Remove immediate effects for stability/WE buttons

[Dalos]

Hi all,

as title says I personally don't like effects of mentioned buttons. If you have enough MP, you can turn your country from apocalypse state to heaven...

Instead I'd like to propose this - if you click on the WE button, decreasing of WE will be faster but not immediate.

Something similar would be imho great for stability but this requires more significant changes.

This would maybe lead to more empire collapses since it wouldn't be that easy to recover from bad wars.

Thank you for your respectful replies...

 

[Gaussia]

Suggested something similar some time ago and someone commented that a very simple way of doing this would be to simply add a cooldown to the Stability/WE/Inflation reduction. That would require less changing to the game (and especially simplify concerning stability)

 

[crusaderking]

Hi all,

as title says I personally don't like effects of mentioned buttons. If you have enough MP, you can turn your country from apocalypse state to heaven...

Instead I'd like to propose this - if you click on the WE button, decreasing of WE will be faster but not immediate.

Something similar would be imho great for stability but this requires more significant changes.

This would maybe lead to more empire collapses since it wouldn't be that easy to recover from bad wars.

Thank you for your respectful replies...

I agree. I quite dislike the one-click --> immediate effect of EU4. It feels too artificial. But changing that means that the entire architecture of the monarch points system needs to change from a stock to a flow - the way natural resources are coded in HoI4. The reason I say this is because Monarch Points should be, in my opinion, non-storeable resources. You can't really store the organizational resources of the state, can you? A shift to a flow system would allow the player to divide inflow of MP and channel them into different activities like researching tech, adopting ideas, implementing policies, raising stability, decreasing inflation, reducing war exhaustion, increasing army and naval tradition, maintaining forts, decreasing aggressive expansion, etc. Thus, investing more points into raising stability would stabilize the realm faster, but it may slow down the rate of adoption of new administrative ideas or researching the latest administrative tech. But I have no hopes that this would actually come to fruit.

 

[misterslack]

I like the idea and agree that many in-game effects are too immediate, but I think implementation would be difficult and would take a lot of time and feedback cycles to get right. I'm also not sure if I'd prefer to have Paradox spend their limited development time on this versus adding new features. I think this type of thing is better slated for Europa Universalis 5, where they can implement such a system from scratch and cleanly integrate it with the rest of the game.

 

[Dalos]

Thank you for you comments.

@misterslack I think what myself or Gaussia proposed is not hard to implement but result would be good.

@crusaderking Wasn't this system at EU1?

 

[crusaderking]

I don't know. I haven't played any other EU game. But from what I saw in the EU3 forums (and what EU3 nostalgists say here), it seems EU3 had some slider system for technology and stability where you advance faster if you invest more gold. Now, using gold for everything is not all that great, and I think the concept of Monarch Points is actually pretty awesome. But it really needs a lot of rework so that it becomes more engaging to use Currently, MP is a constraint on the player, since gold soon stops being one, and I'm sure that must have been the case in EU3 as well. But MP should be more than just a constraint, in my opinion. That's why I would like a shift from the stock to the flow model.

 

[grommile]

But MP should be more than just a constraint, in my opinion.

This sentence...

That's why I would like a shift from the stock to the flow model.

... seems to me to be in exact contradiction to this sentence. How is the flow model anything other than a constraint?

 

[crusaderking]

Because in a stock model, you cannot engage in an action, say increase stability, unless you have enough MP for it. You're thereby constrained in that you can't do anything till you have stocked up enough points. In a flow model, however, you can reduce investment in technology and ideas and invest more in stability, thereby actually giving the player a choice as to whether he wants to prioritize stability in the short term at the expense of slower tech advance or idea adoption for that small period, or whether to go for better technology or better idea first and let the realm stabilize slower. Like I said, MP would not be just a constraint, but would also allow some kind of deeper decision making. May be it's just me, but I don't want things to be one-click-immediate-effect. I want things to take time, yet giving players some degree of control over the speed of the process.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

No major hammerings on mechanics w/o re-adjusting the surrounding mechanics whatsoever, please.

Prestige and AT hit events being identical to before despite their heavy-handed nerfings is bad enough, but when compared to stability would be nothing. Fun as it would be to stabhit the AI down to -3 stab even when it has the ADM to boost it and insta-end wars inside a year consistently, I don't think that's a particularly helpful change for the game.

 

[Lemont Elwood]

I agree. I quite dislike the one-click --> immediate effect of EU4. It feels too artificial. But changing that means that the entire architecture of the monarch points system needs to change from a stock to a flow - the way natural resources are coded in HoI4. The reason I say this is because Monarch Points should be, in my opinion, non-storeable resources. You can't really store the organizational resources of the state, can you? A shift to a flow system would allow the player to divide inflow of MP and channel them into different activities like researching tech, adopting ideas, implementing policies, raising stability, decreasing inflation, reducing war exhaustion, increasing army and naval tradition, maintaining forts, decreasing aggressive expansion, etc. Thus, investing more points into raising stability would stabilize the realm faster, but it may slow down the rate of adoption of new administrative ideas or researching the latest administrative tech. But I have no hopes that this would actually come to fruit.

Oh, absolutely. It would work much better if there were far more Monarch Points, but far more things to spend them on. I actually very much preferred the idea of EU3 tech, as while having money buy tech isn't the most realistic, it at least gave a sense that you were constantly investing for the future.

 

[Mattius]

I agree. I quite dislike the one-click --> immediate effect of EU4. It feels too artificial. But changing that means that the entire architecture of the monarch points system needs to change from a stock to a flow - the way natural resources are coded in HoI4. The reason I say this is because Monarch Points should be, in my opinion, non-storeable resources. You can't really store the organizational resources of the state, can you? A shift to a flow system would allow the player to divide inflow of MP and channel them into different activities like researching tech, adopting ideas, implementing policies, raising stability, decreasing inflation, reducing war exhaustion, increasing army and naval tradition, maintaining forts, decreasing aggressive expansion, etc. Thus, investing more points into raising stability would stabilize the realm faster, but it may slow down the rate of adoption of new administrative ideas or researching the latest administrative tech. But I have no hopes that this would actually come to fruit.

While that would be fantastic, it's just to big of a change to be done. I wish it could be though.

 

[Dalos]

No major hammerings on mechanics w/o re-adjusting the surrounding mechanics whatsoever, please.

Prestige and AT hit events being identical to before despite their heavy-handed nerfings is bad enough, but when compared to stability would be nothing. Fun as it would be to stabhit the AI down to -3 stab even when it has the ADM to boost it and insta-end wars inside a year consistently, I don't think that's a particularly helpful change for the game.

Could you be more specific? How would you reduce the AIs stability that easily?

 

[grommile]

Could you be more specific? How would you reduce the AIs stability that easily?

Quickly rack up enough warscore to send stabhit peacedeals that the AI will reject because of Length of War.

 

[Dalos]

If this is possible then in current state AI can only delay the inevitable by spending admin points, right?

Therefore it looks like bug to me more than argument why refuse this suggestion.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If this is possible then in current state AI can only delay the inevitable by spending admin points, right?

Therefore it looks like bug to me more than argument why refuse this suggestion.

Nope. Any attempt to claim it's a bug would necessarily demonstrate that the developers are dishonest outright. It can't be a bug because:

1. Length of war has been stated to be an intended, though not ideal, feature needed for the AI to function in war/peace deals right now.
2. The stability hit rules are consistent and applied to everyone.

Granted, I'm still a bit salty over the fact that the stabhit rules were changed several patches back with it being documented exactly nowhere officially (not in the patch notes, not in the game, the only way you'd realize the rules changed would be to get stabhit in a situation where you wouldn't have previously). But these rules apply to the player and the AI.

Now, might the AI be tweaked to be less vulnerable to this? Sure. You can start by making it not waste resources by being stubborn in wars where it's down...but that's a bit of a digression. This isn't the only system affected by instant stab gains/losses, just a single example. If you mess with the balance of ability to buy it back, you then have to re-balance tons of things that depend on stability or you wind up with nonsensical outcomes.

 

[Dalos]

Still feels like only delaying the issue by spending admin point if you can do it multiple times. (or don't you?)

I never noticed it so maybe I don't have clear picture here.

Anyway from my point of view countries (even player) should experience crisis if their situation is bad. For example I almost never experience negative stability except for some exceptions (westernization) which seems a little bit weird. (keep admin points reserve and most likely nothing bad happens)

 

[Dalos]

Ok, I just tried that and from my point of view it's not a valid argument.

I think the bad thing is stab hit because of length of war, not removing of instant raise of stability button.