Please dont nerf corruption, Add the option to turn it off

[Benghi Bon]

This imbalanced research thing is such a horrible idea. I have neither the income nor the monarch points to fight this. I can't get advisors because they cost money, there's really nothing I can do to relieve my situation. God forbid you're outside of Europe and keep up in military tech.

 

[brifbates]

Some countries have a position where your options are (1) accept prolonged periods of low RU (2) sit on your hands until you've bought ADM 5 and the first 4-6 ideas in Religious (3) provoke religious rebels so you can force yourself to convert (which rubs up against my "this is bizarre and counterintuitive and really shouldn't be my best option" reflex). Many of those starts have generally been regarded as not really needing to be made any harder relative to the rest of the map.

(Poster-boy QQ isn't the worst case here, since they at least have some militaristic options for dealing with their RU problems even if they can't convert their heretic provinces.)

I'm aware of this, however, as I posted in one of the other threads, most (if not all) of the nations that start in those positions were collapsing or at the very least internally weak at the time which doesn't necessarily correlate with their strength in-game. How many times have you seen the AQ eat the QQ absent player intervention (as an example).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Perhaps your definition of "expand properly" is at fault? My personal feeling is that expanding yourself into a combination of high OE and low RU is far from expanding properly so if that combination is heavily punished by corruption I have no problem with it. In fact, most of the complaining I'm seeing about corruption boils down to "QQ, I have to adjust my playstyle or I get punished for it" from the mega-blobber brigade that thinks absurdities like 1500s WC should be a thing.

Can any of the anti-corruption brigade cite some sort of historical situation that would result in that sort of corruption problem? Let alone one where the country in question sailed through without any problem at all. The only one that really comes to my mind is the Spanish conquests of Central & South America and those pretty much led to Spain's collapse as a major European power...

"I feel that roughly half of the religions in the game shouldn't be viable, and that ROTW needed to wait around more because a 5000+ point hole in a crucial resource with limited agency wasn't enough".

Nope. Slower =/= more challenging, but worst of all is that if you want to play the game, staying in a number of faiths is *even worse* than previously. Paradox soundly nerfed already bad religions because reasons!

But somehow that's perfectly okay, and so is taxing stable empires with 100% unity over half their income in corruption because they exist and "should have it harder than Europe".

 

[VA GHOST]

For 1) the State/territory change is a replacement for the old overseas/non-overseas mechanic that adds control to the player and is a lot easier to understand (not to mention more logical). Not to mention the whole thing where different people find different things fun. Corruption providing negatives for having a nation in a precarious state makes historical sense and does indeed "punish" poor choices. If I wanted every choice to have positive results I'd be playing Miss Kitty or somesuch... I would also point out that Sid's career-making Civ series has mechanics just like corruption that "punish" expansion even if it is just peacefully settling unoccupied lands.

"nation in a precarious state". Precarious. Interesting word choice. When one is in a precarious state one is in a state of imbalance - not stable. I think there's a game mechanic a lot like that.

"If I wanted every choice to have positive results I'd be playing Miss Kitty or somesuch... " You raise a straw man to duel. My favorite strategy games aren't easy and are not not strategic-medium like EU IV.
War in the Pacific - Admirals Edition
GG's War in the West
and others..

Yes, they have corruption. But do not have stability or autonomy. When you combine stability and corruption - you're doing double duty either can incorporate the other. They also includes way/government types to deal with corruption at the expense of other bonuses.

 

[bbqftw]

Perhaps your definition of "expand properly" is at fault? My personal feeling is that expanding yourself into a combination of high OE and low RU is far from expanding properly so if that combination is heavily punished by corruption I have no problem with it. In fact, most of the complaining I'm seeing about corruption boils down to "QQ, I have to adjust my playstyle or I get punished for it" from the mega-blobber brigade that thinks absurdities like 1500s WC should be a thing.

Can any of the anti-corruption brigade cite some sort of historical situation that would result in that sort of corruption problem? Let alone one where the country in question sailed through without any problem at all. The only one that really comes to my mind is the Spanish conquests of Central & South America and those pretty much led to Spain's collapse as a major European power...

Don't characterize it as a difficulty issue, in fact corruption makes things easier in a way because the preferred prescription of "just wait" fundamentally equalizes game outcomes between players of varying skill. If you are worse at the war aspects of the game, you in fact will have better relative outcomes with a corruption system than without, at least as currently implemented.

I can speed 5 through 50 years just as well as some of the best players.

 

[MrDarcy]

This imbalanced research thing is such a horrible idea. I have neither the income nor the monarch points to fight this. I can't get advisors because they cost money, there's really nothing I can do to relieve my situation. God forbid you're outside of Europe and keep up in military tech.

I disagree.

In my mind a highly unbalanced technology setup approximates a country or society, in which all resources and efforts are concentrated in the hands of the military. The society is highly militarised and sacrifices in other areas must be made as the best and the brightest are put to task in order to advance the country's war machine, which in turn fuels rapid territorial expansion. A territorial expansion, which is not supported by advances in the country's bureaucracy, economic policy or civil society (Admin & Diplo Tech).

 

[Benghi Bon]

I disagree.

In my mind a highly unbalanced technology setup approximates a country or society, in which all resources and efforts are concentrated in the hands of the military. The society is highly militarised and sacrifices in other areas must be made as the best and the brightest are put to task in order to advance the country's war machine, which in turn fuels rapid territorial expansion. A territorial expansion, which is not supported by advances in the country's bureaucracy, economic policy or civil society (Admin & Diplo Tech).

You gain corruption no matter the tech. I can't fight this, it's just a number going up and it's a big annoyance. I would love to keep up to tech if I could afford it or had godly rulers like the AI more often than not gets.

I can understand an explanation for why this happens, but it seems extremely arbitrary and doesn't play well. I regret teching up ahead of time because the penalty up and doubled.

 

[MrDarcy]

I do concede, however, that corruption through unbalanced tech further highlights that there are not enough avenues to spend military points on. Though this is a separate issue (but one which really needs to be addressed sooner rather than later).

 

[bbqftw]

The other issue is that fundamentally there are pretty much no diplomatic techs worth getting on their own merits besides 7 and 23. Maybe an argument can be made for 4.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The other issue is that fundamentally there are pretty much no diplomatic techs worth getting on their own merits besides 7 and 23. Maybe an argument can be made for 4.

3 (if you don't have), 7, and 23 only.

I do concede, however, that corruption through unbalanced tech further highlights that there are not enough avenues to spend military points on. Though this is a separate issue (but one which really needs to be addressed sooner rather than later).

Corruption is a sever ROTW nerf. Why was a severe ROTW nerf needed? No answer that holds logical consistency, and the long term trend of patches doing this crap is why some of us are disillusioned.

 

[brifbates]

Don't characterize it as a difficulty issue, in fact corruption makes things easier in a way because the preferred prescription of "just wait" fundamentally equalizes game outcomes between players of varying skill. If you are worse at the war aspects of the game, you in fact will have better relative outcomes with a corruption system than without, at least as currently implemented.

I can speed 5 through 50 years just as well as some of the best players.

"I feel that roughly half of the religions in the game shouldn't be viable, and that ROTW needed to wait around more because a 5000+ point hole in a crucial resource with limited agency wasn't enough".
Nope. Slower =/= more challenging, but worst of all is that if you want to play the game, staying in a number of faiths is *even worse* than previously. Paradox soundly nerfed already bad religions because reasons!
But somehow that's perfectly okay, and so is taxing stable empires with 100% unity over half their income in corruption because they exist and "should have it harder than Europe".

Nice strawmen posts here since neither of you actually addressed the points made in the quoted post.

Now, as TMIT likes to do...

Can any of the anti-corruption brigade cite some sort of historical situation that would result in that sort of corruption problem? Let alone one where the country in question sailed through without any problem at all.

 

[bbqftw]

Nice strawmen posts here since neither of you actually addressed the points made in the quoted post.

Perhaps your definition of "expand properly" is at fault? My personal feeling is that expanding yourself into a combination of high OE and low RU is far from expanding properly so if that combination is heavily punished by corruption I have no problem with it. In fact, most of the complaining I'm seeing about corruption boils down to "QQ, I have to adjust my playstyle or I get punished for it" from the mega-blobber brigade that thinks absurdities like 1500s WC should be a thing.

From this its clear you think that corruption increases difficulty in such a way that makes for interesting decision-making. I argue that it doesn't, and thus it is a bad mechanic because of it.

Incidentally, I've already devised several solutions to corruption mechanic in specific and broad cases. I can certainly adapt, but adapting by doing things like "form the Mughals as every Asian tag that is non-Abrahamic and lacks tolerance of heathens in NIs" and "do nothing in certain starts after initial conquering burst for 20 years" doesn't constitute meaningful decisions in my opinion.

I am completely fine with the 1500 WCs done by Saara and Marco because they show mastery of game mechanics that I can't really hope to reach, well at least at the moment.

Can any of the anti-corruption brigade cite some sort of historical situation that would result in that sort of corruption problem? Let alone one where the country in question sailed through without any problem at all.

Why does it matter? At all?

 

[grommile]

I do concede, however, that corruption through unbalanced tech further highlights that there are not enough avenues to spend military points on. Though this is a separate issue (but one which really needs to be addressed sooner rather than later).

There are plenty of avenues to spend MIL on if you bought CS, and can thus spend it on provincial manpower upgrades (like you used to be able to without buying DLC)... but they've at least mildly sabotaged that, because increasing your provincial manpower increases your development (which from 1.16.2 will be the basis for the cost of corruption reduction) without increasing your income.

If you haven't bought CS, then if you have enough generals and they're good enough, and you don't have any rebels worth Harsh Treating, you have no MIL expenditure beyond tech and ideas - and of course, you only have ideas as an expense if you have a MIL group open and you can only assign half your idea group slots to MIL ideas.

"Throw your monarch power on the bonfire" should never be a good strategy.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Nice strawmen posts here since neither of you actually addressed the points made in the quoted post.

Now, as TMIT likes to do...

Can any of the anti-corruption brigade cite some sort of historical situation that would result in that sort of corruption problem? Let alone one where the country in question sailed through without any problem at all.

I'm not biting on irrational nonsense where you're inconsistent with yourself, sorry. That's what a "historical" argument amounts to.

You are using self-inconsistent reasoning to advocate for a change that does *exactly* what you quoted as straw men. You are telling me that animist and Sikh should lead to gross levels of corruption for an expansionist empire because reasons that do not apply to say Islam, citing "history" as your basis of justification in situations that resemble history in no plausible way whatsoever.

You already conceded history when you allowed for the existence of said empires in the game at all. You can't have it back later.

 

[brifbates]

From this its clear you think that corruption increases difficulty in such a way that makes for interesting decision-making. I argue that it doesn't, and thus it is a bad mechanic because of it.

I am completely fine with the 1500 WCs done by Saara and Marco because they show mastery of game mechanics that I can't really hope to reach, well at least at the moment.

Why does it matter? At all?

I think it adds a more historic flavor actually, and since this is a historical grand strategy game I'm in favor of historic effects and outcomes.

Why does it matter? Because your side is arguing that the behavior exhibited as problematic should be a-ok cuz reasons. If you can't come up with any historical examples that even remotely support your cause then your arguments have no merit in a historical setting.

There are plenty of avenues to spend MIL on if you bought CS, and can thus spend it on provincial manpower upgrades (like you used to be able to without buying DLC)... but they've at least mildly sabotaged that, because increasing your provincial manpower increases your development (which from 1.16.2 will be the basis for the cost of corruption reduction) without increasing your income.

Not entirely true. Each point of development adds .20 base trade power to the province. How this scales compared to the corruption cost increase depends on a number of additional factors but you are most likely correct in it being a net negative from a purely economic standpoint. Of course that ignores the other global development province effects as well as the military specific development effects.

 

[unillogical]

Can any of the anti-corruption brigade cite some sort of historical situation that would result in that sort of corruption problem? Let alone one where the country in question sailed through without any problem at all.

The question is: does corruption make the game more fun to play, or less fun to play? If you conclude that it makes the game less fun then in most people's estimations that feature should be removed, replaced or reformed. EU4 is not a simulator game, where accurate representation of the real world is the main concern, taking one look at existing game mechanics and how they function will tell you that. So yes corruption is a problem that states faced in history - and indeed the present day - to greater or lesser degrees, sometimes to so great a degree that it caused major problems for that nation, if PDS can find a way to use that fact to create a fun, interesting mechanic in EU4 then they should go ahead and do so.

But I contend that corruption as implemented makes the game less fun. I mean how are people suggesting it makes it more fun? 'It makes it more challenging' seems to be the main answer I see, but the fact is that it doesn't, it just encourages players to sit around and do nothing for large periods of the game because let's be honest here, there isn't much of anything else to do in the game, other than expand.

 

[MrDarcy]

Corruption is a sever ROTW nerf. Why was a severe ROTW nerf needed?

As long as you keep up in military tech (which is usually fairly easy to do with the exception of the American technology groups) European nations are seldom a match by the time they come knocking in you part of the world as you will have had 200 years to build an empire for which there is no equal. That your administrative and diplomatic (well mostly administrative) technology is decades behind, makes little difference as your armies not only have cutting edge technology but are also able to drown the Europeans with infinite numbers.

EU4 is set during the age of European discovery and ascendency from a middle age backwater to global supremacy - now this could have conceivably turned out quite different indeed with India and China holding onto the top spots - but I personally do feel that the European colonizers should represent the "final boss" for ROTW starts. In my experience this is seldom the case as I merely have to stay up to date in military technology (again very easy to do) to be unbeatable by the time they arrive.

 

[VA GHOST]

I think it adds a more historic flavor actually, and since this is a historical grand strategy game I'm in favor of historic effects and outcomes.

Why does it matter? Because your side is arguing that the behavior exhibited as problematic should be a-ok cuz reasons. If you can't come up with any historical examples that even remotely support your cause then your arguments have no merit in a historical setting.

They are arguing against a new game mechanic which replicates what other game mechanics already do:

Sid Meier's rules of game design (partial list):

1. Make sure the player is having fun, not the designer/computer. (Show me how the corruption system makes gameplay more fun for the player.) (Show me how the new state region rules moneydrain makes the game more fun for players) (Correlation - building things in your province gives bonuses and a sense of achievement. Making many countries have little or negative income early on is the exact opposite of fostering an environment where the game encourages the player to have fun. The player is left fighting against new internal blockades in the game engine - corruption and regions - instead of the enemies they are supposed to have - other countries and keeping your country stable.)
2. Games should be easy to start playing, but hard to stop playing.
3. Simple systems work together to create complexity. (Adding corruption and regions violates this - they are not simple and impossible to combat directly - they are a designer's attempt to stop game play they don't like - see rule #1.
4. Know when to stop, more is not always better and just because we can, doesn’t mean we should (Because they can add artificial new game mechanics to make players poorer and slower to do what they want doesn't mean they SHOULD). Why are the way players play the game wrong? Could not the exact same result desired - slower huge blogging come about as a result of tweaking simple game mechanics (see rule 3) - like stability hits for adding provinces, additional bad boy points for expansion, money to incorporate, modify economies so you're not dirt poor in the beginning and super rich later, make coalitions easier to form, improve internal building, increase time to incorporate new provinces and cultures. All are tweaks to easily understood and logical game design elements.

They CHOSE to add new redundant mechanics to artificially reduce money and slow people down without attempting to tweak their current economy, ways accumulated points are spent, their stability feature and what it represents, their autonomy feature and what it represents, their non-culture or non-core penalties and what they can represent.

 

[grommile]

As long as you keep up in military tech (which is usually fairly easy to do with the exception of the American technology groups) European nations are seldom a match by the time they come knocking in you part of the world as you will have had 200 years to build an empire for which there is no equal.

Look at the borders of the empire that the Timurid successor state of Gurkaniyan (popularly called the Mughal Empire) built, and consider that it was built in 170 years.

Now, sure, the player can outstrip Gurkaniyan's performance... but the player can outstrip any historical state's historical performance, so that's not saying much given that the player gets to start 80 years before Babur's opportunistic invasion of the crumbling Sultanate of Delhi.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

As long as you keep up in military tech (which is usually fairly easy to do with the exception of the American technology groups) European nations are seldom a match by the time they come knocking in you part of the world as you will have had 200 years to build an empire for which there is no equal. That your administrative and diplomatic (well mostly administrative) technology is decades behind, makes little difference as your armies not only have cutting edge technology but are also able to drown the Europeans with infinite numbers.

EU4 is set during the age of European discovery and ascendency from a middle age backwater to global supremacy - now this could have conceivably turned out quite different indeed with India and China holding onto the top spots - but I personally do feel that the European colonizers should represent the "final boss" for ROTW starts. In my experience this is seldom the case as I merely have to stay up to date in military technology (again very easy to do) to be unbeatable by the time they arrive.

What you quoted is non-sequitur. Take another read through the thread and try again. You quoted me, but you haven't addressed any point I made.