a bit of thought, but it might be a nice way to customize a nation and reduce dependency on ruler stats.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It's a matter of taste. But I get that you think that the way you enjoy the game is the only right and correct way for me to enjoy the game.

You are making this argument + logical fallacy stack precisely because you utterly lack the ability to defend the functionality of the mechanic in a strategy game otherwise.

"It's a matter of taste to have less strategy in a strategy game". The most amusing part of this scrub argument is that it's monarchy's low-frequency RNG bullcrap with a trash mechanic risk (regency) that are forced upon the vast majority of the starts in the game, including almost every start outside of Europe (made even worse by PI removing noble rebels forcing noble republic, forcing me to play "your way" even more than previously). The pathetic thing about what I'm quoting is that even as it's falsely accusing me of claiming my way is the only correct one, it does the same thing in reverse "I like this indefensible mechanic, therefore it's a matter of taste and it's okay to be stuck with it".

Come back when you have an actual argument, I'm itching to see if anybody can come up with something reasonably valid. The suggestion to limit the spread is reasonable, as is the one where you don't get utterly points screwed forcing planning adjustment. Regency in its present form is, at least apparently, indefensible. Weighting a large part of gameplay on a tiny #RNG calls is bad design too, but not nearly as bad as restricting the player from a large portion of gameplay at random.