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

[1alexey]

Agreed, though I would appreciate some variation in how monarch points are generated depending on government type. Basically, if the king has less power (like in a constitutional monarchy), then their stats should matter less and the quality of either a parliament (more points from advisers?) or a prime minister should matter a bit more. Some way to slightly increase my monarchs stats (no more than one in each category, if even that) would also be nice. If a king is waging wars across the continent, then he would probably learn something about the military even if he wasn't terribly good at waging war before. Being stuck with a terrible monarch for 50 years sucks quite a bit, and having some way to partially mitigate the effects of bad monarchs would really make said periods feel less like you're waiting for the monarch to die while still making you adapt to having less monarch points.

Parliament or some sort of cabinet would require a huge addition to mechanics. It would be great, but unless that happens it is perfectly fine to see monarch skill as an approximation of monarch`s ability to navigate and control and twist arms of other powerful people to get things the way you want.

The problem isn't the MP system itself, it's the lack of control over rulers. We've all had the feeling when we get a 1/2/0 ruler, with no way to get rid of him, or choose another one. We've all felt the sting of the RNG when our 6/4/5 monarch dies 'a little too early', at the age of 16. The problem with MP is that such a huge portion of the game's mechanics, right up to 1821, rely on a single person's personal, supposedly immutable ability, in a game which is supposed to model nations, rather than individuals. It's like CK2, except where the punishment you get from having a bad ruler is increased by orders of magnitude - instead of having reduced income, or reduced morale in your troops, your nation's technological progress is crippled for decades because your ruler, apparently, has been terrible at administration from birth, and not even 16 years of the finest education money can buy can change that fact. At all.

The entire problem would be solved by the implementation of an education system or something, or another source of points.

Monarchs had huge impact though. Their impact always was more in defining which factions are in power, and what it does, does it advances national interests, or fills it`s pockets, and what kind of minimal competence does a person needs to have to be powerful. That didn`t change all that much. The royal court was always powerful and had huge impact on monarch. The way powerful people interact with monarch/president/PM has changed, but the principle did not.

First and foremost, I'd love to see the tech system separated off entirely. For me, it absolutely should not correlate to to your monarch in any way and should use a separate resource of some kind. It creates a strange scenario where a nation that prioritises military ideas will find himself behind in military technology.

It actually comes only when people define everything that has impact as "technology", and tie "technological level" to the performance.
If you define technology differently, as EU4 does, suddenly it all makes sence.

 

[ifnt]

two words:

opportunity costs.

 

[Mauer]

I like the MP system, and the recent patch rebalances them nicely, now you can focus on one type of advances and it pays off in the long run.

 

[Colossal_Elk]

Education. Now there's an idea. Also something to do with your money.

Spend money to improve education throughout your realm. Lowers tech cost across all groups (but you can invest accordingly on a sliding scale to specialize). Also increases likelihood that the heir will get boosts to MP stats.

 

[grisamentum]

Disagree. I love the MP concept. In contrast to a fair amount of people, I rather enjoy having to roll with the punches, so to speak on what I am able to do based on what skill monarch I get. Yes, it is out of my control, but it adds a level of dynamicism to the game that I enjoy. Chance favors the prepared mind.

That being said, there are a few tweaks that could be done to improve things. However, there seem to be too many control freaks on this board that think they should be able to assert 100% control over every facet of their country. I find no joy in that. Most everything in life, game, sports, love, work, etc. has elements of chance that provide major factors to the outcomes of of these events. Success is usually not based on how well we centralize everything into our control, but how effectively we exploit that which isn't.

It's not the problem of MP itself. He wasn't saying that. He was saying the problem is that MP is determined by a random monarch for so long. Base 3, maybe 1-3 from advisor, then random 0-6.

 

[sylivin]

So I started a game as the Ottomons on Ironman and my first heir - 0/0/0.

I didn't even know that was possible. I ended up simply restarting the game as I was only a decade into it. Seriously though, a 0/0/0? What kind of crap is that? For Monarch points in general I just wish there was a better use for them. ADM is FAR far too important. Diplo is important for wars, but MIL is pretty much useless other than some situational - rarely used things. Having multiple uses for them or better interaction would be nice when you get that 0/0/5 military ruler that is great in war - but you can't core anything.

 

[stripesthezebra]

I agree with OP, but a total overhaul of MP isn't necessary.

With everyone arguing for or against the new changes to AE, and Paradox left caught in the middle, I think it would have been a massive improvement to simply slash the ADM coring cost. That was slowing down World conquest FAR more than AE. By slashing ADM, rather than the changes they implemented, this allows both anti and pro-AE people to play the way they want, while still giving a challenge (which I don't think anyone actually had or has a problem with).

 

[ARASHI]

I like the MP concept.

Looking at the examples the OP provided, it shows his preference for the type of games he likes. Other games rely extensively on random allocation of resources, and build up game play around having to deal with resources shortage.
To take his own example of Civilization, the place where civilization is placed, is random. The potential for having food, production, money or science/faith/culture of every starting location is very different, and the amount of strategic resources is also different. Yes player has some impact, but the map is randomly generated and player can only pick the site of the city, and huge part of CIV game play is centered around not having all the resources, and having to get around not having some. Also the way your CIV plays is hugely dependent on the resources you have around, your teching strategy can often depend on having certain terrain feature(river, desert tiles, luxuries, ex).

The need for not having randomly allocated resources comes mostly in very competitive games, such as SC2. But even then, there is for example DOTA2 where there are random runes, which can make huge difference.

In EU4, random monarch stats make countries develop in certain fashion. I don`t usually have a shortage of Admin. In fact, outside of playing as colonizer I`m always short on military points, as i need those military ideas, and I build a lot of manpower buildings.

There is certain problem of how Ideas are made, but EU4 is actually fine, and properly done vassal feeding is far better game play mechanics then just plain conquering. MP also fixed the "rich getting richer" problem nicely.

Thank you Alex. Your description of how Civ works is indeed quite precise. However I would like to also point out that while the location of resources in Civ are randomized, players are given the strategic choice of what units/buildings etc they can utilize based on the type of resources they possess. There are also resource trading available and a huge emphasis on resource competition as you wage wars on other nations for key map locations and resources. With EUIV, resources are overly simplified to the arbitrary MP which does not have a real meaning in the sense that rulers IRL do not wait around doing nothing b/c they don't have monarch points to act. While your reference to Civ has a logical and easy to understand principle that "hey, my country lacks iron, therefore i cannot build advance units to wage war on this douchebag nextdoor".

Now I don't mind PDS going the route of MP for a change, we don't need every single strategy game out there to be based on iron/crops/stone etc etc. However as it stands the randomized MP here is not complimented with strategic trade-offs. The fact remains that players cannot gain more MP in any meaningful way like Civ via mechanics such as resource trading and competition (war). Players with playstyles that consumes a lot of ADM are forever stuck starving unless they vassal feed.

 

[OhioAstro]

MPs also have the annoying feature that they are independent of empire size, while the obligations are not.

It is a completely arbitrary design choice. A more natural system would have larger empires able to do more but also needing to do more. This forces players into techniques to get around resource limits.

 

[brifbates]

The biggest issue, IMO, with the mp system as it currently stands is that too high of a percentage go into two things: tech & ideas. The relatively huge investments needed in these areas completely dominate the landscape by making nearly all other uses sub-optimal for any nation not pushing maximum ahead of time penalties. You just took London: pay 1/2 tech level on coring it or release as vassal and annex in 10 years? Duh... The game is littered with this type of choice, even more so in non-western nations where any point not spent for tech is felt because you'll never get to the point where you are ahead of time.

 

[stripesthezebra]

Just be glad you didn't start with Castile, sylivin

 

[grisamentum]

I like the MP system, and the recent patch rebalances them nicely, now you can focus on one type of advances and it pays off in the long run.

You can't focus. The game tells you if you can focus. If you get a 6 in a stat you can get a lot of ideas and buildings and if you get a lower number you can get less. That's it.

 

[Barkingdragon13]

I've never really liked how they implemented the MP system, I always thought it would be better to generate the MP automatically, with the only effect of rulers being that if they have a high military score, you get a discount on military point sinks, if a high admin, discount and admin sinks etc., or even removing the three types of monarch points and just implementing a unified point system with the aforementioned discounts on different types of decisions based on monarch skills.

 

[newtlord]

Monarchs had huge impact though. Their impact always was more in defining which factions are in power, and what it does, does it advances national interests, or fills it`s pockets, and what kind of minimal competence does a person needs to have to be powerful. That didn`t change all that much. The royal court was always powerful and had huge impact on monarch. The way powerful people interact with monarch/president/PM has changed, but the principle did not.

They had an impact, sure, I don't think one can reasonably defend the thesis that (as the game seems to claim) the skill of the monarch was historically the single most important factor in how a nation was able to act. Consider that Britain fought the Napoleonic Wars under a monarch who was frequently confined as a madman, and a regent who no one has ever accused of brilliance, but did not find itself at all hindered from carrying out brilliant military and diplomatic policy. You needn't try to tell me that the monarch's rating also represents factions at court and so on- that won't fly, since one of the most common complaints here is that stats are set in stone for the entire reign, with no way to influence them.

If you define technology differently, as EU4 does, suddenly it all makes sence.

If so, I would appreciate your enlightening me as to this correct definition.

----

One of the biggest problems I see is the odd way that the choices interact. A nation that focuses on ideas for its army will be held back in land technology, a nation that focuses on naval ideas will be slower to bring out new types of ship, but you can pour as much focus as you are able into your navy without being even slightly held back in developing your land forces. This strikes me as very strange, and undesirable.

Rather than buying technology straight up, I would like to see it return to a "progress bar" to the next level like it was in EU3. However, instead of a portion of one's income per month filling the bar, I would instead have the progress increase by an amount proportional to the monarch point gain per month in the relevant stat. Thus, technology would increase over time naturally, at a rate proportional to the nations ability in that catagory, but progress in technoloy would not "compete" with non-technology advancement in related areas. With nations no longer spending MP on technology, we would need to either decrease MP gain or increase the cost of other things to prevent a surplus, but I think this proposal would lead to a more natural game.

 

[1alexey]

Thank you Alex. Your description of the Civ works is indeed quite precise. However I would like to also point out that while the location of resources in Civ are randomized, players are given the strategic choice of what units/buildings etc they can utilize based on the type of resources they possess.

You do have unit and building selection in EU4.

There are also resource trading available and a huge emphasis on resource competition as you wage wars on other nations for key map locations and resources. With EUIV, resources are overly simplified to the arbitrary MP which does not have a real meaning in the sense that rulers IRL do not wait around doing nothing b/c they don't have monarch points to act. While your reference to Civ has a logical and easy to understand principle that "hey, my country lacks iron, therefore i cannot build advance units to wage war on this douchebag nextdoor".

But all complex games rely on arbitrary simplification.
But for CIV it is easy: I don`t have luxuries, so i can`t expand due to unhappiness. I don`t have uranium, no nukes, i don`t have oil=i`m screwed, and such. There is hardly a single strategic location in CIV, as almost everything exists in multiple instances. There is also a lot of choices involved, such as not having synthetic Oil, demanding coal to be able to build factories, while IRL, you can substitute it with almost any kind of power, wind power, water power, oil, nuclear, even just burning trees instead of coal. That is arbitrary and unrealistic, but is the consious desighn choice of CIV devs, to raise importance of strategic resources.

Now I don't mind PDS going the route of MP for a change, we don't need every single strategy game out there to be based on iron/crops/stone etc etc. However as it stands the randomized MP here is not complimented with strategic trade-offs. The fact remains that players cannot gain more MP in any meaningful way like Civ via mechanics such as resource trading and competition (war). Players with playstyles that consumes a lot of ADM are forever stuck starving unless they vassal feed.

As i said, it is a game design choice. There are plenty of successful games build around that, for example most games of cards give you a random deck and you have to build your strategy around the deck. Such games do not tolerate set in stone play styles. Your play style needs to be flexible. Also, EU4 is the game where there is no clear victory objective. You can not gain more MP, and you need to play accordingly. Most of the time you can do something.

Also, as i said, the wars of expansion where you take provinces for yourself are bland, repetitive and uninteresting. Vassal feeding introduces a certain new level of strategy, that is more interesting than just painting the map, and i would largely prefer that part expanded.

All I can say at this point, that maybe it is not a game made with you in mind, but people that like games where you have to allocate randomly generated resources. They like it, while you don`t. It is perfectly normal for this to happen, and all i can offer you is to accept it and enjoy the game as is, or to find some other game you would like.

 

[TolHydra]

I very much agree... i miss the tech tied to economy so much at times.
however if they overhaul how advisors work NO BLOODY DICE ROLLS thank you very much, i'd have much more fun.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Some amount of investment tradeoff for the game's most crucial tech-advancing element would be useful, yes. That, or less variance such that catch-up modifiers always keep you somewhat close.

 

[ARASHI]

You do have unit and building selection in EU4.

I hope you do realise that. Unit and building selection in EUIV offers very little strategic depth to the game at all. In contrast with Civ.

But all complex games rely on arbitrary simplification.
But for CIV it is easy: I don`t have luxuries, so i can`t expand due to unhappiness. I don`t have uranium, no nukes, i don`t have oil=i`m screwed, and such. There is hardly a single strategic location in CIV, as almost everything exists in multiple instances. There is also a lot of choices involved, such as not having synthetic Oil, demanding coal to be able to build factories, while IRL, you can substitute it with almost any kind of power, wind power, water power, oil, nuclear, even just burning trees instead of coal. That is arbitrary and unrealistic, but is the consious desighn choice of CIV devs, to raise importance of strategic resources.

You are 100% correct that Civ offers choices to the player and from choices players need to execute strategic decisions and trade-offs. The MP system as implemented by PDS, as you can clearly see, does not offer choices, and neither strategic decisions nor trade-off related to the MP system. If I am not misunderstanding you, it seems that you are suggesting if the RNG decided that you get a 0/0/5 ruler for 50 years, then you better be doing something military related, except that the system has nearly nothing to offer when it comes to MIL points.

As i said, it is a game design choice. There are plenty of successful games build around that, for example most games of cards give you a random deck and you have to build your strategy around the deck. Such games do not tolerate set in stone play styles. Your play style needs to be flexible. Also, EU4 is the game where there is no clear victory objective. You can not gain more MP, and you need to play accordingly. Most of the time you can do something.

Also, as i said, the wars of expansion where you take provinces for yourself are bland, repetitive and uninteresting. Vassal feeding introduces a certain new level of strategy, that is more interesting than just painting the map, and i would largely prefer that part expanded.

All I can say at this point, that maybe it is not a game made with you in mind, but people that like games where you have to allocate randomly generated resources. They like it, while you don`t. It is perfectly normal for this to happen, and all i can offer you is to accept it and enjoy the game as is, or to find some other game you would like.

As I have pointed out before, the implementation of the MP system as it stands takes away the strategic component from a strategy game. I struggle to understand how you manage to gain satisfaction from a game mechanic that takes away strategic gameplay from a strategy game but this is your opinion and I fully respect you opinion on that matter.

 

[1alexey]

They had an impact, sure, I don't think one can reasonably defend the thesis that (as the game seems to claim) the skill of the monarch was historically the single most important factor in how a nation was able to act. Consider that Britain fought the Napoleonic Wars under a monarch who was frequently confined as a madman, and a regent who no one has ever accused of brilliance, but did not find itself at all hindered from carrying out brilliant military and diplomatic policy. You needn't try to tell me that the monarch's rating also represents factions at court and so on- that won't fly, since one of the most common complaints here is that stats are set in stone for the entire reign, with no way to influence them.

Is it single most important in EU4? If you have no money, you can`t have an army, and your tech is meaningless anyway. Your nation will get all the techs anyway. Monarch skill mostly determines the amount of other things you will get.

Obviously the tech system could be expanded, but as CK2 shows, people prefer to have choice in tech development, and CK2s perfectly realistic tech system was leter scrapped and replaced, despite it`s realism, because it is a game.

If so, I would appreciate your enlightening me as to this correct definition.

In game technology represents hardware. The Ideas largely build up home front institutions. They do compete for resources.
You overall strengt depends on both, and having higher tech doesns`t necessarily outweighs the advantage in ideas.

One of the biggest problems I see is the odd way that the choices interact. A nation that focuses on ideas for its army will be held back in land technology, a nation that focuses on naval ideas will be slower to bring out new types of ship, but you can pour as much focus as you are able into your navy without being even slightly held back in developing your land forces. This strikes me as very strange, and undesirable.

Why?
Army and navy do not compete for the same resources, and often benefit from each other. You need artillery factories for ships, but if you have them, they can also build you cannons for land forces, factories of gunpowder are serving both perfectly.

In the time, navy didn`t require that much manpower, as much as it required merchant marine from which experienced sailors could be drafted. Army required a large class of people from whom the cannon fodder could be recruited.
If anything, advancing navy should allow your army to advance faster, and vice versa.

Rather than buying technology straight up, I would like to see it return to a "progress bar" to the next level like it was in EU3. However, instead of a portion of one's income per month filling the bar, I would instead have the progress increase by an amount proportional to the monarch point gain per month in the relevant stat. Thus, technology would increase over time naturally, at a rate proportional to the nations ability in that catagory, but progress in technoloy would not "compete" with non-technology advancement in related areas. With nations no longer spending MP on technology, we would need to either decrease MP gain or increase the cost of other things to prevent a surplus, but I think this proposal would lead to a more natural game.

And what about peace treaties, also have a progress bar to wait for 200-300 diplo points to accumulate?

 

[Liquid Sky]

Hmm..I'm thinking what they really need to add is someway for Monarchs to improve their stats.

Perhaps after winning a war, a random chance of gaining a MIL point.

Or after gaining an alliance, of increasing your DIP

Or by having no loans, and a decent economy/cash gain an ADM point over time.

Maybe even have ways of losing the points if you do badly or ignore certain parts of the game. Like no alliances/royal marriages or other diplomatic actions...then a chance it drops a point.