@Johan @Anona @DDRJake @Trin Tragula
Recently, Johan posted a poll on his twitter asking fans what they would like a new expansion to be about. The choice of selections was simple, yet broad; Economy, Warfare, Religion and Diplomacy (Economy won by a narrow margin, with more requests for viable tall gameplay tied in). What I was disappointed about, though, was that there was no choice regarding internal politics, characters, dynasties, or anything of the like, as I feel that those are the most underdeveloped parts of the game currently.
It’s not as if they’d be out of place in EU4; it covers the early modern period, which saw some of the most memorable personalities known to man, as well as plenty of dynastic intrigue, wars of succession, and a long story of attempted centralization championed primarily by a few key personalities. And in anticipation of the inevitable ‘go play CKII’ post, does this mean that EU4 should become a dynasty simulator? No, absolutely not, but it should not be completely ignored either, especially given the historical context.
The idea of a modern nation-state was only truly formalized after the Treaty of Westphalia in Europe, and even then wars over dynastic succession were waged as late as the 1740s with the War of Austrian Succession (and let’s not forget the War of Polish succession only a decade earlier, or the War of Spanish succession that opened up the eighteenth century). As it is, though, it feels like that starting out in 1444 we already have a such a Westphalian model given how impersonal the ruler, his advisors, generals and so on feels.
Likewise, this underdeveloped aspect of EU4 has only become more apparent as time drags on. EU4 is a game reliant on monarch points – and, as the name implies, rulers are your main source of them. It is here that the flaws of EU4’s system begin to show themselves; with most expansions, usually something else reliant on monarch points is added or otherwise adjusted, and so that only increases the amount of places you have to (theoretically) debate over where to invest those precious points in. However, beyond select mechanics such as National Focus, Razing or Estates, no new ways have been added to actually affect your MP gain, and once you have a ruler you’re stuck with them until you get a new one. Admittedly, this isn’t that bad of an issue; Paradox usually does a good job of balancing the new and old mechanics.
However, the problems begin to become blatantly obvious once you get a bad ruler; as a monarchy or theocracy, you’re stuck with your ruler for life, and there’s no way to improve them, and so you have to grin and bear it as you fall behind or otherwise come up with a way to kill your ruler. This, combined with the frustration of Regencies, has often lead to many better players going out of their way to become Republics to better control their MP gain (during what is often called the Age of Absolutism), as Republics offer you a way to choose who will be your ruler.
The primary draw of monarchies, then, is the possibility of gaining a PU. However, due to underdeveloped mechanics, it is incredibly hard to discern how to gain a PU or when or if you can even get one, and usually the only ways to figure out how they work is by either countless hours of trial and error, or a thorough reading of atwix’s guide on them. This is to the point where it can feel like they’re decided almost at random, and can lead to downright silly situations such as France getting a PU over Austria within a year of starting due to a sudden death, and we don’t even know why beyond the fact that someone clicked a button.
The lack of depth isn’t exclusive to monarchies, however; everyone is rather vague. When it comes to rulers, we get a name, an age, legitimacy if you’re a monarchy, and the respective mp gain per month. When it comes to leaders, we get a name and their stats. When it comes to advisors, we get a ranking, cost and age, and predetermined portrait complete with a name. That’s really it, and there’s not really any way to affect them once they’ve been rolled. When it comes to the leadership of a country, especially based around an era that placed such a pivotal emphasis on it, everything feels rather flat, shallow and disappointingly vague.
This puts EU4 behind quite literally every other PA strategy title outside of its predecessors; Vicky, Rome, and CK all have portraits and trait systems, with the latter two also having dynasty systems (with varying degrees of complexity) and much more depth to their characters, including a health trait so we also have a decent and logical indicator of when characters will pass on (and we all remember those frustrating cases of losing a 20/30-something 6/6/6 ruler inexplicably within a few years of their rule because EU4 lacks such or seeing those screenshots of someone getting a PU over Austria within a decade of starting). The upcoming HoI4 and Stellaris also have many of the before-mentioned aspects. Why EU4 is the only one to lack them, especially given its setting, is quite the mystery.
The solution then is simple; expand rulers, leaders, advisors, regencies and dynasties (and, subsequently, governments in general). This would truly add to the depth of the game as it would make you think about the actual characters leading your forces and managing your government beyond a few simple stats, and about the consequences of your decisions and how it might affect them – it would actually make them feel dynamic (you can actually affect them!) and engaging, and may make what would otherwise be an obvious choice more debatable. Likewise, this would be a good opportunity to rework many underdeveloped or otherwise confusing aspects of the game, such as regencies and dynasties/PUs.
Some of the most basic of changes can be minor stuff like the introduction of a health trait – as it stands, age is a very vague and often unreliable way of measuring someone’s lifespan, and while that’s not necessarily bad, there’s often no reason or warning given for why someone can just die when they usually shouldn’t, and often inexplicably. As Leaders don’t even have an age (something that should be rectified), it’s particularly frustrating when they suddenly and unexpectedly die, often when in the middle of something important (such as exploring or sieging, where it’s difficult to get a replacement). Others can be portraits for rulers and leaders – so we at least have faces to go with the names, and to further make them feel alive – and an expansion to regencies.
Just as a thought I’ve seen suggested elsewhere: upon a ruler’s death, you can instead choose a type of regency in the same way as you would in a Republican election – where they still behave like a normal regency but have a particular emphasis and a passive benefit (Adm Regency would slow Legitimacy decay, Mil Regency would slow AT decay, etc). Or, alternatively, you could select a single, well-rounded regent instead of a council who would behave in every capacity like a normal monarch and be able to declare wars (but have the legitimacy decay of a Regency) – except you run the risk that he could try to usurp the throne or otherwise throw the nation into a civil war if you’re not careful (low legitimacy monarch, having the regent rule for unusually long times, etc. It’s a Disaster begging to be made).
More involved expansions would be the addition of a basic dynasty system; it probably goes without saying, but the majority of people shouldn’t have to read a guide written by a fan to understand a mechanic because it’s so vague. When it comes to PUs and Royal Marriages, you should have a clear idea of if you can get a PU, why you are getting that PU and if it will result in a succession war. I can imagine such a system finding its place along the lines of Shogun 2/Medieval 2: Total War or EU:Rome’s models; not CKII depth (for a plethora of reasons and concerns), but enough that you have a clear picture of everything that happens within the immediate family (with a cap on how many members of the family there can be).
This would expand Monarchies quite nicely, as currently they’re arguably the weakest of the three government branches; Royal Marriages would more important and strategic (as you won’t just spam them with every nation you want to ally, but instead would have to carefully play matchmaker and weigh the potential outcomes. They should no longer cost a Dip Slot in compensation), losing an Heir wouldn’t always mean you would have to wait to get a new one (apparently there’s no second or third in line for the throne currently in EU4), it could tie into the above mentioned regent mechanic (as an uncle, cousin or brother might try to usurp the throne), offer the possibility of being able to employ other members of the royal family as generals (something quite commonly done), and overall make PUs and the circumstances behind them much more transparent. The added bonus is, naturally, that this all makes it feel more authentic to the period.
Finally, and this would probably be the most involved, the creation of a trait system. As it stands, everyone in EU4 feels rather flat. A ruler is as brilliant at the age of 5 as he would be at the age of 30, while a 70-year old is as stupid as he was at the age of 25. A leader is just as experienced and capable as he was two decades ago, and an advisor is just as competent as he was when he was hired forty years back. And, furthermore, we’re told that someone is this good or bad at something, but no reason is ever really given for it. They just are – as they always have been and always will be. There’s no development, dynamism or really anything to engage or invest a player on the part of a character beyond them dying or otherwise being replaced (and subsequently mourning or praising their successor).
A trait system for characters would fix this - it would engage players, offer a new level of depth, actually make you feel involved with your characters and attached to them, and allow you to watch them develop or regress. A bad ruler or commander could become a good one with the proper traits, a promising character could regress or fall, and decisions that were once clear-cut would become more of a consideration.
I could see a CKII-lite trait system for EU4 working out well; traits would be divided into three categories, Health (congenial and other health traits), Education (for rulers only), and Personality (covering everything else - mentality, attitude, lifestyle, culture/religion/tag-specific, career, etc.), which can be gained or lost by events. Traits themselves can affect a base state (e.g Adm/Shock), a national value (Tax Modifier/Missionary Strength), or a local value (local army morale/tactics). Rulers and Leaders would both have health traits and four personality trait slots, while Advisors would retain their rank mechanic but get two slots for unique personality traits that affect only other values and not their MP generation.
This could also add more dynamism for governments; Monarchies would get to have more influence over their characters/royals development by choosing their education. Republic elections would remain mostly the same; you get to choose a specialized candidate who already has their base stats set, but you wouldn't get to see any of their traits ahead of time (as they would already start out with an Education trait), which would make Elections feel more like elections. Theocracies would be the middle ground; you wouldn’t get to see the selected heir's traits or stats ahead of time, but depending on which choice you select they’ll automatically have certain traits/educations.
In addition to the depth that it would add to the game, I think this would be able to appeal to all parties; while the appeal to role players and AAR writers would be obvious, being able to dynamically affect your ruler and leader’s capabilities as well as a streamlined PU system would appeal to conquerors, while having more stuff to do during peacetime (even if this is not a peacetime system, per-se), would be appreciated by practically everyone. And as the majority of resources and time in developing something like this would be in primarily the artwork, events and history files, and no radically new mechanics would be introduced, this would also give a bit more time to refine the AI.
Overall, I’d gladly pay $10/$15 for an expansion/patch that just:
Recently, Johan posted a poll on his twitter asking fans what they would like a new expansion to be about. The choice of selections was simple, yet broad; Economy, Warfare, Religion and Diplomacy (Economy won by a narrow margin, with more requests for viable tall gameplay tied in). What I was disappointed about, though, was that there was no choice regarding internal politics, characters, dynasties, or anything of the like, as I feel that those are the most underdeveloped parts of the game currently.
It’s not as if they’d be out of place in EU4; it covers the early modern period, which saw some of the most memorable personalities known to man, as well as plenty of dynastic intrigue, wars of succession, and a long story of attempted centralization championed primarily by a few key personalities. And in anticipation of the inevitable ‘go play CKII’ post, does this mean that EU4 should become a dynasty simulator? No, absolutely not, but it should not be completely ignored either, especially given the historical context.
The idea of a modern nation-state was only truly formalized after the Treaty of Westphalia in Europe, and even then wars over dynastic succession were waged as late as the 1740s with the War of Austrian Succession (and let’s not forget the War of Polish succession only a decade earlier, or the War of Spanish succession that opened up the eighteenth century). As it is, though, it feels like that starting out in 1444 we already have a such a Westphalian model given how impersonal the ruler, his advisors, generals and so on feels.
Likewise, this underdeveloped aspect of EU4 has only become more apparent as time drags on. EU4 is a game reliant on monarch points – and, as the name implies, rulers are your main source of them. It is here that the flaws of EU4’s system begin to show themselves; with most expansions, usually something else reliant on monarch points is added or otherwise adjusted, and so that only increases the amount of places you have to (theoretically) debate over where to invest those precious points in. However, beyond select mechanics such as National Focus, Razing or Estates, no new ways have been added to actually affect your MP gain, and once you have a ruler you’re stuck with them until you get a new one. Admittedly, this isn’t that bad of an issue; Paradox usually does a good job of balancing the new and old mechanics.
However, the problems begin to become blatantly obvious once you get a bad ruler; as a monarchy or theocracy, you’re stuck with your ruler for life, and there’s no way to improve them, and so you have to grin and bear it as you fall behind or otherwise come up with a way to kill your ruler. This, combined with the frustration of Regencies, has often lead to many better players going out of their way to become Republics to better control their MP gain (during what is often called the Age of Absolutism), as Republics offer you a way to choose who will be your ruler.
The primary draw of monarchies, then, is the possibility of gaining a PU. However, due to underdeveloped mechanics, it is incredibly hard to discern how to gain a PU or when or if you can even get one, and usually the only ways to figure out how they work is by either countless hours of trial and error, or a thorough reading of atwix’s guide on them. This is to the point where it can feel like they’re decided almost at random, and can lead to downright silly situations such as France getting a PU over Austria within a year of starting due to a sudden death, and we don’t even know why beyond the fact that someone clicked a button.
The lack of depth isn’t exclusive to monarchies, however; everyone is rather vague. When it comes to rulers, we get a name, an age, legitimacy if you’re a monarchy, and the respective mp gain per month. When it comes to leaders, we get a name and their stats. When it comes to advisors, we get a ranking, cost and age, and predetermined portrait complete with a name. That’s really it, and there’s not really any way to affect them once they’ve been rolled. When it comes to the leadership of a country, especially based around an era that placed such a pivotal emphasis on it, everything feels rather flat, shallow and disappointingly vague.
This puts EU4 behind quite literally every other PA strategy title outside of its predecessors; Vicky, Rome, and CK all have portraits and trait systems, with the latter two also having dynasty systems (with varying degrees of complexity) and much more depth to their characters, including a health trait so we also have a decent and logical indicator of when characters will pass on (and we all remember those frustrating cases of losing a 20/30-something 6/6/6 ruler inexplicably within a few years of their rule because EU4 lacks such or seeing those screenshots of someone getting a PU over Austria within a decade of starting). The upcoming HoI4 and Stellaris also have many of the before-mentioned aspects. Why EU4 is the only one to lack them, especially given its setting, is quite the mystery.
The solution then is simple; expand rulers, leaders, advisors, regencies and dynasties (and, subsequently, governments in general). This would truly add to the depth of the game as it would make you think about the actual characters leading your forces and managing your government beyond a few simple stats, and about the consequences of your decisions and how it might affect them – it would actually make them feel dynamic (you can actually affect them!) and engaging, and may make what would otherwise be an obvious choice more debatable. Likewise, this would be a good opportunity to rework many underdeveloped or otherwise confusing aspects of the game, such as regencies and dynasties/PUs.
Some of the most basic of changes can be minor stuff like the introduction of a health trait – as it stands, age is a very vague and often unreliable way of measuring someone’s lifespan, and while that’s not necessarily bad, there’s often no reason or warning given for why someone can just die when they usually shouldn’t, and often inexplicably. As Leaders don’t even have an age (something that should be rectified), it’s particularly frustrating when they suddenly and unexpectedly die, often when in the middle of something important (such as exploring or sieging, where it’s difficult to get a replacement). Others can be portraits for rulers and leaders – so we at least have faces to go with the names, and to further make them feel alive – and an expansion to regencies.
Just as a thought I’ve seen suggested elsewhere: upon a ruler’s death, you can instead choose a type of regency in the same way as you would in a Republican election – where they still behave like a normal regency but have a particular emphasis and a passive benefit (Adm Regency would slow Legitimacy decay, Mil Regency would slow AT decay, etc). Or, alternatively, you could select a single, well-rounded regent instead of a council who would behave in every capacity like a normal monarch and be able to declare wars (but have the legitimacy decay of a Regency) – except you run the risk that he could try to usurp the throne or otherwise throw the nation into a civil war if you’re not careful (low legitimacy monarch, having the regent rule for unusually long times, etc. It’s a Disaster begging to be made).
More involved expansions would be the addition of a basic dynasty system; it probably goes without saying, but the majority of people shouldn’t have to read a guide written by a fan to understand a mechanic because it’s so vague. When it comes to PUs and Royal Marriages, you should have a clear idea of if you can get a PU, why you are getting that PU and if it will result in a succession war. I can imagine such a system finding its place along the lines of Shogun 2/Medieval 2: Total War or EU:Rome’s models; not CKII depth (for a plethora of reasons and concerns), but enough that you have a clear picture of everything that happens within the immediate family (with a cap on how many members of the family there can be).
This would expand Monarchies quite nicely, as currently they’re arguably the weakest of the three government branches; Royal Marriages would more important and strategic (as you won’t just spam them with every nation you want to ally, but instead would have to carefully play matchmaker and weigh the potential outcomes. They should no longer cost a Dip Slot in compensation), losing an Heir wouldn’t always mean you would have to wait to get a new one (apparently there’s no second or third in line for the throne currently in EU4), it could tie into the above mentioned regent mechanic (as an uncle, cousin or brother might try to usurp the throne), offer the possibility of being able to employ other members of the royal family as generals (something quite commonly done), and overall make PUs and the circumstances behind them much more transparent. The added bonus is, naturally, that this all makes it feel more authentic to the period.
Finally, and this would probably be the most involved, the creation of a trait system. As it stands, everyone in EU4 feels rather flat. A ruler is as brilliant at the age of 5 as he would be at the age of 30, while a 70-year old is as stupid as he was at the age of 25. A leader is just as experienced and capable as he was two decades ago, and an advisor is just as competent as he was when he was hired forty years back. And, furthermore, we’re told that someone is this good or bad at something, but no reason is ever really given for it. They just are – as they always have been and always will be. There’s no development, dynamism or really anything to engage or invest a player on the part of a character beyond them dying or otherwise being replaced (and subsequently mourning or praising their successor).
A trait system for characters would fix this - it would engage players, offer a new level of depth, actually make you feel involved with your characters and attached to them, and allow you to watch them develop or regress. A bad ruler or commander could become a good one with the proper traits, a promising character could regress or fall, and decisions that were once clear-cut would become more of a consideration.
I could see a CKII-lite trait system for EU4 working out well; traits would be divided into three categories, Health (congenial and other health traits), Education (for rulers only), and Personality (covering everything else - mentality, attitude, lifestyle, culture/religion/tag-specific, career, etc.), which can be gained or lost by events. Traits themselves can affect a base state (e.g Adm/Shock), a national value (Tax Modifier/Missionary Strength), or a local value (local army morale/tactics). Rulers and Leaders would both have health traits and four personality trait slots, while Advisors would retain their rank mechanic but get two slots for unique personality traits that affect only other values and not their MP generation.
This could also add more dynamism for governments; Monarchies would get to have more influence over their characters/royals development by choosing their education. Republic elections would remain mostly the same; you get to choose a specialized candidate who already has their base stats set, but you wouldn't get to see any of their traits ahead of time (as they would already start out with an Education trait), which would make Elections feel more like elections. Theocracies would be the middle ground; you wouldn’t get to see the selected heir's traits or stats ahead of time, but depending on which choice you select they’ll automatically have certain traits/educations.
In addition to the depth that it would add to the game, I think this would be able to appeal to all parties; while the appeal to role players and AAR writers would be obvious, being able to dynamically affect your ruler and leader’s capabilities as well as a streamlined PU system would appeal to conquerors, while having more stuff to do during peacetime (even if this is not a peacetime system, per-se), would be appreciated by practically everyone. And as the majority of resources and time in developing something like this would be in primarily the artwork, events and history files, and no radically new mechanics would be introduced, this would also give a bit more time to refine the AI.
Overall, I’d gladly pay $10/$15 for an expansion/patch that just:
- Created a health trait/value to give an actual measure of life
- Added in portraits for rulers and leaders
- Created a rudimentary dynasty system
- Overhauled Regencies
- Makes PU’s and Succession Wars more transparent and easy to understand
- Reworked the many dynasty-focused events and disasters to accommodate it
- Created a dynamic trait system
- Along with plenty of new events to accompany it
- 241
- 7
- 4
