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

[oblio-]

I notice several people complaining that this would make the game easier or that you would be basically playing a republic of sorts.
I don't think anyone wants to make the game easier or turn every nation into a republic - they just want to be able to control their destiny more.

MP overall are a good concept, but there are at least 2 things which should be changed IMO:

1. I'm so rich I can afford anything. Actually I cannot because buildings cost quite a bit of MP.
If you somehow get the money to build everything - you should be able to do it. If it's too easy to make money in this game (I don't think it is unless you start off with a very strong nation; 80% of the nations will be struggling with cash considering adviser and army expenses) then that should be nerfed.
Right now if I do get that much money I can get more +3 advisers (and I might already have them), ships (for more money from trade = not interesting), troops (for wars = not interesting, we've already decided we want peace time options) or colonize more (interesting, probably the only real option most of the time).

2. I need a specific adviser for a specific mission. Tough luck, it might take 100 years to get him.
At least make all the adviser types available. Provide all the adviser types, but spread them throughout the +1/+2/+3 categories. So I have a +3 ADM+10 Production Increase one but I need an Inquisitor. Ok, I'll bite the bullet and get that +1 Adm Inquisitor for 10 years, just so I can convert a province. Notice the tradeoff - I get a lot less MP just so I can do something I really want -> strategic choice = good.

 

[WeissRaben]

1. I'm so rich I can afford anything. Actually I cannot because buildings cost quite a bit of MP.
If you somehow get the money to build everything - you should be able to do it. If it's too easy to make money in this game (I don't think it is unless you start off with a very strong nation; 80% of the nations will be struggling with cash considering adviser and army expenses) then that should be nerfed.
Right now if I do get that much money I can get more +3 advisers (and I might already have them), ships (for more money from trade = not interesting), troops (for wars = not interesting, we've already decided we want peace time options) or colonize more (interesting, probably the only real option most of the time).

I am actually ok with building being restrained by the current administration - it makes some sense. You might have a load of money, but if the bureaucracy isn't there you can't really do much.

The problem is, if I have a boatload of money, why can't I get a better administration? You might do so that, if you don't have all the needed points, the cost for the building rises, up to twice? thrice? at 0 MPs spent.

 

[Taciturn Scot]

I don't understand the fuss about EU4's MP system. It's been a feature of EU games since EU2 at least. A Monarch had three ratings which contributed to tech every month. Some rulers were Gods on Earth while others were absolutely terrible. In EU2, they were less random because you could have the historical leaders whereas in EU3, leaders became random. Further, in EU3, we could hire advisors to help boost our monarch's stats as well. Nothing new here.

The only big change between EU3 and 4 that I can see is that the player can no longer choose to invest a portion of his annual income in each type of tech. Now I can understand why some feel that this reduces their strategic choices and I'm not arguing with it. But instead of calling the MP system a broken system, (IMO it's not. It's WAD but some just don't like it) I think we should petition Paradox to produce an expansion which includes features which allow us to have more influence over the process . The MP system is a core game concept and I think the chances of Paradox throwing it in the bin at this stage are rather remote.

What I'd like to see are a number of special buildings that the player can build which, once built would generate a particular type of MP. Perhaps make the number of MPs dependent on the amount of money invested in them each month. Or perhaps have unique buildings which allow an extra Advisor slot. This seems to me to be a more productive approach to getting changes.

 

[komspace2_]

I don't understand the fuss about EU4's MP system. It's been a feature of EU games since EU2 at least. A Monarch had three ratings which contributed to tech every month. Some rulers were Gods on Earth while others were absolutely terrible. In EU2, they were less random because you could have the historical leaders whereas in EU3, leaders became random. Further, in EU3, we could hire advisors to help boost our monarch's stats as well. Nothing new here.

The only big change between EU3 and 4 that I can see is that the player can no longer choose to invest a portion of his annual income in each type of tech. Now I can understand why some feel that this reduces their strategic choices and I'm not arguing with it. But instead of calling the MP system a broken system, (IMO it's not. It's WAD but some just don't like it) I think we should petition Paradox to produce an expansion which includes features which allow us to have more influence over the process . The MP system is a core game concept and I think the chances of Paradox throwing it in the bin at this stage are rather remote.

What I'd like to see are a number of special buildings that the player can build which, once built would generate a particular type of MP. Perhaps make the number of MPs dependent on the amount of money invested in them each month. Or perhaps have unique buildings which allow an extra Advisor slot. This seems to me to be a more productive approach to getting changes.

Not true. The great difference between EU3 and 4 is that in EU3 the monarch stats INFLUENCED what you could do (except for a few important decisions, most notably Westernization), whereas in EU4 they DECIDE what you can do and that's the fundamental flaw IMO.

 

[darthfanta]

Lazy rulers? The emperor, while theoretically all-powerful in , had little to do with the running of the empire. It's quite the opposite - Emperors from the very first (Hongwu) had been trying to dismantle the beauracracy in attempt to keep full power over affairs of government (and thus prevent them from undermining his authority and influence,) not that the Emperors had somehow become complacent to the bureacrats.

Even with these efforts by the emperor, Ming retained an intricate beauracracy, something unmatched for most of EUIV's timeperiod. Ming's faction system is intended to portray the power struggles happening in the Administration.

Ming encompassed a huge area, and had a huge population. It's unreasonable to think an Emperor could have managed these affairs decisively, and it was the dimantling of these institutions that was a major factor in Ming's decline and collapse, rather than the Emperors simply being "lazy."

The fact of the matter is, that Ming had always struggling from money problems, ever since Hongwu's disbelief in the concept of inflation. To claim that it was any one reason is silly, but I want to know where you got the idea that the Emperors were somehow supposed to be complacent to the Beauracracy.

A lazy, shit emperor can and did screw up the Ming Empire. Look at Emperor Wanli for more information.

 

[Ibrins]

This was not a period where kings were randomly chosen with no background behind them. Even if you did get an inbred, mad idiot you had civil services that handily stepped in for the mad kings. Long ago when EUIV was first announced and they revealed MP, I thought it was great, but said I couldn't believe that Pdox would let players get tanked or have too easy of games with outlier monarch stats; they'd have some dynamic historical events so you could kill off the mad king (or retire her to a convent), wunderkinds would a bunch of negative events as historically the strongest rulers pissed off the most entrenched power brokers. But alas, Pdox really did think that random wouldn't have problems and it has not stopped causing problems ever sense.

While getting stat boost events for poor monarchs and penalty events for the god-tier ones sounds like it could add quite a bit of flavour - and I'm all for flavour! - I don't think it would actually *change* anything about how/many points are generated. Mainly because over numerous monarch stat rolls, it already evens out to 3/3/3. Events would add a bit of consistency to that, but then it would kind of make the whole system pointless, as everyone would be playing with a mediocre ruler all the time.
What COULD help a tad control-wise, I think, would be a yearly - or bi-yearly - stat rearrangement system. Basically, a system, where you could shuffle around your monarch's stats, say, 1 or 2 points at a time, according to what you need most at the moment(though that would be delving into republic territory) justifying it, like, "In times of need, our King has abandoned his usual interests (of taxing dudes into space/wooing ladies at the court/practicing his swordplay with condemned prisoners) in favour of what the country needs. The following change in monthly point generation has occured: ........."

 

[Ethanol]

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.

This^^ (funny to see that it isn't considered valuable feedback by the OP).

But more options/choices could be good, for example take the idea of managing the education of your heir, well it shouldn't be a choice between +1 mil/dip/adm, but contain risks à la CK2 (Educate your heir could have 3 choices : 1) educate him yourself : 20% chance + 1 admin, 2) Hire a private tutor : -100 ducats, 30% chance of +1 admin and 3) Send him to university : 50% chance of +1 admin, 50% chance of -1 admin (because of debauchery).

Anyway whatever the mechanic the risks should always be greater or equal to the possible gain, we don't want no brainers (because they make games boring, I think we'll agree on this one).

 

[VolitionNewlove]

A lazy, shit emperor can and did screw up the Ming Empire. Look at Emperor Wanli for more information.

To blame Wanli for Ming's decline is just a populist version of history, and ignores major economic factors, as well as reversal of administrative improvements by Wanli himself, and several of his predecessors.

The Three Departments and Six Ministries was put in place under the Han (while several other institutions had been put in place by Han and Qin,) in order to handle management of the nation, due to the impossibility of having a single person manage a huge nation with the largest population in the world.

In-game, however, your Feudal Monarchy of England will have the same amount of administration (none at all) as the Consitutional Monarchy of Great Britain. Somehow the time under King George III and King George the IV are in-game to be periods of stagnation, despite the victory of Great Britain in the Napoleonic wars, as well as the Industrial Revolution taking off in Britain, signalling it's rise to (after the game's period) become the most powerful nation on the planet.

 

[dr_AllCOM3]

I'm a game designer and I like the idea behind the monarch points. They force you to make decisions. A game without decisions is boring.
The problem is, that they're not well balanced. DIP feels okay, because the tech is not important. MIL doesn't really have any big sinks besides the very good ideas. ADM is so critical for stability and coring that you can't really take more than one ADM idea, especially early on.

 

[darthfanta]

To blame Wanli for Ming's decline is just a populist version of history, and ignores major economic factors, as well as reversal of administrative improvements by Wanli himself, and several of his predecessors.

I never said economic factors such as the Little Ice Age wasn't part of the reason why the Ming Empire fell. I am saying that the competence of the Emperor also played a large role in how well the empire functions. Even you yourself acknowledged that an incompetent emperor like Wanli could have weakened the bureaucrats' ability to administrate competently on his behalf.

1. I'm so rich I can afford anything. Actually I cannot because buildings cost quite a bit of MP.
If you somehow get the money to build everything - you should be able to do it. If it's too easy to make money in this game (I don't think it is unless you start off with a very strong nation; 80% of the nations will be struggling with cash considering adviser and army expenses) then that should be nerfed.
Right now if I do get that much money I can get more +3 advisers (and I might already have them), ships (for more money from trade = not interesting), troops (for wars = not interesting, we've already decided we want peace time options) or colonize more (interesting, probably the only real option most of the time).

I'd imagine that monarch points actually represents political capital or the number of personnel you have at your disposal to operate something. If you are going to build or expand the bureaucracy in a region, you would have to send some officials who could have helped better manage the local government(increase stability). Money alone means nothing if there isn't anyone to help you build or maintain the facilities.

 

[ARASHI]

This^^ (funny to see that it isn't considered valuable feedback by the OP).

I have personally replied to his comment and expressed what I agreed and disagreed with him if you did read through the whole thread which I would understand might not be what most people would do. Please do bear with me if I didn't manage to include every single feedback which anyone considered valuable. Those that I included are simply comments that I would like to highlight. It is more than possible I have missed a few other under the thick pile of scrolls.

 

[marmot01]

I very much agree with OP. I would also add that the Monarch points were the first big step away from EUIV's image of a historical game, and with the randomly generated monarchs (marketed as dynasties), and the later addition of randomly generated maps the vanilla game has completely migrated to the fantasy genre. To quote from my own thread on the same subject:

- My first argument against the current Monarch points mechanic I stated back when this mechanic was announced, in a comment in the EU facebook page. In a dev diary it is claimed that Monarch points represent the great amount of influence the monarch's personality had on a state's strength in that period of history.


In fact there is little truth in this statement. It is rather true only for the latter centuries of the game, and only for some states, while in others the trend was the opposite. Some were more centralized and absolutist, some less so, and this varied with the times. Also, let's not forget that not all states were monarchies.

The resolution of this part of the mess I could offer - attach monarch points bonuses to government types. This would reflect how institutions were what really determined a state apparatus' effectiveness, not the "personality" of someone who usually believed he was endowed by God with the right to do as he pleases with all others. The currently offered mechanic implies pseudohistorical (in the bad sense) conclusions and suggests pseudohistorical modes of action to the player.​

- Second Argument. If monarchs are so important, why on earth should they be randomly generated without the player having the option to switch to historical monarchs who ascend and leave the throne at preset dates? This mechanic completely contradicts the stated importance of monarchs. The usual argument I meet is that it's more random and more fun this way, usually accompanied (explicitly or implicitly) by the classification that I'm one of those square history buffs who should shut up because they "don't understand the game". First, it's not me, but Johan, as you can see up there, who is making the case for Monarch points with a "key to the period" argument. Not the argument I would have used in that case, as I already said. Second, as much as some people would prefer to skip the history, EU is a game about history. The map is of our world, not of Middle Earth, the states are the real states, the province names are mostly correct, they are not the Game of Thrones polities. So as long as this is apparently not a fantasy game, I will expect it to be historically accurate. For me at least, and I am sure for many more as well, a great part of the enjoyment of that game comes from the aspects in which it is historically accurate. Because when we are state A and kick our neighbor's ass, it brings us a different kind of satisfaction than kicking Sauron's or some other fantasy entity's ass. If I wanted to be a fantasy monarch who wages war on other fantasy states with fantasy borders, I would be playing the GoT mod for CKII for example

- Third argument. Monarch points are overly abstracted as a resource in the game. In the EU series' progression we've seen some mechanics become less abstracted (trade, diplomacy) and some become more abstracted (monarch abilities, the wrapping together of spies and diplomats). I claim that monarch points are currently so abstracted that they lead to absurd situations, not only from the point of historical accuracy (which I believe is itself an oxymoron, and I'm ready to argue about that separately), but from the point of common sense. Example: why would concluding many royal marriages slow down my shipbuilders coming up with new ship designs? Anyone? Because that's what we have right now. Dear Paradox, it's not the monarch or his close friends at the court who designed the new ships, much less the Sultan or the Chinese emperor. No. You've got it wrong - it was in fact the people at the shipyards who were building the things, and the people sailing in them!

- Fourth argument. Monarch points mess with technology. Probably the least historically accurate step taken by Paradox with evolving the game mechanics was linking technological progress to "the person of the monarch". In fact the relationship between monarchs and technological innovation was much more accurately represented in EU3 and EU2. That was exactly how it used to work: the crown gave money and legal authorization, the entrepreneurs returned with some result - "Hey we discovered these new islands with the expedition that you paid for" or "We found out if you point the cannon upwards and put this amount of gunpowder it hits things at this distance. - Wow, great job, now I'll show those Ottomans what's what!". The time monarchs began to really get involved with technology was when they made the link between technological progress and political power. That's why the Royal Society was founded in 1662, chartered by Charles II and there are many more such examples across Europe. To my mind technological progress should work without direct player involvement, in the same way that army and navy tradition is accumulated - the more you use a muscle, the stronger it gets. So the more soldiers you build and the more wars you wage, the faster you should progress. But most importantly - you do not know in advance what you are about to discover! It's not a discovery if you know in advance, is it? This is where I would totally agree to having more randomness - in the properties of what's about to be discovered next. But in my opinion the most absurd aspect of Monarch points being used for technology is that, contrary to how it worked in previous games, you accumulate the points first, and only spend them post-factum. So you already know what you will discover, only you have to make the gameplay choice to discover it now. Remember, the points are already there, you have "discovered" it! But wait! You decide to pacify a rebellious province and - suddenly! - you have "forgotten" the last details of the next artillery model blueprint! Hilarious, isn't it.

 

[Taciturn Scot]

Not true. The great difference between EU3 and 4 is that in EU3 the monarch stats INFLUENCED what you could do (except for a few important decisions, most notably Westernization), whereas in EU4 they DECIDE what you can do and that's the fundamental flaw IMO.

Well, I accept that it's not true that it's the ONLY big change. Of course, MPs are now tied into other decisions in the game such as ideas, coring, buildings etc. But really, unless you've got a real stinker of a Monarch, most of the time, you've got some average 'Joe' generating enough points to make some interesting decisions. "Do I take this idea now or wait another year and get another tech? Do I make this province a core now reducing my OE or use the points for tech later?" I LIKE making these decisions in the game and I'd be sad if I had to lose them. And yes, I've had more than a couple of 0-0-0 turkeys running the show for l-o-n-g periods of game time. My first EU4 game was as Aragon and that guy lived forever and was followed by an almost as bad 1-0-1 or something like that. But I was still getting about 4 or 5 points per skill per month (3 base and a +1 or +2 advisor finaces permitting) and so I could still do something. It's not a game-breaker for me. No reloads or rage-quits. It's just part of the fun of the game.

ISTM that folks are complaining in this thread that they have no way to influence the stats of a future ruler and having a RNG hand them a game-breaking loser to run their country is not something that a 'real' strategy game should do to them. I'm all in favour of more ways to generate MPs, especially later in the game as states become more sophisticated and the Monarch is less central to the running of the state.

 

[Comes Imperii]

I agree that the MP system is far from optimal. However, it seems to me that the Monarch stats are an abstraction of how well your nation is doing, how innovative and industrious his generals, admirals, engineers and bureaucrats are.
Now, since the system is going to stay for at least EUIV, what we really should do is to think of simple, yet effective additions to the game which would give power and control back in the hands of the player, thus adding more strategic choices.
What I'd like to see for example would be a discount on tech based on your army/naval tradition. For example 10 AT: -2% military tech cost.
About ADM points I think that an internal government system about estates and parliaments introduced by an expansion could be a very interesting way of gaining MPs in new ways (like obtaining the consensus of the estates, etc.).

 

[unmerged(66346)]

In an age of technical efficiency and positivism its refreshing that this game shows how to deal with random hazard and issues out of control. Monarchy isn't optimal or fair and never pretended to be either of them, if a lazy incompetent king sit on the throne you've to deal with it and find ways to compensate, its the same business as playing a small underdeveloped state.

 

[Beagá]

Monarch points are annoying but it´s not the main issue with the game. Sliders weren´t perfect either.

 

[jakt]

broadly speaking, I like the MP mechanic and thinks it makes the game more fun and intereesting. However, there are a few instances where it needs adjustment.

right now

ADM = Coring, Stability, ADM buildings, and ADM ideas/research
DIP = Peace Deals, Admirals, DIP buildings, and DIP ideas/research, and +1 for every diplo relation over limit
MIL = Generals, MIL buildings, MIL ideas/research, some military actions, and +1 for every leader over limit

Admirals and Generals are the most similar in cost to coring. Of course coring has outrageous costs. ADM has the most out of control costs it needs. In order to get idea groups you need ADM tech. in order to increase stability you need ADM, and stability goes mostly down randomly. in order to core things you need ADM of course.

I have a few suggestions.

1. buildings need MP points removed for first two levels of buildings. The cost is already prohibitive in the early game by itself.

2. at least some unique buildings need higher (much higher) MP point cost and much lower gold cost. so lets say instead of 10 DIP 1080 ducat Embassy, make it a 400 DIP 400 ducat building. Or something like that. It's another diplomat, it's huge.

2. Coring needs to fundamentally change. All the vassal feeding changes... fine. Keep them. Make it very difficult to vassal feed, that's fine. So to slow the pace of conquering, why not make it so that you have 2-3 chancellors at the start of the game (and can get more through ideas) and that coring takes time (same time as now) but needs a chancellor devoted to it. ADM power itself could be used to temporarily manage over extension. Devoting ADM resources to over extension would stop OE events from firing for X amount of time. The more over extension, the more events, the more it costs to keep them down. But change over extension too. OE = province that does not have a chancellor working in it to core it and is not core. And if you want to slow it even more, why not then make OE = stability hit when declaring war. The player has choices to make then on how to save up and spend ADM points

 

[Asturiano]

Exactly. Monarch points works fine for a Feudal kingdom or duchy coming straight out of Crusader Kings II, but for a nation with a centralised bureaucracy, be it Great Britain, the Ottoman Empire, or Ming, the effects of the Monarch would be comparatively invisible to the work of all the ministers, nazirs, secreteriats, viziers, bureaucrats, directors, etc. These things are not represented at all.



I'm waiting for someone to try and make a genetics argument.

Agreed on the first sentence, Monarch Points do not make any actual sense. I can't explain them, even though I know in a very nebulous way what the "represent". In the end I feel it is best to compare it to a board game, and in a board game this would be the simplest solution. Your resources and your monarch are determined by drawing a card, that card is a constant, to which one or two values can be added or subtracted (in a board game perhaps represented by tokens).

This would ensure that you the human player don't have much problem counting out new resources at the start of a turn.

Except.. there is no human to count these points. So I don't know why they are made so banal. There could be a boatload of variables on Monarch Points, and it would be fine because no human is counting. It's *the* benefit of making a computer game, a strategy computer game, that mechanics can and will probably be way more complex than any sane human could handle every round.

Just transparent enough that one knows what will affect what, and which direction one is pushing, the risks and rewards etc. and that's it!

EUIV is not a board game. It just seems to think so sometimes (but not in others where it is infinitely more complex than a board game ever could be, so it is pretty evidently not)


....


as foir the genetics and Monarch Points, well, unless genetics change when one changes ones culture (which I believe does not happen) then it has no connection with genetics.

 

[Asturiano]

MP resulted in technology being almost independent of economy, which is bizarre from both a historical and gameplay viewpoint. In fact, investing in your economy slows your technological progress, and vice versa.

The more complaints I see on this forum the more I begin to think MP is at the root of EUIV's problems, from coring/OE, to the lack of peacetime mechanics.

That is a very astute observation. I tend to agree.

 

[oblio-]

I'm not sure how the MP system could be fixed, but the adviser system, which is part of the overall problem, needs some improvements:

3 Spy Offense advisers! WTF! And 2 of the the same thing: +3 Adm, +10 Spy Offense, just that one is 30 and the other one 39.

Borked! Borked! Borked!