Quills Preview and Area of the game i thought need tweaking. Nationalism

[Belissarius]

Quills Preview and Area of the game i thought needs tweaking. Nationalism

[Disclaimers and Caveats]

1st) Its an old build I am aware of this so there might not be an issue.

2nd) i'm not going to go into national balance and such as a sample size of 1 isn't enough to determine if something is unbalanced or not.

3rd) What I am writing about is a subjective opinion based on what I saw and the evidence from Quills lets play.

4th) Just because I am bringing up a problem does not mean I am saying the game sucks or will fail or PI screwed up. Frankly I don't know if the game sucks or is brilliant because I haven't played it.

5th) I may also have misunderstood what I was seeing so my concerns could be without merit.


The problem I saw was with coring. Now many people have felt that coring a province so quickly is a problem in that it doesn't slow down a player and allows for expansion too quickly. I do not find that to be the case because coring is a choice and doing so means you are giving up buildings, NIs or technology. So you expand but you give up something in the process so your choices have impact on your status as a nation far more than EU3 (at least that's what I saw.)

So my problem is that cores work almost exactly like they did in EU3 with the exception of how fast you obtain them and the cost to obtain them. Before you took a province and for 30 years you had nationalism then 20 years later the world and specifically the province recognised your claim on the territory and your right to rule said province and all it cost you was time. With the new system you leap frog over the national unrest.

I think nationalism should be separated from the coring mechanic. When you capture a non core province you should get 30 years of nationalism regardless of whether you core the province or not. If you take a province you already have a core one then the current mechanics work great. I would like to see nationalism be more of a factor in the game and not made insignificant with the coring. Force the player to supress the province as well as core the province.

[EDIT]
When I speak of nationalism I specifically am referring to the game mechanic of increased rebellion chance called nationalism not what we today call nationalism.

 

[Thetitan]

You think of nationalism as we think of it today. This kind of thought was impossible in the start of the game, and only with deep roots in the very late game.

Case in point, Sweden took Skåne from Denmark In the Peaces of Roskilde and Copenhagen in 1660-1661. Skåne had until that point been Danish for all of history, some legends say the danes actually came from that area. Only 15 years later, the danes launch a massive invasion to retake Skåne back, and expected the people of this province to treat them as liberators. They were horribly wrong as the Swedes had during these years put down a massive cultural conversion of the province, purging what was there of danish history and convinced them that Sweden was the rightful owner (in todays terms, this would have been extremly close to, if not actually, a cultural extermination worthy of war crimes charges into the Hague), and the danish army was seen as a foreign invader that needed to be defeated by any means necessary.

So, if a country during this time put a lot of focus and power into "flipping" a culture and national identity of a single province, they could, and would, succeed often enough. Today, that is close to impossible, but those were different times.

 

[Zharradan]

Damn you swedes!

We need that back of course :happy: ...

 

[BobbyDylan]

Depends on the way you look at it. I see that spending admin power on "coring" a provice is essentially running a state funded policy to convince the general population, and the world as a whole, that the province belongs to you. Kinda like Hilter did with the Sudetenland, in a way.

 

[unmerged(584823)]

You think of nationalism as we think of it today. This kind of thought was impossible in the start of the game, and only with deep roots in the very late game.

Case in point, Sweden took Skåne from Denmark In the Peaces of Roskilde and Copenhagen in 1660-1661. Skåne had until that point been Danish for all of history, some legends say the danes actually came from that area. Only 15 years later, the danes launch a massive invasion to retake Skåne back, and expected the people of this province to treat them as liberators. They were horribly wrong as the Swedes had during these years put down a massive cultural conversion of the province, purging what was there of danish history and convinced them that Sweden was the rightful owner (in todays terms, this would have been extremly close to, if not actually, a cultural extermination worthy of war crimes charges into the Hague), and the danish army was seen as a foreign invader that needed to be defeated by any means necessary.

So, if a country during this time put a lot of focus and power into "flipping" a culture and national identity of a single province, they could, and would, succeed often enough. Today, that is close to impossible, but those were different times.

Sure, but (I know nothing about scandinavia, so I might be wrong), there are less differences trough Danes and Swedes than through Irish and British peoples, at the beginning of the time line (for example) ?

 

[Belissarius]

You think of nationalism as we think of it today. This kind of thought was impossible in the start of the game, and only with deep roots in the very late game.

Case in point, Sweden took Skåne from Denmark In the Peaces of Roskilde and Copenhagen in 1660-1661. Skåne had until that point been Danish for all of history, some legends say the danes actually came from that area. Only 15 years later, the danes launch a massive invasion to retake Skåne back, and expected the people of this province to treat them as liberators. They were horribly wrong as the Swedes had during these years put down a massive cultural conversion of the province, purging what was there of danish history and convinced them that Sweden was the rightful owner (in todays terms, this would have been extremly close to, if not actually, a cultural extermination worthy of war crimes charges into the Hague), and the danish army was seen as a foreign invader that needed to be defeated by any means necessary.

So, if a country during this time put a lot of focus and power into "flipping" a culture and national identity of a single province, they could, and would, succeed often enough. Today, that is close to impossible, but those were different times.

Yes but what you are talking about is more along the lines of changing a province culture which isn't coring. In the game nationalism is tied to cores. if there is a core you get no nationalism if there isn't a core then you get nationalism. I use the term nationalism based on the name of the game mechanic not on the 19th century term.

If nationalism was tied to culture change vs cores I'd think that was a great system. I just find the mechanic as it stands now sort of a hangover from EU3 that doesn't quite work right now.

 

[Belissarius]

Depends on the way you look at it. I see that spending admin power on "coring" a provice is essentially running a state funded policy to convince the general population, and the world as a whole, that the province belongs to you. Kinda like Hilter did with the Sudetenland, in a way.

I think that's a good way of looking at things but the process should be separated in my opinion.

Coring = state funded policy to convince the world as a whole, that the province belongs to you

culture change = a state funded policy not to so much change the culture of the people but to convince the population to accept the rule of the 'national culture" the games mechanic of nationalism is tied to culture and not to the core.

 

[Thetitan]

Yes but what you are talking about is more along the lines of changing a province culture which isn't coring. In the game nationalism is tied to cores. if there is a core you get no nationalism if there isn't a core then you get nationalism. I use the term nationalism based on the name of the game mechanic not on the 19th century term.

If nationalism was tied to culture change vs cores I'd think that was a great system. I just find the mechanic as it stands now sort of a hangover from EU3 that doesn't quite work right now.

Considering that if your main culture is present in another country, you have an automatic CB to attack to reclaim it, I would say that is how it works.

Having it as a core, gives you a CB if someone else takes it, and removes the revolt risk if you have positive stability. If you flip the culture, it is even less likely to rebel, even on low stability, and completely removes the CB from others on it. So yes, culture works very similar to how your view of how "Nationalism" should work. Of course, flipping a culture takes much longer time, is more costly, and you must have the correct religion/core to even be able to flip it in the first place.

 

[BobbyDylan]

I think that's a good way of looking at things but the process should be separated in my opinion.

Coring = state funded policy to convince the world as a whole, that the province belongs to you

culture change = a state funded policy not to so much change the culture of the people but to convince the population to accept the rule of the 'national culture" the games mechanic of nationalism is tied to culture and not to the core.

I agree, but aren't they already in game? Coring a province doesn't change the culture (i.e. all of Quill's Irish provinces are all cored, but all are still Irish).

 

[Belissarius]

Considering that if your main culture is present in another country, you have an automatic CB to attack to reclaim it, I would say that is how it works.

Having it as a core, gives you a CB if someone else takes it, and removes the revolt risk if you have positive stability. If you flip the culture, it is even less likely to rebel, even on low stability, and completely removes the CB from others on it. So yes, culture works very similar to how your view of how "Nationalism" should work. Of course, flipping a culture takes much longer time, is more costly, and you must have the correct religion/core to even be able to flip it in the first place.

You seem to be hung up with my use of the term nationalism.

There is an actual game mechanic called nationalism. When I use the term nationalism I am specifically referring to that actual mechanic not anything else.

How that mechanic works is that if you take a province without a core on it even if that province has the same culture as you, there is an increased revolt risk. In EU3 it took 30 years for this increased rebellion mechanic to disappear. As time went by it would be reduced in severity. From what I could see that mechanic is still in the game. HOWEVER as soon as you get a core nationalism disappears.

What I am saying is that instead of it disappearing simply because you added a core it should in fact stick around till you changed the culture or 30 years have passed.

 

[Belissarius]

I agree, but aren't they already in game? Coring a province doesn't change the culture (i.e. all of Quill's Irish provinces are all cored, but all are still Irish).

Yes but my point is that once they were cored they no longer had an increased revolt risk from being newly conquered. I am saying that that increased revolt risk should continue for 30 years or until you switch culture AND have a core.

 

[BobbyDylan]

Yes but my point is that once they were cored they no longer had an increased revolt risk from being newly conquered. I am saying that that increased revolt risk should continue for 30 years or until you switch culture AND have a core.

Hmmm... I see. It seems Paradox want's to do away with the time limits, and make everything available to a "currency" (which is time limited in gain). So, I'd say that even cored provinces of another culture should ALWAYS have a higher revolt risk, until that culture is flipped, or it becomes an accepted culture in your nation.

Keep in mind, Quill prioritises Stability so that could be a factor for his lower-than-expected nationalist revolts.

 

[The Boss]

Sweden took Skåne from Denmark In the Peaces of Roskilde and Copenhagen in 1660-1661. Skåne had until that point been Danish for all of history, some legends say the danes actually came from that area. Only 15 years later, the danes launch a massive invasion to retake Skåne back, and expected the people of this province to treat them as liberators. They were horribly wrong as the Swedes had during these years put down a massive cultural conversion of the province, purging what was there of danish history and convinced them that Sweden was the rightful owner (in todays terms, this would have been extremly close to, if not actually, a cultural extermination worthy of war crimes charges into the Hague), and the danish army was seen as a foreign invader that needed to be defeated by any means necessary.

There was support for the Danes in Skåne but I think the Danish army thought the hole province would rise in revolt. It's very interesting to note that even today several polls conducted by newspapers in Denmark, Scania and Sweden shows that there is generally a surprising broad agreement that Skåne should return to Denmark and the people of Skåne are Danish.

The nationwide Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet asked whether to give Scania back to Denmark. A majority of 50.8% said "Yes". Kvällsposten asked the same questions, and this corresponded 54.5% "Yes". Helsingborg Dagblad in Skåne said on its website which country their readers wants to belong too, 52.2% answered "Denmark" while only 35.4% answered "Sweden", rest was "Dont Know".

 

[Red_warning]

There was some support for the Danes in Skåne but I think the Danish army thought the hole province would rise in revolt. It's very interesting to note that even today several polls conducted by newspapers in Denmark, Scania and Sweden shows that there is generally a surprising broad agreement that Skåne should return to Denmark and the people of Skåne are Danish.

The nationwide Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet asked whether to give Scania back to Denmark. A majority of 50.8% said "Yes". Kvällsposten asked the same questions, and this corresponded 54.5% "Yes". Helsingborg Dagblad in Skåne said on its website which country their readers wants to belong too, 52.2% answered "Denmark" while only 35.4% answered "Sweden", rest was "Dont Know".

That doesn't sound very scientific.

 

[Belissarius]

There was some support for the Danes in Skåne but I think the Danish army thought the hole province would rise in revolt. It's very interesting to note that even today several polls conducted by newspapers in Denmark, Scania and Sweden shows that there is generally a surprising broad agreement that Skåne should return to Denmark and the people of Skåne are Danish.

The nationwide Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet asked whether to give Scania back to Denmark. A majority of 50.8% said "Yes". Kvällsposten asked the same questions, and this corresponded 54.5% "Yes". Helsingborg Dagblad in Skåne said on its website which country their readers wants to belong too, 52.2% answered "Denmark" while only 35.4% answered "Sweden", rest was "Dont Know".

I think you missed the point where he talked about to how we view things NOW compared to how we view things back then with regards to nationalism.

 

[PAnZuRiEL]

On the topic of Quill's preview, I'd mainly like to know how exactly he managed to get exclusive rights to broadcast the pre-release version. They really should have given those rights to someone who is actually knowledgeable about and good at the game. Quill's videos frustrated and annoyed me to the point that I wasn't able to get through them all.

 

[Pyriel]

Damn you swedes!

We need that back of course :happy: ...

I've offered Skåne to Danes on a discount , but they keep running the other way when I mention it.. it's like they don't want it as much as we don't want to keep it.

 

[Belissarius]

On the topic of Quill's preview, I'd mainly like to know how exactly he managed to get exclusive rights to broadcast the pre-release version. They really should have given those rights to someone who is actually knowledgeable about and good at the game. Quill's videos frustrated and annoyed me to the point that I wasn't able to get through them all.

Given that the build he was familiar with was from May and things have changed I don't fault him for not being utterly knowledgeable about a game that is in beta. The press release is of a earlier iteration then the current beta release.

As for the idea he isn't good at the game, all I can say is that the game is new and systems have changed from EU3 so expecting him to be "good" whatever that means might be unreasonable. I use the term whatever that means because his strategy in the videos was very sound and well reasoned. I think the problem is that because he made tactical errors and mirco management errors people think his strategy is equally filled with holes but it was comprehensive and effective.

 

[PAnZuRiEL]

As for the idea he isn't good at the game, all I can say is that the game is new and systems have changed from EU3 so expecting him to be "good" whatever that means might be unreasonable.

Well I really didn't like the "oh that's the ninth automatic loan now and I'm still running a deficit, but I guess I'll go to war again and not even bother raising war taxes or anything." I consider myself fairly good (or at least proficient) at EU3, but to be fair I've never taken out multiple loans in a war situation to fund more troops when I already can't afford the ones I have, and maybe that is actually a viable strategy.

I really don't think he deserved an exclusive. There must be any number of other Let's-Players (?) who'd have done a better job promoting the game. Maybe some of the other attendees at the Stockholm LAN event?

 

[unmerged(303856)]

Well I really didn't like the "oh that's the ninth automatic loan now and I'm still running a deficit, but I guess I'll go to war again and not even bother raising war taxes or anything." I consider myself fairly good (or at least proficient) at EU3, but to be fair I've never taken out multiple loans in a war situation to fund more troops when I already can't afford the ones I have, and maybe that is actually a viable strategy.

I really don't think he deserved an exclusive. There must be any number of other Let's-Players (?) who'd have done a better job promoting the game. Maybe some of the other attendees at the Stockholm LAN event?

Loans are different now. They are no longer a sign that your country is failing, and there is nothing wrong with taking out loans during a war.