On The Rails of the Revolution

[Susan1972]

I really would like a dev to explain the logic behind the revolution mechanics. PDX is famous for taking agency away from the player but the revolution business is ludicrous.

Again, I'm in the position of having to attack my biggest ally to stop the revolution. And I have to wait until I get the "crush the revolution" cb. I'm already at -25 prestige and counting but I need to wait until things get even worse and the game graciously grants me the power to do something.

If you're not going to give the player a counter move, why include the mechanic? What's punishing the player over things they can't help supposed to challenge about a player's skill?

Vicky 2 and HOI4 show that PDX likes to involve the player as little as possible. EU4 is a vast improvement which makes it all the more frustrating when it expresses it's PDX DNA and says "You've had your fun, player, now it's my turn!"

 

[Nostalgium]

I'll agree that the Revolution mechanic has its problems - chief among them the way it spreads - but the property of busting alliances to shake up the lategame isn't one of them in my books. Monarchies should be absolutely outraged if Revolution happened in one of their allies and 100% push to restore the monarchy in that nation, as was the case with France historically. The counter move here is breaking the alliance and attacking them with Crush the Revolution, as it should be.

Now, when it comes to internal mechanics to stop revolutionary spread, that's a different beast. I strongly dislike the "sit and wait" aspect both on the crushing side and the embracing side. It feels unsatisfying, like a slower, less dynamic Reformation. Still - that's a different discussion.

 

[Susan1972]

I'll agree that the Revolution mechanic has its problems - chief among them the way it spreads - but the property of busting alliances to shake up the lategame isn't one of them in my books. Monarchies should be absolutely outraged if Revolution happened in one of their allies and 100% push to restore the monarchy in that nation, as was the case with France historically. The counter move here is breaking the alliance and attacking them with Crush the Revolution, as it should be.

Now, when it comes to internal mechanics to stop revolutionary spread, that's a different beast. I strongly dislike the "sit and wait" aspect both on the crushing side and the embracing side. It feels unsatisfying, like a slower, less dynamic Reformation. Still - that's a different discussion.

Monarchies should absolutely read a bloody map and understand when attacking a larger country with even larger allies (who are usually disinclined to break alliances even if they have the same malus) is suicide.

The underlying problem with the "Paradox Strategy Game" is their overall inability to fuse historical logic with strategy game logic. The player is too often punished for doing ahistoric thiings that make sense to do (or not do) within the confines of a game.

 

[Susan1972]

And it's another example of the "End Boss" problem like with the Ottomans. Despite the freedom of action you're alleged to have, your only real option is to bulk up for the end bosses.

And I wouldn't mind that so much if it weren't for the overextention and aggressive expansion maluses and war score limitations which sharply limit the player's ability to expand.

 

[Nostalgium]

And I wouldn't mind that so much if it weren't for the overextention and aggressive expansion maluses and war score limitations which sharply limit the player's ability to expand.

Learning to overcome those limitations to efficiently expand could be argued to be the core challenge of the game, though. It took me longer than I care to admit to realize, for example, that Improve Relations also increase AE decay speed, letting you conquer much faster, or learning how to properly spread out my expansion between culture groups and religions.

At the end of the day, I agree with you that Revolution has problems, but I disagree about what they are. This always comes back to me thinking that the diplomatic aspect of EU4 is far too stale. Alliances lasting decades, or even centuries, should be the exception, not the norm.

 

[Susan1972]

Learning to overcome those limitations to efficiently expand could be argued to be the core challenge of the game, though. It took me longer than I care to admit to realize, for example, that Improve Relations also increase AE decay speed, letting you conquer much faster, or learning how to properly spread out my expansion between culture groups and religions.

At the end of the day, I agree with you that Revolution has problems, but I disagree about what they are. This always comes back to me thinking that the diplomatic aspect of EU4 is far too stale. Alliances lasting decades, or even centuries, should be the exception, not the norm.

I can learn to drive a 1978 Ford Pinto. That may be challenging but that doesn't mean it's a good car

The problems with the revolution mechanics are a broader problem of player agency. Take colonial nations. You have no say in forming them, you have no direct control over them. You can't directly integrate or annex them and you can't cut them loose if they become a liability. Either you sink an enormous amount of time into trial-and-error workarounds or watch YouTube vids and read wikis and what's the point of playing at all if you're going to do that anyway? And if the game decides they're disloyal after 300 years of +200 relations, oh well.

It's, again, a question of balancing historical rails with organic strategic gameplay.

 

[Nostalgium]

The problems with the revolution mechanics are a broader problem of player agency. Take colonial nations.

There are some points where you cannot leave things to the player, though. The Colonial Nations is one example, where PDX wanted to simulate the often very broad self-governing capacity of the colonies due to the difficulty of administrating overseas territories of the time, and the problems that came with that. And they don't suddenly decide to go disloyal either - the loyalty is very trackable, and can easily be overcome with reduced tarrifs, interactions, or simply developing their territory for a massive reduction in liberty desire.

Organic strategic gameplay still needs to take place within a set of rules, or it ceases to be, well, a game. If you could just "choose away" a big part of colonial gameplay in favour of something that would be MUCH easier (direct control, direct benefits, harder for the AI to conquer), you'd create a non-choice that has doesn't leave room for agency, but for mistakes. But we can spin a whole thread on colonies, too, so let's try and keep this one on track.

There are ways to play around the Revolutionary Target. You could yourself become a Republic, for example - they do not get the Counter Revolution debuff, as it requires a monarchy. If you're on a different continent, you can also create a buffer state between you and them - this will stop the modifier, as it requires a land border or capital on same continent. You could also attack an ally of the Revolutionary Target in order to drag in the Target, but not the Target's other allies, and pick them apart that way by i.e. dissolving alliances. Revolutionary Targets are unlikely to get them back if the allies were monarchies. Again, I'm not saying the mechanics around the Revolution are perfect, but it's designed to be a diplomatic upset. And sometimes, it's okay to have things happen which are outside the player's ability to directly influence: The AI is also an actor, and the game shouldn't bend to the player's agency alone.

 

[jonjowett]

To my mind, the main problem with the revolution mechanics arises when the CoR is located somewhere where you can't fix it. (Eg: If the nation containing CoR does not become revolutionary.) When this happens, your options are really limited: let the CoR wreck your nation, or launch a really weird war of conquest so you can trigger and crush the revolution disaster inside your own nation. (And then God help you if the 2nd CoR spawns in your nation.) This kind of situation is what needs fixing by the devs, IMO. And that fix could be as simple as giving everyone the "crush the revolution" CB vs the nation containing the CoR.

 

[Susan1972]

I don't object to having rules. I object to having those rules drastically changed 3/4s of the way through the game and inconsistently applied throughout.

And what you describe is just that. For that last quarter of the game you're essentially abandoning everything else you're doing in order to deal with an arbitrary malus. One which obviously doesn't apply to monarchist AI because they'll either ignore the revolution or defend them if you try something. And, if you really want to fight a war, it will leave you drained of money and manpower, pit you against your now former allies and leaves you open to attack. You're basically chucking 15 hours down the drain.

I mention colonial nations because it's a prime example of my point. Either you leave a lot to chance or your entire campaign is consumed by micromanaging without any direct control and forget any plans that you, the player, may have had. If you had all this in a separate game that would be great but all it does in EU4 is switch the rules on you. It's like alternating between Civilization and Vicky 2 in one game.

 

[YellowPress]

I don't object to having rules. I object to having those rules drastically changed 3/4s of the way through the game and inconsistently applied throughout.

The game needs to change as the order of the world did then

And what you describe is just that. For that last quarter of the game you're essentially abandoning everything else you're doing in order to deal with an arbitrary malus

How is it arbitrary, you can embrace the revolution yourself, or crush it, as prussia did when the dutch tried to undermine the stadtholder, as the hapsburgs tried even when louis xvi was willingly negotiating with those who'd soon take his head

. One which obviously doesn't apply to monarchist AI because they'll either ignore the revolution or defend them if you try something

Bourbon Spain kept its allaince with france until napoleon decided his brothers needed another kingdom to rule. Ai Christians will ally the ottomans because thats what they did in real life, france attempting to break the diplomatic deadlock, austria when russia grew too strong, Britain when it meant containing the balance of power along with island concessions

And, if you really want to fight a war, it will leave you drained of money and manpower,

So now you wage new wars of expansion to prevent bankruptcy and pay off old dents

pit you against your now former allies and leaves you open to attack. You're basically chucking 15 hours down the drain.

You've had 400 years of building an empire, time to put it to the test

I mention colonial nations because it's a prime example of my point. Either you leave a lot to chance or your entire campaign is consumed by micromanaging without any direct control and forget any plans that you, the player, may have had. If you had all this in a separate game that would be great but all it does in EU4 is switch the rules on you. It's like alternating between Civilization and Vicky 2 in one game.

What it'd give for civ to have actual colonies and uncivs to conquer rather than aztecs in the middle ages

 

[Susan1972]

The game needs to change as the order of the world did then

How is it arbitrary, you can embrace the revolution yourself, or crush it, as prussia did when the dutch tried to undermine the stadtholder, as the hapsburgs tried even when louis xvi was willingly negotiating with those who'd soon take his head

Bourbon Spain kept its allaince with france until napoleon decided his brothers needed another kingdom to rule. Ai Christians will ally the ottomans because thats what they did in real life, france attempting to break the diplomatic deadlock, austria when russia grew too strong, Britain when it meant containing the balance of power along with island concessions

So now you wage new wars of expansion to prevent bankruptcy and pay off old dents

You've had 400 years of building an empire, time to put it to the test

What it'd give for civ to have actual colonies and uncivs to conquer rather than aztecs in the middle ages

I've had 350 years of a different set of rules. And why don't I have a "crush revolution" cb on the CoR right away? It's like playing as the HRE emperor and watching your authority drizzle away waiting for the game to grace you with an "enforce religion" cb.

You have no time, excessive AE and Overextention penalties and steep coring costs and that's on top of war exhaustion and unrest exacerbated by prestige and unrest maluses. And you almost certainly never get to embrace the revolution because you need to wait until the game decides you can.

I'm sure it all CAN be done but I'm not convinced it's a worthwhile endgame.

 

[Nostalgium]

I've had 350 years of a different set of rules. And why don't I have a "crush revolution" cb on the CoR right away?

It works like Humiliate Rival. You only have it when you're not allied to and don't have a truce with the Revolutionary Target, so you'd get it if you break the alliance and the truce from that runs out. Incidentally, breaking the Alliance and getting a truce from that will also immediately remove the penalty.

 

[Susan1972]

It works like Humiliate Rival. You only have it when you're not allied to and don't have a truce with the Revolutionary Target, so you'd get it if you break the alliance and the truce from that runs out. Incidentally, breaking the Alliance and getting a truce from that will also immediately remove the penalty.

Thanks for the info. Is this information contained in the game anywhere or were the devs just counting on blind luck for the player to figure it out?

And I would like the logic behind being forced to either burn a useful ally or burn myself. I guess it's all over but the shouting at that point but still it reeks of bad design.

 

[Opanashc]

Bourbon Spain kept its allaince with france until napoleon decided his brothers needed another kingdom to rule.

And here I was always told, that Spain was part of the First Coalition against France...

 

[Blizzrd33]

Thanks for the info. Is this information contained in the game anywhere or were the devs just counting on blind luck for the player to figure it out?

And I would like the logic behind being forced to either burn a useful ally or burn myself. I guess it's all over but the shouting at that point but still it reeks of bad design.

You can never attack a nation that you are allied to without first breaking the alliance. The other requirements for the Crush the Revolution CB are listed in the wiki:

https://eu4.paradoxwikis.com/Casus_belli#Crush_the_Revolution

 

[Susan1972]

You can never attack a nation that you are allied to without first breaking the alliance. The other requirements for the Crush the Revolution CB are listed in the wiki:

https://eu4.paradoxwikis.com/Casus_belli#Crush_the_Revolution

I'm aware of the alliance thing. Having to lose prestige and play separatist Whack-A-Mole for 5 years while they ally with my biggest enemy is a poor strategy.

 

[Blizzrd33]

I'm aware of the alliance thing. Having to lose prestige and play separatist Whack-A-Mole for 5 years while they ally with my biggest enemy is a poor strategy.

Why are you complaining about prestige loss? You'll get it back when you win the war.

 

[Nostalgium]

Why are you complaining about prestige loss? You'll get it back when you win the war.

I'm guessing here, and I don't mean to insult you in any way @Susan1972, but from some of OP's other posts, I've gotten the impression that they're not neccessarily very experienced EU4 player, or a more casual one. And I know players with literally thousands of hours who still freak out if numbers go down. A friend of mine can go completely turtle mode if he has ~8 loans because he feels he has to fix the economy, instead of just riding the edge and refinancing through wars/taking loans to pay loans/etc. Many players who "play by ear" tend to not recognize that numbers can go really deep in the red before it goes from being "something you need to be aware of" to "actual problem that is hard to solve". A big part of going from being a decent EU4 player to being a good one is learning just how far you can push which numbers, and that learning curve isn't necessarily something that's easy to intuit from the game.

So yeah. Big, negative prestige modifiers like that from Counter Revolution can seem much worse than they are if you're not used to them. Kinda like how many people will freak out about OE even approaching 100%, when WC speedrunners will be coasting on at 200% or more. EU4 has a lot of numbers, a lot of bonuses, and a lot of maluses, and they can be very overwhelming when you haven't seen them in dozens of campaigns.

 

[YellowPress]

And here I was always told, that Spain was part of the First Coalition against France...

Well with first coalition spain flip flops but thats not napoleon

 

[YellowPress]

I'm aware of the alliance thing. Having to lose prestige and play separatist Whack-A-Mole for 5 years while they ally with my biggest enemy is a poor strategy.

You can provoke revolt to be ahead of time, and could've culture converted ahead of time to save separatist rebels