Monarch Points - The Evil Root of All(?) Problems in EU4???

[War Viking]

Decouple Research from Executive Decisions (Coring, Diplomacy,Ideas)

Hi Guys,
this thread is ancient, but I recently started playing again and I really want to try to mitigate this problem in a way that makes sense/is easy and quick to do (otherwise it will never be done :/ ).

An excellent example that I saw above (of the problem/frustration we all experience) is that investment in military ideas and infrastructure actually puts you behind on the Military tech tree.

Now that just feels wrong.

We all understand that there has to be a mechanism to restrain snowballing (Not stop it mind you) and I think the Monarch Point system is really sweet concept.
Tying governments to the MP system would be kinda cool, but would actually increase the snowballing effect and won’t actually solve the before mentioned problem….

What I propose (don’t know if this has been proposed before) is that we simple Decouple the Monarch points for Research and the Monarch points for Executive decisions.
We can do this however way we want it, it just requires two different ‘mana’ pools.

My gut tells me that the Tech Monarch Points should depend much less on the King (I think for historic reasons) and should ‘mostly’ be a fixed income with modifiers based on whatever (stability, rebellions, just name name it) and then influenced a little bit by the monarch.

The other Monarch Point pool is just the good old mana pool for EVERTYHING ELSE. Core creation, diplomacy, decisions, NAME IT). That pool would depend much more on the King and his Advisors.

As far as I can tell, this wouldn’t require any major changes to the game. Just create another set of points and make sure they are varied a little bit so that tech progress isn’t uniform across all three catagories….
I posted here also with way more details (including a simple way to keep tech still interesting)….
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...oupling-Research-progress-from-(Bad)-monarchs

What do you think guys?
I would do this myself, but I have a sinking feeling I would need access to part of the source code….

 

[Atlanteax]

I hated "Monarch Power" in the beginning ... now I appreciate it and feel that it has been a boon to the EU experience.

 

[Beagá]

Once I can come up with a better, complete system, I will criticize it

I have more problem with national ideas than MP nowadays, as MP allow you to shape your nation, while national ideas are deterministic BS.

 

[brifbates]

Once I can come up with a better, complete system, I will criticize it

Somewhat this.

I've always wanted some sort of limiting function in strategy games that keeps you from doing everything you want and mp does the job reasonably well. Obviously there are things that could be improved upon (I'd like to see some things that require multiple point types and some method to transfer points around with penalties although the NF helps a lot in that regard).

 

[crusaderking]

Once I can come up with a better, complete system, I will criticize it

I have more problem with national ideas than MP nowadays, as MP allow you to shape your nation, while national ideas are deterministic BS.

Well, I'd like to think I came up with a better idea for MP.

The first post nicely summarizes with the OP's and a bunch of other people's opinions regarding MP. While there is a problem, I don't think RNG really is the crux of it. I would instead argue that there has to be more ways to both generate and spend MP, so that one can face some really difficult dilemmas. But before that, there needs to be a radical shift in the MP concept.

I have argued this before, and I'll just copy-paste what I've written there:

IMO, monarch points need to be fundamentally altered from stock to flow. I feel that would really remove the static nature of the game. Right now, you wait till you have X MP to buy a tech or an idea. What if, instead, you can choose to invest a varying amount of MP every month on increasing tech or stability, or reducing inflation. I always found it weird that the game is too one-click, ie, every change requires one-click, and the change is immediate. Imagine if we had a flow system like the way HoI4 has designed raw materials. Then, supposing we have 3 ADM ruler with no advisors, then the 6 ADM MP can be used in the following way: 2 ADM/month for tech, 1 ADM/month for idea, 1 ADM/month for stability, 1 ADM/month for reducing inflation and 1 ADM/month for coring. Now, if the player conquers a lot of provinces, then he can reduce investment in inflation and tech by one each and increase coring investment to 3 ADM/month.

I feel this system can make MIL MP much more useful compared to vanilla. Imagine if each country had to invest MIL every month to maintain their armies. 1 MIL/month to maintain morale, 1 MIL/month to maintain discipline and 1 MIL/month to maintain manpower (ie, to keep the level steady - as potential recruits age or die, new recruits have to be identified/trained/whatever). In addition to this, we can spend MIL on tech and ideas, and also to reduce the strength of rebels. Instead of a one-click harsh treatment, we can invest MIL/month to slowly reduce rebel organization.

Thoughts?

With this change from stock to flow, not only does MP expenditure become more interesting, the strategizing aspect comes not in a one-click dilemma to either buy a tech or buy an idea, but it becomes more akin to "Should I reduce investment in tech from 2 ADM a month to 1 ADM so that I can increase stability?" This dilemma would actually be more meaningful with MP could be generated in a variety of ways rather than the base 3 per month for all countries.

For example, having a more centralized realm can provide more MP per month - thereby, increasing the importance of going tall vis-a-vis going wide. Ideally, a nomadic society would have to depend almost completely on its monarch and advisors for MP, but more bureaucratized and centralized realms can reduce the importance of the monarch's skills (for example, Britain in the 18th century), even though they still remain vital.

This would, of course, require a massive overhaul of the game itself. I'm quite skeptical of any change in this direction, at least in this iteration. Still, I would like this idea to be out there - just in case.

 

[Starki113r]

What I believe makes MP fundamentally flawed is two things:

1) Technology is dependent on it. If technology were independent of MP and instead increased gradually over time, with triggered modifiers either hindering or aiding its development, one of the core issues with the game for me would be solved. I don't care about ideas, since this is you focusing your nation on a certain path, while technology on its own develops over time independently, and in some cases in spite of the actions of the sovereign(s) of any given nation.

2) Infrastructure is dependent on it. It makes no sense whatsoever that infrastructure costs MP and gold. Gold alone, yes, but not MP. If this were a tactical, strategic, and/or infrastructural decision (build military buildings only on border provinces to increase defensiveness, shift them towards administrative as the nations grows with only minor military development anywhere save defined and heavily focused military centers, develop diplomatic along the coastline, centers of trade, and the capital itself) I could understand, but as it stands, if you want to build everything and have the money to do so, there shouldn't be any reason you can't.

 

[Owl Raider]

Most people in this thread and especially the OP are viewing monarch points wrongly. Monarch points are not strictly a resource like ducats or manpower, it's a steady gained over time resource like gold in games like Man of War if you insist on making comparisons to other games from different genres. While there are very limited ways to increase monarch point generation, there are significantly more ways to decrease monarch point spending. Whether it's ideas and techs reductions, Westernizing as a non Western nation, stacking up on ideas first to maximize the tech reduction from ideas, certain nation specific NIs, Quantity ideas to reduce building MP costs, etc. In essence reducing spending is the same as increasing generation, it's just a different method to achieve the same result.

 

[ARASHI]

Wow, just wow, this post I made ages ago is still being read in 2015. I don't know what to say about it.

Most people in this thread and especially the OP are viewing monarch points wrongly. Monarch points are not strictly a resource like ducats or manpower, it's a steady gained over time resource

I found it ironic and amusing at the same time that you claim MP is a steady gained over time resource while in reality there is no resource that is as fluctuate as MP in most games that have ever existed. "Steady" is the most far-fetched word I could think of to be associated with monarch points. Please study the logic of your own argument before making bold claims that you have the right view.

Anyway, like others have said this post is ancient and the circumstances is very different between now and then. I don't think this is the right place to continue discussion with comments based on old patches. If any of you still want to start a constructive discussion on this topic feel free to start a new thread.

 

[VolitionNewlove]

I remember this thread, I used to tell it for my grandchildren's bedtime story.

(But seriously, there's something weirdly nostalgic about seeing this thread again.)

 

[EnricoMettifogo]

it was relevant then, and it's even more relevant now
open your eyes, Paradox!

 

[TheAtreides84]

I agree, and I'm willing to bet one DLC or the other will introduce more ways to influence monarch point generation (like, some governments are all focused on the king, while others on court and advisors, and so on)

 

[Malkiot]

Here's a suggestion I posted in another thread:

Rather than being points that are spent as a currency they should be modifiers as the name "monarch power" suggests. If the goal is to represent the power/skill of an administration in a particular aspect then it'd make more sense to replace power costs with gold costs modified by the amount of power available. Taxes would have to be increased (probably) to balance the extra gold being spent. The "power level" of an administration should behave as prestige and legitimacy do; increase by a flat value and suffer from decay while also being modified by decisions the player makes (expanding etc.)

Ideas, Cores, and Tech would grow as money is invested in them (sliders, per month) and the effectiveness of x gold invested would be modified by amount of power / total possible power.

Maybe keep the ability to directly spend power points to boost certain processes, at the expense of effectively sacrificing other things. This would represent a monarch taking a personal hand in matters against internal resistance etc.

 

[mocoman2001]

Arise chicken Arise, Arise chicken Arise. What was once dead is now alive!

 

[paradox97]

Well, we're back here again. Hello everyone.

 

[ahyangyi]

Here's a suggestion I posted in another thread:

Rather than being points that are spent as a currency they should be modifiers as the name "monarch power" suggests. If the goal is to represent the power/skill of an administration in a particular aspect then it'd make more sense to replace power costs with gold costs modified by the amount of power available. Taxes would have to be increased (probably) to balance the extra gold being spent. The "power level" of an administration should behave as prestige and legitimacy do; increase by a flat value and suffer from decay while also being modified by decisions the player makes (expanding etc.)

Ideas, Cores, and Tech would grow as money is invested in them (sliders, per month) and the effectiveness of x gold invested would be modified by amount of power / total possible power.

Maybe keep the ability to directly spend power points to boost certain processes, at the expense of effectively sacrificing other things. This would represent a monarch taking a personal hand in matters against internal resistance etc.

No, MP is implemented to avoid exponential snowballing and ensure most small starts are playable. (instead of being immediately out-teched etc) This is its function in game mechanisms. Tying it to the ruler is just for flavor.

Thus, flavor-wise MP is not perfect and could use improvements. However, there is still the game mechanism problem to be solved: how to make sure snowballing is hard?

 

[spinoza013]

 

[Jomini]

No, MP is implemented to avoid exponential snowballing and ensure most small starts are playable. (instead of being immediately out-teched etc) This is its function in game mechanisms. Tying it to the ruler is just for flavor.

Thus, flavor-wise MP is not perfect and could use improvements. However, there is still the game mechanism problem to be solved: how to make sure snowballing is hard?

First MP were not introduced to protect against runaway tech growth. Way back when the older versions of EU had tech costs go up with province count (e.g. doubling the number of provinces -> doubling the tech rate). It was a completely possible strategy to out-tech everyone as a OPM (particularly if your one province was an old style COT) as they also gave a flat bonus for your monarch (e.g. as a OPM a monarch might contribute 40% of your tech rate, as a 100PM that same monarch would be maybe 1% of your tech rate). It would be trivial to do this in EUIV.

The issue is that points are supposed to be an anti-snowball. In theory as you go wide, the tall states (with more buildings, ideas, tech, stab, etc.) are supposed to be able to stand up and still be challenging. Likewise, if you need to spend points to expand, then you have to wait to accumulate points so you don't blitz past the AIs.

This fails for a number of reasons:
1. Strategic depth. Throughout EUIV the AI has had a hard time dealing with the idea that not everything needs to be defended initially, not everything that is sieged has to stay sieged, and how to make use of interior lines. In most every incarnation of EUIV, the bigger you are, the more options you have to delay wars and to flip something back later. If I siege down 5 provinces on some minor/middler, I essentially win the war 90% of the time. If they siege down 5 provinces of mine (possibly even 5 forts), I generally don't care.
2. Advisers & Power projection. Early game, you might not be able to afford advisers as a OPM and power projection is HARD. Late game, blobs can max out both (up until you run out of useful rivals due to size).
3. Attrition. Partly related to #1, but the bigger you are the more cost effectively you can burn the AI with attrition. You have pretty much won any war the moment you can field an army and the opponent can't. In previous patches that was catching a stack after a shattered retreat and wiping it -> carpet siege; now it is bait the AI into a poor supply province and burn off its manpower.
4. Rebels. Rebels are infinite, free manpower. You can utterly trash AIs with very little difficulty if you can prolong wars until rebels spawn. Currently, with forts you can get some massive stacks that the AI cannot dislodge and can break down anyone actually a danger to you.
5. Growth. With timer based anti-blob mechanisms (AE, MP, to a lesser extent OExt), you can conquer X provinced per year in relative safety (e.g. picking off land from the Balkans/Baltics/Scandinavia/Hordes in the East or Iberia/Low Countries/Italy/Africa/America in the west. The AI grows at Y province per year, maybe. When you make conquest more expensive, the AI is far less adapt at maximizing growth rate so X/Y increases. This means that just a slow plodding increase in territory after a few centuries will put you of the reach of France or Poland or whoever your big boss is. Small AIs lack strategic depth, they are much easier to herd (Threatened? Here sign this alliance to secure my flank). Sure it takes longer in terms of game-years to reach blob status, but it is easier to get there.

Right now blobbing is a simple linear optimization problem. And the AI is never going to be able to compete with the human without being programmed to be explicitly anti-human from day 0. Trying to use MP as a timer doesn't work. You just slowly outgrow everyone anyways. Even if you do manage to somehow get behind the AI. Coalition wars still are low risk/low reward affairs. You can buy 15 years of recovery time for relatively cheap costs (oh did I just release a vassal I can diplomatically get back in a few years, well now that is tough).

If you want to take down blobs you can't rely on a rate mechanism that is harshest to the middle sized powers.

 

[Had a dad]

Necro'd thread