Simple Question: Do you want internal governance mechanics?

[Solo4114]

By internal governance mechanics, I don't mean things like handing out titles and such a la CK2 (although, that could be part of it). I'm talking more about managing political factions, internal administration, and most of the other internal management matters which are abstracted into the occasional button-click in the current game.

I'm not asking if you think it's feasible or whether the AI can handle it. I don't think it's anyone but Paradox's job to make that call, unless you're someone who is heavily into modding and understands how the systems work at a much deeper level.



Really, all I'm asking whether folks here would want it added to the game. That's it. Yea or nay.

 

[owgrunt]

That's what we need to make peacetime truly interesting.

 

[PeterCorless]

Yes. I would love to do the following:

• Internal culture management. Want to appease your Poles? Spend some time making your Magyars happy? I really dislike that all you can do now, really, is just "convert" everyone over to your dominant culture. That was actually rare. Instead, what was more common, and useful, was to give concessions, make deals, and placate, placate, placate.
• Zealous monoliths vs. tolerant pluralistic nations -- do you want to keep converting everyone to the state religion, and convert all your provinces to your primary culture? Then you seem pretty zealous! Or do you want to allow people to keep their own religion, and run a multi-cultural empire where no one feels threatened? There are advantages to each strategy, and players should be allowed to run their own nations as they desire, rather than feel like they are forced to become the Borg.
• Better "internal security" options. Yes, you can now send in the troops to put down unrest, but the "military" option to suppress opposition somehow infers that internal administration or internal diplomatic efforts failed.
• I still feel like there's not enough you can do for active spy defense; having to take the entire "Espionage" tree simply to get the +25% passive spy defense seems awkward and stupid. Mostly, I really, really, really loathe the "sabotage reputation" effect, and want to put an end to it quickly.
• Have more policy control over your vassals or colonial nations. I'd love to emphasize to British Brazil: Play nice with the Castillians! But I can't. They will go to war autonomously, regardless of what I want. I wish I could ask a vassal, "Can you also develop some colonial ambitions? I'd love for you to take the exploration tree..." But they will choose whatever they want.

Having no internal national management basically makes the game more of a "war game" to me, because you aren't being internally reflective. So you are focusing entirely on the outward conquest and configuration of alliances and enemies.

 

[gaius valerius]

Yea.

 

[unmerged(148338)]

I'd love it since atm I really just like to conquer stuff to make my borders pretty. This would give another goal to players instead of just blobbing. There would actually be some benefits in staying small or just not be at war most of the time.

 

[LiberiusX]

yes.

 

[Tub]

This would be fantastic. Cultural/Religious Tolerance especially, seeing as it was so huge during the 18th Century/Enlightenment Period.

Just an idea, but you could have a slider like Muslim Piety with both of these. Instead of 'Religious Unity' being something completely bad, you could get an idea discount for high Religious Tolerance/Unity, and a missionary bonus for low Tolerance, along with a manpower bonus for high unity. For culture, you could have a similar thing with a tech discount instead - or, if that's too 'overpowered', make it a trade efficiency bonus or something, or maybe a relations over time.

Right now, the optimum configuration is high tolerance for your own faith, with a completely homogeneous realm. It's not all that interesting, but some of these suggested changes would make peace-time more interesting

 

[Sir Leningrad]

Sure, internal politics are one the things that make this era so interesting, and they're so interwined with international diplomacy that it would really enrich the experience if we had it, even when making treaties with other nations or financing some faction in a rival nation. For now it's trade and painting the map, we need a bit more administration a part from building.

 

[grisamentum]

Yes, but Johan thinks EU should just be "Risk on crack" (his words) so we won't ever get any. This is a map-painting game and that's all it'll ever be.

 

[TyrannisUmbra]

The thing is, it would have to be engaging and meaningful without detracting from gameplay or being a big distraction. One of the biggest attractions that EU4 has over its predecessor is how streamlined and intuitive it is. Any new features simply would need to not ruin that strength.

 

[Solo4114]

Personally, I'd like to see things like:

- Parliamentary factions that a constitutional monarch can play off against each other.
- Religious internal factions that must be managed by a monarch.
- A broader range of ongoing administrative matters to deal with, such as taxation, and how else to secure funds.
- Internal economic management, dealing with who gets how much money internally. In very simplistic terms: "Guns or butter?"
- Choices regarding how much autonomy to grant colonies, rather than automatically making them spontaneously form a mini-blob when you hit an arbitrary number of colonial territories in a given region.

These issues could also create far more flavor in playing different nations. Instead of simply being a bigger blob, France would be vastly different from England, in that it would be far more centralized with a stronger monarch, whereas at ANY point in the game as a start date, England would have a weaker king and a stronger parliament. This would prevent England from prosecuting large, expensive wars, but also keep it from spending itself into bankruptcy and collapse. Whereas France could raise mountains of cash...but bankrupt itself in the process, thereby checking its expansion due to internal strains. And that's just one example.


It just strikes me that this time period covers such an incredibly dynamic span of history that to simply treat it as "The Age of Blobbing At Various Speeds" is incredibly simplistic and narrowly focused. That's why I'd like to see more of the historical factors nations faced represented in hands-on decision-making and management for players.

 

[Solo4114]

Yes, but Johan thinks EU should just be "Risk on crack" (his words) so we won't ever get any. This is a map-painting game and that's all it'll ever be.

Johan can think what he likes. I'm having a separate discussion with other players. He can choose to ignore it if he pleases, and I fully expect he will. Doesn't mean the discussion isn't worth having anyway. EUIV may be a lost cause in this regard. But (A) maybe it isn't, and (B) even if it is, that doesn't mean knowing where players (or at least forumgoers) stand on the issue won't assist Paradox in developing EUIV, future games in the EU series, or other games down the road.

The thing is, it would have to be engaging and meaningful without detracting from gameplay or being a big distraction. One of the biggest attractions that EU4 has over its predecessor is how streamlined and intuitive it is. Any new features simply would need to not ruin that strength.

I think that really heavily depends on what "streamlined" means and how it's achieved. Right now, I'd say "Streamlined" means "There's nothing to do during peacetime that is more entertaining than watching paint dry." Given that the devs seem chronically unable to find a good balance for controlling the speed of player expansion, maybe it's time to, you know, focus on other things besides expansion.

If "streamlined" just means "expansion is easy to focus on," then I'd say that's a weakness rather than a strength, particularly when the game seems to also be designed to frustrate expansion. If "streamlined" means "actions in the game are intuitive and easily understood," then I see no reason why internal management would be difficult for players to handle.

 

[krelian]

I'd like to have more influence over internal dynamics paired with a growing difficulty of conquest. I really think that world conquest should be completely impossible as well as most of the hardest achievements you have in the game. Things like creating a united Germany and dismantling the HRE in 1700 from Branderburg or Bavaria start should be a difficult and rewarding achievement. Creating a French Empire by 1750's the size of the real life Victorian Empire ca 1880-1890 should be very hard and a rewarding experience. Without proper internal mechanics you run into two big problems: relatively little to do in peace time and way too linear growth of power with size. Right now in the game you either have to make vast multicultural empires easy to maintain and religion relatively easy to convert or make players miserable by pushing the revolt risk, overextension and conversion resistance numbers up which just results in more rebel spawns until you disintegrate. So you either make things easy when it comes to empire management (current situation) or incredibly hard by just throwing higher numbers at you. There should be a way to keep the player interested and challenged when he creates a giant empire. I love EU and play it obsessively, but it does a very poor job at simulating why big empires just didn't continue expanding, why they'd collapse or be unable to conquer through exhaustion or inertia. In multiplayer this is less of an issue since people will tend to ally if someone threatens to become a runaway superpower, but in single player people hate it when the AI ally and try to stop the player at all cost.

 

[jii]

Yes. I cannot play EUIV in single player because it is too boring.

edit: probably most people will post that they want internal mechanics, but I wouldn't take it as representative of the playerbase as a whole. Many of the more "casual" players probably found EUIV through steam and won't post here.

 

[DanJonMin]

Yus Plus.

A proper civil war mechanic using the dynamic tag/flag system would be absolutely swell!

 

[AKronblad]

Yus Plus.

A proper civil war mechanic using the dynamic tag/flag system would be absolutely swell!

Yes to this, and to the many excellent ideas on the domestic policies in this thread. EU4 needs more domestic considerations, such as a generic and easily expandable faction system. Not necessarily for the AI but for the human players. Doesn't need to be advanced out complex, as long as it is balanced with none of the extremes necessarily good or bad, just different with each having its pros and cons.

 

[Druplesnubb]

Yup. For example I wish they could integrate the Monarch Points system into your government type. Like you can add an "administration" that has military, diplomatic and military stats separate from your ruler. Then you would get more of your MP income from your ruler's stats if you're an Absolute Monarchy and more from your governments stats if you're Constitutional and so on.

 

[Red John]

If the game aims to be more than a painting game, then yes.

 

[Me_]

It could be nice, but I'm not sure it can be done well without making the game too complex for its own good.

 

[wilcoxchar]

I would like to see an internal faction system similar to the one in Ming right now but with more factions and a greater role for factions that aren't in power. Major rebellions and revolutions should also spawn from powerful factions that feel neglected by the direction the country is going.