Pops - Why the opposition?

[frolix42]

One of the worst things about Victoria was trying to get close to 2% clergymen in every province. I'm not even sure that was even helpful for research, it was pointless micromanagement that didn't add anything to the game. It was not at all interesting or immersive.

If pops don't add meaningful gameplay, they shouldn't be there. Rewarding players for learning arcane and arbitrary rules around game mechanics can quickly wreck a game with needless complexity.

When detail is added to the game, in the form of POPs, there should be significantly more precise mechanics to support them. There is absolutely nothing immersive about hordes of British Raj soldiers roaming the world in the 1830s, or Capitalists focusing on building clipper factories in the 20th century, or millions of people settling in the Siberian hinterlands. There are many many other examples in Vic2.

Some players will want more complexity reflexively without thought i.e. a more complicated game must be a better game. If a player devotes thousands of hours to learning obscure game rules then they must be a master of games, or so the thinking goes. In reality this attitude is downright toxic when it comes to making games that people actually want to play.

 

[Atlanteax]

I like the idea of pops replacing the current development system (adm dev, dip div, mil dev, when it was previously just one dev)

 

[LeandroB]

I would love a Victoria 2 like pop sistem. Imperator rome pop mechanics suck so much...

 

[diegosimeone]

Pops can definitely be a great addition if done right, but I think most EU players would only consider a cosmetic change because it could potentially change the way the game is played.

Cultural conversion cost, religious conversion cost and province development pretty much contain this information to the extent of the game's playability.

So people who want pops included to the game, to what extent do they want it?

Cultural, religious and.... more? Do we need to have pops for manpower/sailors, citizens etc? To what end?

I see an advantage where including pops will curb the number of rebels in a province with high unrest. 32k rebels in a province where the total population would be 50k seems unreasonable for example, so perhaps this would limit such unrealistic revolts.

The advantages and disadvantages would depend on how this would be implemented. I'm not sure if there's a uniform advocacy for this, I think some people have something in mind close to what Victoria had, others have something else in mind. Some who disagree mostly do so because they think this is like having Victoria or even Imperator become a part of the EU series, but it shouldn't be the case. I would argue that the majority of EU players want less micromanagement and not more.

I'm definitely in favor of displaying pops for cosmetic purposes and to have a better understanding of rebel and manpower logistics. And I'd like to know what other benefits it would bring or how the game would look if some changes are made in order to make pops part of the game and not just a cosmetic addition.

 

[SouthOf]

Here is why they won't had pop in EUIV: Slavery.
Where in Victoria II you abolish slavery.
In EU it would be a gameplay mechanic.
I'm sure paradox doesn't want to make slavery simulator.
right now slave are a trade good, razing just give mana, and raiding coast give sailors.
Translate all of this with real pop ....

 

[diegosimeone]

Here is why they won't had pop in EUIV: Slavery.
Where in Victoria II you abolish slavery.
In EU it would be a gameplay mechanic.
I'm sure paradox doesn't want to make slavery simulator.
right now slave are a trade good, razing just give mana, and raiding coast give sailors.
Translate all of this with real pop ....

Imperator has Slave pops.

 

[Zhetone]

Imperator has Slave pops.

to be fair, roman slavery/slavery of that period is less problematic to represent than colonial slavery

 

[cary__]

One of the worst things about Victoria was trying to get close to 2% clergymen in every province. I'm not even sure that was even helpful for research, it was pointless micromanagement that didn't add anything to the game. It was not at all interesting or immersive.

Encouraging clergy in your most populated states for a while is definetly not "micro", you also dont have to encourage it in every state. The way bigger micromanagement problem in Vic2 is having to micromanage your armies especially in the late game when you have a ton of brigades and also get new unit types.

Here is why they won't had pop in EUIV: Slavery.
Where in Victoria II you abolish slavery.
In EU it would be a gameplay mechanic.
I'm sure paradox doesn't want to make slavery simulator.
right now slave are a trade good, razing just give mana, and raiding coast give sailors.
Translate all of this with real pop ....

Having slaves be a "trade good" is hardly better than having slave pops imo.

 

[Emre Yigit]

Encouraging clergy in your most populated states for a while is definetly not "micro", you also dont have to encourage it in every state. The way bigger micromanagement problem in Vic2 is having to micromanage your armies especially in the late game when you have a ton of brigades and also get new unit types.


Having slaves be a "trade good" is hardly better than having slave pops imo.

You're playing a game where you can send millions to their deaths, extinguish entire cultures and religions, create a super-centralised and authoritarian theocracy if you wish with hundreds of millions living in brainwashed servitude, and your worry is about slaves as a trade good?

If the point (or even a point) of the game was about trading slaves, then, yes, I'd say that was a pretty tasteless game, but it's not.

PS: Never play CK2.

 

[cary__]

You're playing a game where you can send millions to their deaths, extinguish entire cultures and religions, create a super-centralised and authoritarian theocracy if you wish with hundreds of millions living in brainwashed servitude, and your worry is about slaves as a trade good?

If the point (or even a point) of the game was about trading slaves, then, yes, I'd say that was a pretty tasteless game, but it's not.

PS: Never play CK2.

That wasnt the point, the point was that having to implement slave pops is probably not something that would prevent paradox from having pops in EU.

 

[Jernau_]

Pops dont add any interesting gameplay, but tend to kill performance and bring a huge amount of boring micromanagement.

Most of the issues with Imperator and Stellaris is caused by the pop system.

Hopefully they never come to EU.

 

[Vohen]

From what Johan said about Imperator's pop system having being initially intended for EU4, and now mentioning that there's data to support this demand for it, I think it's fairly safe to assume EU5 will have pops in some form.

 

[alexti]

Encouraging clergy in your most populated states for a while is definetly not "micro", you also dont have to encourage it in every state. The way bigger micromanagement problem in Vic2 is having to micromanage your armies especially in the late game when you have a ton of brigades and also get new unit types.

Exactly! Most of Paradox games (except Stellaris) suffer from this excessive war micro. In their earlier titles this war system was working fine because there were few provinces and few armies, but as the games kept adding more tags and more provinces the small number of repetitions became a very large number of repetitions.

 

[LeandroB]

From what Johan said about Imperator's pop system having being initially intended for EU4, and now mentioning that there's data to support this demand for it, I think it's fairly safe to assume EU5 will have pops in some form.

Plz, not like Imperator... Geez...

 

[Austregisel]

View attachment 691927

One of the worst things about Victoria was trying to get close to 2% clergymen in every province. I'm not even sure that was even helpful for research, it was pointless micromanagement that didn't add anything to the game. It was not at all interesting or immersive.

If pops don't add meaningful gameplay, they shouldn't be there. Rewarding players for learning arcane and arbitrary rules around game mechanics can quickly wreck a game with needless complexity.

When detail is added to the game, in the form of POPs, there should be significantly more precise mechanics to support them. There is absolutely nothing immersive about hordes of British Raj soldiers roaming the world in the 1830s, or Capitalists focusing on building clipper factories in the 20th century, or millions of people settling in the Siberian hinterlands. There are many many other examples in Vic2.

Some players will want more complexity reflexively without thought i.e. a more complicated game must be a better game. If a player devotes thousands of hours to learning obscure game rules then they must be a master of games, or so the thinking goes. In reality this attitude is downright toxic when it comes to making games that people actually want to play.

Your argument is: It is already 1930, all capitalists should build industries only of cars, airplanes. For which Clippers to trade overseas?

If that were the case, it would be that all industries today would be just industries to make robots

 

[Cagallo]

Imperator Rome is probably the first Paradox game using pops that is ACCESSIBLE -- not glitchy (Vic2 trying to simulate their daily income vs expenses), not overwhelming (Stellaris for the 50h I played).

 

[raikaria]

From time to time, I see threads talking about adding pops into the game, but it always appaers to me that, generally speaking, there is pushback to the idea on the forums. Why is that? What is it about a pop system that you do not like? How do you think it could be remedied? Is it simply dislike or is there another reason behind it?
Please, satisfy my curiosity.

Because Europa is Europa, not Stellaris or Imperator.

It's like saying EU5 should have dynastic management; which is what make Crusader Kings it's own game.

 

[iClipse]

I don't have a great deal of experience with Vic 2, but I have put a lot of hours into EU Iv and what I think it most lacks, IMO, is dynamic development (including population growth). You could call it "pops" or just organic development and changes as was seen historically. I don't think anything beyond total population, culture and religion split, is really required from a "pops" perspective in the context of the game.

Far more interesting to me would be the ability of organic population growth and decline to take place, particularly in the later game period, where it really was a thing. This would then mean that more realistic "nation building" strategies were appropriate. With the devastation inflicted by war having the potential to set back population totals by decades if not a century or more.

State controlled development still has its place and occurred, but what the game lacks IMO is the dynamism of natural growth or decline and this is something I would ike to see in EU V to set it (potentially) above EU IV.

While I don't disagree, it has to be done in a thoughtful way.

There is already a mod called Development expanded. It's an absolutely awesome mod where provincial trade power, development cost and prosperity all account for increases in development and devastation for decrease in development. It's basically what you're asking for.

However, because of the Mod it's also incredibly likely that the AI is running around with armies of half a million troops around 1600. In earlier versions of the Mod I've seen Russia run with over a million troops around 1630-1650 or so? Mostly because development increases (=population increases) means linearly more manpower if that development is in states.
You also have unintended consequences where for example France wages a lot of wars on its own terrain, meaning they have on average lower development because of devastation. War against England, then Burgundy, then Austria and maybe Spain leads to devastation and a deathspiral. On the other hand you have England/GB that has prosperity for about 95% of the game in their lands. While in reality Great Britain was only great near the end of the EU4 timeline.

All I'm saying is: I tried the mod for several runs. About 100 hours or so, but in the end I come back to vanilla EU4 because it's simply more fun. You don't have to micromanage everything so that a 1 stack you missed carpet sieges your heartland and causes devastation everywhere. Being blockaded for a few years and your nice 20 development province is now 6 development, even though logically speaking you could provide supplies by land easily.


EU4 could really use a better trade system though. Something where trade flows in multiple directions, prosperity from trade means something other than ducats and dynamic trade values based on demands and supply.

 

[Pete0714]

Because sometimes I just want to play a grand strategy game, and not have to micromanage every little detail to death. Not every Paradox game needs to have pops thrown in, and not every grand strategy player enjoys extreme micromanagement. If they want to make it so that we can choose to ignore the mechanic without consequence, fine.

 

[Twoflower]

Because Europa is Europa, not Stellaris or Imperator.

It's like saying EU5 should have dynastic management; which is what make Crusader Kings it's own game.

EU5 should have some form of dynastic management, in my very humble opinion.
Not on the level of Crusader Kings, obviously, but making personal unions and dynastic politics an actual strategic element of the game instead of something that is based on RNG and deterministic mission trees could potentially add a lot to Europa Universalis V.
In an age that saw the dynastic unification of Iberia, the rise of the Habsburgs and a whole slew of "Wars of X succession" (Milanese, Neapolitan, Burgundian, Hungarian, Landshut, Portuguese, Polish twice, Jülich, Montferrat, Mantuan, Palatine, Spanish, Austrian, Bavarian) it seems very much thematic to make dynasties more important.

What would be out of place is CK's character management.
I don't have an actual idea what an interesting dynastic system for EU could look like, but "dynasties are for CK" is something of a lazy argument.