On The Rails of the Revolution

[Susan1972]

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%. 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.

I've got just under 1000 hours in.

The broader issue with the mechanics I've mentioned is that the player can't form a long-term endgame. 3/4s of the campaign goes up in smoke when you have to either sabotage yourself or watch a vital stat like prestige get tanked with nothing you can do about it but screw yourself. Maybe Johan is making some dense philosophical statement about the impermanence of all things?

EU4 is a dandy timewaster, don't get me wrong. It's doing it's own thing and I feel I've gotten my money's worth. But a game is something you play, and not something you backseat-drive for an AI that every now and rhen lets you play for a while like a fussy nanny.

And it's immersion-breaking to have events that now have no historical context happen in places that now no longer exist.

 

[Nostalgium]

I've got just under 1000 hours in.

The broader issue with the mechanics I've mentioned is that the player can't form a long-term endgame. 3/4s of the campaign goes up in smoke when you have to either sabotage yourself or watch a vital stat like prestige get tanked with nothing you can do about it but screw yourself. Maybe Johan is making some dense philosophical statement about the impermanence of all things?

EU4 is a dandy timewaster, don't get me wrong. It's doing it's own thing and I feel I've gotten my money's worth. But a game is something you play, and not something you backseat-drive for an AI that every now and rhen lets you play for a while like a fussy nanny.

And it's immersion-breaking to have events that now have no historical context happen in places that now no longer exist.

I think you're reading a bit too much into any philosophical statements here. It's really just a byproduct of being a monarchy not in active opposition to a force on the same continent that is executing the peers of your ruling class with impunity, nothing more.

Still, you can plan for the Revolution. The big one here is a degree of diplomatic leeway. You should never tie yourself so closely to one ally that them flipping on you will mess up your whole campaign past the first 50 or so years. This isn't even a "you have magic foresight"-thing, it's just common sense. You should be striving to ensure that you have failsafes. Sometimes, your AI allies will get involved in wars that you have no business being in and get their alliances annulled if they lose. If you relied strongly on that alliance, that's your campaign done right there. Sometimes, your allies will decide you're no longer worth the trouble and ditch you. No backup? Then you're done for.

Diplomacy is one of the key aspects of EU4, and putting all your eggs in one basket is a really, really bad idea. If you can't or don't want to obtain hegemonic dominance, you need to play the diplo game so that losing one ally won't cost you the campaign. Get redundant GP alliances, ally the enemies of your allies, play the diplo game for all it's worth so that one diplomatic disaster won't end your ambitions forever. Also, find ways to bypass the alliance networks of your enemies. Are they guaranteeing a minor nation with no exceptional allies? Declare on that minor and call in all your other allies to crush the alliance network of the actual, strategic enemy. Proxy wars like that are essentially the bread and butter of GP diplomacy, especially in areas like India or Europe where hugboxes are a big issue.

I agree on the historical context thing, but there's again a point where sacrifices have to be made. I'm generally a fan of making historical-esque events emerge from the gameplay, but EU4 is an old game, and leaned heavily on the event structures of older titles still, so there's a number of places where corners must be cut if you want to see events like the Revolution happen at all. Generally speaking, I think they do a good job. And then there's the Dutch Revolts.

 

[Susan1972]

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

You can but with mana needed elsewhere and culture conversions taking decades in-game it's not really practical.

 

[Susan1972]

I think you're reading a bit too much into any philosophical statements here. It's really just a byproduct of being a monarchy not in active opposition to a force on the same continent that is executing the peers of your ruling class with impunity, nothing more.

Still, you can plan for the Revolution. The big one here is a degree of diplomatic leeway. You should never tie yourself so closely to one ally that them flipping on you will mess up your whole campaign past the first 50 or so years. This isn't even a "you have magic foresight"-thing, it's just common sense. You should be striving to ensure that you have failsafes. Sometimes, your AI allies will get involved in wars that you have no business being in and get their alliances annulled if they lose. If you relied strongly on that alliance, that's your campaign done right there. Sometimes, your allies will decide you're no longer worth the trouble and ditch you. No backup? Then you're done for.

Diplomacy is one of the key aspects of EU4, and putting all your eggs in one basket is a really, really bad idea. If you can't or don't want to obtain hegemonic dominance, you need to play the diplo game so that losing one ally won't cost you the campaign. Get redundant GP alliances, ally the enemies of your allies, play the diplo game for all it's worth so that one diplomatic disaster won't end your ambitions forever. Also, find ways to bypass the alliance networks of your enemies. Are they guaranteeing a minor nation with no exceptional allies? Declare on that minor and call in all your other allies to crush the alliance network of the actual, strategic enemy. Proxy wars like that are essentially the bread and butter of GP diplomacy, especially in areas like India or Europe where hugboxes are a big issue.

I agree on the historical context thing, but there's again a point where sacrifices have to be made. I'm generally a fan of making historical-esque events emerge from the gameplay, but EU4 is an old game, and leaned heavily on the event structures of older titles still, so there's a number of places where corners must be cut if you want to see events like the Revolution happen at all. Generally speaking, I think they do a good job. And then there's the Dutch Revolts.

Thanks but you're not telling me anything I don't know already

The objection here is not doing the legwork but being at the mercy of both the RNG and the rails laid down by the devs. One should never feel "along for the ride" while gaming. Especially in open-ended strategy games where forging your own unique empire is one of the draws.

 

[YellowPress]

You can but with mana needed elsewhere and culture conversions taking decades in-game it's not really practical.

Late game you should be swimming in mana, advisors will be lv3 by then

 

[Nostalgium]

Thanks but you're not telling me anything I don't know already

The objection here is not doing the legwork but being at the mercy of both the RNG and the rails laid down by the devs. One should never feel "along for the ride" while gaming. Especially in open-ended strategy games where forging your own unique empire is one of the draws.

I agree that you shouldn't feel just along for the ride, but you also shouldn't feel like the AI is along for your ride. Some RNG is neccessary to simulate a semblance of history in a game that doesn't accurately simulate the deep underlying causes for big upheavals, and EU4 very rarely throws hands you can't realistically deal with. The exception is in terms of strings of bad rulers more than mechanics like the Revolution. Forging your own empire is great, but forging requires some heat. Upsets like the Revolution, rival restrictions, the Reformation and such things are neccessary to avoid the game becoming "Poland allied France in 1448 and that alliance was UNSHAKEABLE until 1821" or similar scenarios.

 

[Blizzrd33]

You can but with mana needed elsewhere and culture conversions taking decades in-game it's not really practical.

I suggest that just prior to Age of Absolutism, you should have either accepted cultures of high-development territory that you conquered or culture converted them to yours or an accepted culture because that will make these provinces have particularist-type rebels rather than separatists. This really helps to get high absolutism quickly when you trigger a particularist stack of rebels (easily done via estates and seize land), accept their demands and then lower autonomy for heaps and heaps of absolutism instantly.

It also gives you way better manpower/production from the provinces.

If you weren't previously thinking about culture in your conquered provinces, I highly encourage you to do so for any campaign that you intend to play into the 1700s.

 

[Blizzrd33]

I've got just under 1000 hours in.

The broader issue with the mechanics I've mentioned is that the player can't form a long-term endgame. 3/4s of the campaign goes up in smoke when you have to either sabotage yourself or watch a vital stat like prestige get tanked with nothing you can do about it but screw yourself. Maybe Johan is making some dense philosophical statement about the impermanence of all things?

Prestige is the easiest resource to gain via war, and there are also events that will offer you +50 from time to time if you have hired strong advisors. I'd say legitimacy is a lot more important than prestige, so I'm surprised you consider prestige to be "vital". Having a lot of both is good, but don't be afraid to sacrifice some prestige for a short period because it is so easy to get back via war and the peace deals.

I used to be concerned about a hit to prestige when I had less experience under my belt, but now I'm not afraid to disinherit terrible heirs all over the place until I get one with better stats.