Please no extra tag switching limitation

[RaptorCommander]

Tag switch shenanigans is fun. It adds replayability. One of the best moments of entertainment in the dev clash was kasier's ottos-georgia-byz.

Fun > realism

@DDRJake Please dont limit tag switching

 

[Piotrzeci]

They might just see how hard the game is to balance with these unpredictable tag-switches. Culture Shifting is easier than ever and you can form anything as anything. They probably just can't keep on blocking formations the hard way (making requirements be "can't be X, Y, Z, ...") and create a list of countries, that reasonably wouldn't form anything anymore.
Realism is not the name of the game, it is historical possibility. They want the game to show something that could have happened (under circumstances bizarre or not) and not Ottomans forming Georgia and then Byzantium.

 

[EquilinT]

a lot of nation forming decisions give claim/perma claim for that nation's historical territory, unlimited tagswitch means you get claims mostly everywhere with minimal claim fabricating and expansion can be super fast (since perma claims give -25% CCC) which is probably unwanted.
It also make no senses for a nation to proclaim themselves several different nations in its history, esp. in a short period of time.

 

[raikaria]

Pretty much the only ones on that list that are nations you'd try and switch from are Ottomans and Ming. And Ming was special-cased out of most formations anyway.

There were all sorts of abuses with Ottoman tag switching; and it also kinda breaks missions. Getting all the Ottoman missions and then getting the Purple Pheonix missions? Totally fine. No problems there.

Also; why would the Turkish Empire suddenly decide 'we're the Kingdom of Georgia now'. It wouldn't.

It makes sense to me; these are 'final form' tags.

I agree tag-switching is fun; but there's some tags [Particually those with a load of unique missions that give large amount of claims] that the buck should probobly stop with to prevent mission abuse.

 

[Viengua]

I'd really rather this was an optional rule than a fundamental change, personally, like lucky nations.

Particularly with the new mission system, there can be very little to do flavour-wise once you've filled out that static tree, forming a new nation can help avoid that and serve as a fun little challenge. The number of crazy cool runs that people have done with ridiculous formations actually sold a friend of mine on the game when I presented it to him, and I'd hate to see this quirk that produces so many distinct and interesting stories, even if they aren't rigidly historish.

 

[aono]

a lot of nation forming decisions give claim/perma claim for that nation's historical territory, unlimited tagswitch means you get claims mostly everywhere with minimal claim fabricating and expansion can be super fast (since perma claims give -25% CCC) which is probably unwanted.

...I like how people see it as a problem with multiple tag switches, not a problem with nation forming decision giving permaclaims on everybody and his aunt.

 

[Buladelu]

I'd rather want them to remove any tag checks. Don't check my tag ever. You have my culture, religion, government, maybe even dynasty for some events - there's nothing that Byzantium should be able to do that any Greek Orthodox Empire with exactly the same territory can't do. All this silliness with tag-switching only highlights this core problem of silliness of checks on country tags.

 

[aono]

You have my culture, religion, government, maybe even dynasty for some events - there's nothing that Byzantium should be able to do that any Greek Orthodox Empire with exactly the same territory can't do

There is a problem.
It's highly, unspeakably simpler to check one simple variable (tag), then four of them (culture, religion, government, region; even if you don't include things like dynasty) in some decision or event. Also we have a problem with national ideas, but, truth to be said, I'd think something to reform them as well. I'd say "that would be another game", but, you know, seeing what devs do with EU4, Stellaris and CK2 with updates, I'm dismissing this claim.

UPD: I _do_ agree with basic idea though, but it's very complex technically.

 

[Shadoon4]

My basic opinion is that since the AI won't use silly tag switches, who cares if the player does? Like if I'm going for a historical ottomans game I'm not gonna faceroll tag switches to min/max a WC but if thats what I'm trying to do then let me do that. The only problem that multi tag switches has is that in MP you can cause severe balance issues. BUT HERES THE EASY FIX FOR THAT JUST MAKE A SETTING FOR IT IN MP!!! Let us SP do our shenanigans when we want

 

[aono]

My basic opinion is that since the AI won't use silly tag switches, who cares if the player does?

That's specific way of thought I can't understand in community. I mean, as far as I know EU4 (and every Paradox grand strategy) supposed to be simulators. They even are sold under "Simulation" tag in steam. So every option in-game that trumps simulation quality (not historical qualitty) is bad.
And about "let us do our shenanigans"... After all, player in SP can always open console and use "own_core <province_id>". Or "tag <country tag>".

 

[Twoflower]

It's not only about EU4 being a "simulator". That term is one that many people here will disagree with, and for quite legitimate reasons.
It's about EU4 being a strategy game. A strategy game is not supposed to be a complete sandbox where you can do anything you want without any difficulty. It is supposed to present meaningful challenges and choices.
Tag switches have been used to circumvent challenges presented in the game in a way that is obviously unintended. To use the most egregious example: restoring the Byzantine Empire is supposed to be very hard. Tag-switching to the Byzantine Empire from the Ottoman Empire does require jumping through some hoops, but it's a lot easier.
Or as another example: when you form Prussia, you get one of the best idea sets and a pretty powerful special government, basically as a reward for prevailing as one of the (relatively) weak Northern German states in a pretty tough environment. Forming Prussia as Poland is just a cheap way to go around that challenge.

 

[Piotrzeci]

My basic opinion is that since the AI won't use silly tag switches, who cares if the player does? Like if I'm going for a historical ottomans game I'm not gonna faceroll tag switches to min/max a WC but if thats what I'm trying to do then let me do that. The only problem that multi tag switches has is that in MP you can cause severe balance issues. BUT HERES THE EASY FIX FOR THAT JUST MAKE A SETTING FOR IT IN MP!!! Let us SP do our shenanigans when we want

The same arguments can be used to justify adding British trade companies in Ireland or decision to become a Shogunate as an African nation. Just because something is in the game, doesn't mean it should stay. You can still tag switch, but now it is limited.
It is reasonable to ask for a game option turning it on or off, but I wouldn't even disagree, if it turned off the ironman mode as well.

 

[aono]

The same arguments can be used to justify adding British trade companies in Ireland or decision to become a Shogunate as an African nation. Just because something is in the game, doesn't mean it should stay. You can still tag switch, but now it is limited.

Actually, that's nice observation. Can you justify WHY adding british trade companies in Ireland (or, let's make things funnier, in Finland or Muscovy) or becoming a Shogunate as an African nation are bad?

 

[Piotrzeci]

Actually, that's nice observation. Can you justify WHY adding british trade companies in Ireland (or, let's make things funnier, in Finland or Muscovy) or becoming a Shogunate as an African nation are bad?

Well I guess for the reason Twoflower already pointed out. EU4 is a historical game and elements that make no historical sense do harm the game. It's not really a feature, that is a good decision from a gameplay perspective so no real reason to have it.

 

[Twoflower]

Actually, that's nice observation. Can you justify WHY adding british trade companies in Ireland (or, let's make things funnier, in Finland or Muscovy) or becoming a Shogunate as an African nation are bad?

1. Trade companies are supposed to represent entities that engage in very profitable large-scale and long-distance trade. I don't see any of that trade happening between Ireland and Britain. On the other hand, a British trade company in Muscovy would actually be historical (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscovy_Company)
2. The Shogunate existed within the very specific political and social structure of Japan. Now, if an African country for some reason has Japanese culture and Shinto religion, it might be imaginable for that country to replicate the political structure of the Chrysantemum throne. That doesn't seem particularly likely, though.

 

[aono]

Well I guess for the reason Twoflower already pointed out. EU4 is a historical game and elements that make no historical sense do harm the game.

Check yourself. He exactly pointed about EU4 being strategical game, and justified things by effort and result ("restoring Byzantium supposed to be hard" and "forming Prussia is a reward for surviving in hard environment"). It's very different things, please don't mix them.
That's why I raised a question.

Trade companies are supposed to represent entities that engage in very profitable large-scale and long-distance trade.

The Shogunate existed within the very specific political and social structure of Japan. Now, if an African country for some reason has Japanese culture and Shinto religion, it might be imaginable for that country to replicate the political structure of the Chrysantemum throne.

That's what I meant - simulation. "What is this element represent and how it works", not "is it challenging enough and/or a nice instrument to achieve some goal".
I'm not exactly want to discuss would trade companies in Ireland, Muscovy, Finland (trade companies were the method swedes colonized Lappland) or Siberia (again, historical method here; actually, trade company in Kamchatka - in exact EU4 sense - exisied in Kamchatka in 20th century; I can't really say when KJSC was dissolved, but definitely after 1945). But I wanted to show that simulation reasons trumps strategical.

 

[Piotrzeci]

Check yourself. He exactly pointed about EU4 being strategical game, and justified things by effort and result ("restoring Byzantium supposed to be hard" and "forming Prussia is a reward for surviving in hard environment"). It's very different things, please don't mix them.
That's why I raised a question.

Well you are right, it wasn't his main point, but there was some connection with claiming, that it was obviously unintended.
EU4 is a historical strategy and the mechanics of a strategy game are dictated by the historical setup. If a mechanic doesn't help with making it a better game and goes against historical possibility, then there is no need for it. That was as well the point of my examples; it just made no historical sense for them and they were pure counterarguments to "Why delete the option if AI doesn't use it?" way of thinking ("Why not add these? Is there something wrong with these, that isn't with multiple tag-switches?")

 

[aono]

If a mechanic doesn't help with making it a better game and goes against historical possibility, then there is no need for it.

That's not good criteria. A player who want to create trade company in Ireland by England definitely can say it would make game better (because good game is a game player get fun with), and he can definitely argue they were historically possible (Sweden can do it in Lappland, why couldn't England in Ireland?).
Argument "Trade companies are supposed to represent entities that engage in very profitable large-scale and long-distance trade" is good, but it isn't about "is game better with it" or "was it historically possible", it's about simulation integrity.

To bring all this philosophy closer to topic - we have a question about changing tags.
Why limit tag switching in the beginning? Players switching tags gain a lot of permaclaims around. If you ask "is it making game better" - it's subjective; if every player believed its not tag switching wouldn't exist. If you ask "was it historically possible", it would be long, senseless discussion I love. But if you ask "what it supposed to represent?", everything became clearer. In my option tag represent national identity (that's why we have national ideas), and therefore permoclaims should be changed into special wargoals some tags get, like "manifest destiny" cb in CK2.

 

[Piotrzeci]

To bring all this philosophy closer to topic - we have a question about changing tags.
Why limit tag switching in the beginning? Players switching tags gain a lot of permaclaims around. If you ask "is it making game better" - it's subjective; if every player believed its not tag switching wouldn't exist. If you ask "was it historically possible", it would be long, senseless discussion I love. But if you ask "what it supposed to represent?", everything became clearer. In my option tag represent national identity (that's why we have national ideas), and therefore permoclaims should be changed into special wargoals some tags get, like "manifest destiny" cb in CK2.

It's all about limiting a handful of tags from forming anything anymore as they have already claimed their final title. The idea is to stop people from forming a nation with a nation, that is already as important (or final) and not blocking getting claims through constantly finding new countries to form.

 

[aono]

The idea is to stop people from forming a nation with a nation, that is already as important (or final) and not blocking getting claims through constantly finding new countries to form.

I believe my method achieve the same thing, but isn't based on artificial as hell conception of "final, important title".
Why do forming countries gives claims, after all? To give country an ability to conquer its "logical" (I don't want to say "historical", because some countries you can create never existed before) territory. So giving the country special CB to conquer provinces within its logical territory would achieve the same, and tag switching would be prevented because nobody would need it.
Such CBs, which have some specific clause with region, culture or some special options exist in EU4. Unify China limit conquest by China superregion. Imperial Ban limit it with Empire territory. Nationalism limit it by attacker culture group.