Preface
With the release of yesterday's developer diary, I've noticed many people discussing the term "mana" in the context of Paradox titles. Some are confused about the term, while others are debating about its definition in other threads. I wanted to create this thread to foster some focused discussion on the matter.
What is the Definition of Mana?
For those unfamiliar with the RPG genre: mana points, or MP, is a common system for restricting the amount of magical power a player can use. You regenerate it over time (up to a cap), and cast "spells" with it. It doesn't matter what spell you're casting: a fireball, a healing spell, or an attack buff all use the player's mana. When you run out of mana, you can't cast any spells until it recovers. Throughout my time lurking in Paradox game communities, I've seen different definitions of mana as it applies to grand strategy. At first it appeared like a nebulous, confusing, and snarky term. But as time went on, I began to see persistent markers of features often described as mana, and began to understand its use.
Common Examples of Mana
Before I continue, I would first like to list the most commonly agreed upon examples of mana in Paradox titles. The most obvious is EU4's monarch point system. For those unaware, the EU4 player has three pools of monarch points: Admin power, diplo power, and military power. Admin power is used for researching production technology, integrating provinces, and improving stability. Diplo power is used to research naval and trade technology, convert province cultures, and maintain diplomatic relations. Military power is used to research army technology, recruit generals, and repress rebels. You would gain power points each month, up to a maximum cap, depending on the strength of your ruler and their advisors. Wealthier nations can hire better advisors to slightly increase their power generation, but for the most part, it did not scale depending on the strength of the player's country.
Another agreed-upon example mana is found in Imperator: Rome upon release. IR had four power pools: Civic power, Military power, Religious power, and Oratory power. To keep it brief, it was similar to EU4 in many ways. You can read about it here.
HOI4 fans also cite political power and, to a lesser extent, army experience as examples of mana. I'm not too familiar with the game, but it seems to be the consensus from what I've read.
Whether other Paradox games include examples of mana is more hotly debated. For that reason, I won't discuss them here. I'm sticking to what is universally agreed upon.
The First Feature of Mana: Illogical "Spell-Casting"
Mana, mechanically speaking, is a single power pool which must be drawn from in order to use various, seemingly unrelated abilities. There is no logical reason why upgrading the fleet's sailing ability should use the same talents and resources as forcibly assimilating the Swedish, yet the player must draw from the same power pool for both these activities. There is no logical reason why integrating a recently conquered province should interfere with the country adopting the Rotherham Plough, yet they draw from the same pool. There is no logical reason why recruiting a new general should make an empire unable to suppress a rebellion, yet it does.
Power pooling is also a sore spot for some. Monarch power can be collected and spent at the player's whim. In EU4, a great king who doesn't spend any monarch points will leave heaps of monarch points to his incompetent buffoon of an heir, allowing the heir to accomplish much more than the great king ever did. While this is a necessary evil in order for monarch points to work, it detaches the mechanics from the world, weakening the simulation aspect of the game in favour of 4X (or even RPG)-style gameplay.
The Second Feature of Mana: Overabstraction and Oversimplification
Speaking from a design perspective, Mana, at its core, abstracts complex systems into a simple points-based system. Every game requires some degree of abstraction in order to be more than a spreadsheet of numbers and complex math equations. Mana systems simplify complex systems to an extreme degree. Take EU4 as an example: Technological progress is no longer achieved from carefully budgeting revenue over an extended period of time as in EU3, but instead by not conquering and waiting for enough points.
Recall the integration of provinces in Victoria 2. If Italy were to integrate a colony in Ethiopia, it would need to encourage immigration of Italians into Ethiopia, encourage them to become bureaucrats, and try to increase the number of bureaucrats such that the admin efficiency of the province increases. If integrating provinces were to be changed to an EU4-style mana-based system, it would fail to simulate all of the subtle changes on the population level required for integration to happen.
People are most up in arms about mana mechanics when an existing dynamic and complex system is replaced with an overabstracted, oversimplified mana system. Civilization is a fine series of games, but it's not what most people come to Paradox titles for. Simulating complexity and granularity is a good thing, and mana is often seen as a detriment to that.
Are Capacities Mana?
The answer is:
maybe
Remember: One of the reasons fans wanted Vicky 3 to have Victoria 2-style pops instead of Stellaris or Imperator-style pops is because of the importance of simulation to the Vicky experience. Reducing complex interlacing systems of population interaction (militancy, political awareness, and government factionalism) to simply "I have enough authority tokens" or "I have enough bureaucracy tokens" is a worrying move because it's a step in the direction of simplification. EU4's governing capacity and Stellaris' empire sprawl/admin capacity should not be the model for Victoria 3.
Is Mana Bad?
That's up for you to decide. I personally believe that mana removes the most desirable aspects from Paradox Grand Strategy titles and replaces them with overly simple, rather boring alternatives. When EU4 simplified the complex population/tax calculations from EU3, I was optimistic. But as EU4 changed over time with the addition of developing provinces and a vast array of DLC features, you can see how the monarch point system has become a crutch to the point where EU4 has become a map-painting game with little value as an actual world simulator.
Mana makes the game about point-management. You're not bribing rebels or sending in troops to crack down on secessionists- you're spending points. You're not reforming your religion, you're spending points. You're not implementing a settlement policy to assimilate the local culture, you're spending points. Complex problems are reduced to waiting for enough points to take action. I know from my experience with Imperator: Rome that the removal of mana greatly improved the quality of the game.
Victoria 2, at its core, is a simulator. The economy is a closed system where money changes hand from pop to government to pop. Prices are tied to the world market, not arbitrary values. When you buy something, the money doesn't disappear from existence, but gets circulated back into the world economy. Pops don't have an arbitrary revolt risk, but rather get more politically active and militant depending on their personal values and living situation. Victoria 2 is a masterpiece because of its complexity, not in spite of it.
Questions I Want to Leave You With
Is simulation a core aspect of the grand strategy genre? How much abstraction is too much abstraction?
Will the capacities make Vicky 3 more complex or less complex than its predecessor? Should Victoria 3 be simpler than Victoria 2? Why or why not?
Is mana fundamentally at odds with the simulation aspect of the Victoria series?
Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.
Last edited:
- 16
- 15
- 13
- 3
- 2
- 1
