Simple Question: Do you want internal governance mechanics?
- Thread starter Solo4114
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I think stability represents what you guys are referring to. I would like to see Stability in general expanded, as opposed to just spending some points to bump it up.
Perhaps Stability should be more like Prestige or RT, where it goes up or down over time depending on factors. Then add additional laws to be enacted to adjust for that, and random events to allow multiple factions in the group to become more or less accepting of the status quo.
I would like to see cultural conversion almost removed from the game. Culture does not change because you send some smooth talking cats to the province for a couple of years.
Perhaps Stability should be more like Prestige or RT, where it goes up or down over time depending on factors. Then add additional laws to be enacted to adjust for that, and random events to allow multiple factions in the group to become more or less accepting of the status quo.
I would like to see cultural conversion almost removed from the game. Culture does not change because you send some smooth talking cats to the province for a couple of years.
That would be nice. I especially hope they give some work to the culture system. Changing the culture of a province should not be that easy and should not happen often. (Maybe rather than having a single culture in each province, show the composition of the cultures in the province instead, same can be done to religion)
However, I wonder how they can make the internal management a rewarding mechanic rather than a punishing one.
However, I wonder how they can make the internal management a rewarding mechanic rather than a punishing one.
Yes , in the abstract.
In reality, I strongly suspect that grafting such mechanics onto a game not really designed for them would not work out very well.
In reality, I strongly suspect that grafting such mechanics onto a game not really designed for them would not work out very well.
Stability is partially what I'm getting at, actually. It's a highly abstracted, very hands-off mechanic where your best bet is to set it at +1 and leave it the hell alone from there on out, lest the heavens rain comets upon you ad nauseum.
To me, that's the problem with the game: stability IS our internal mechanics.
I'm talking more about active management of internal governance across a variety of areas. Hands-on stuff where you have to actually pay attention instead of just painting the map and waiting until the paint dries so you can start again.
To me, that's the problem with the game: stability IS our internal mechanics.
I'm talking more about active management of internal governance across a variety of areas. Hands-on stuff where you have to actually pay attention instead of just painting the map and waiting until the paint dries so you can start again.
Cultural conversion is fine. Through the process itself is silly, the game is well balanced enough that it´s SO costly, you VERY seldom will use it.
I would only see a problem if a hypothetical Russia that conquered all Commonwealth OR all tatars manage to change ALL Cultures in one century. Guess what, that doesn´t happen. Likewise, I can see even a player France having trouble converting ALL Lower countries to his culture.
As for stability, it is poorly used as a gameplay mechanic, but too late to change it.
On the one hand, I'm not sure, but then it's not my job to be sure.
On the other, I think it's not about punishment vs. reward, so much as accurate modeling. "Rewards" for managing your internal politics are a smooth-running state. The punishment is a state that's collapsing or out of control.
The game already does this with its systems of controlling the speed of expansion. You don't get a "reward" for managing AE/OE/Coalitions in the sense of some bonus to your armies or whatever. What you get is a smooth-running expansion. Except you don't actually get that because "Smooth running" means you have to wait after expanding for a while, so it's not exactly "smooth" so much as you not having to fight off a bunch of other mechanics designed to check your advancement. I see internal management as simply being a more concrete, realistic, less abstract and arbitrary mechanism for doing the same thing.
Honestly, I use it ALL the time. As Russia who's lost the baltic, I have literally *no* need for a navy, and my trade income would suck anyway due to all the siphoning going on, so I don't need to build trade buildings.
Then it´s a matter of balancing it. Increase the cost or time. Doesn´t some mods change it a bit?
The only REAL Solution would be having POPs that assimilate like in Victoria 2. We don´t have, so...
The only REAL Solution would be having POPs that assimilate like in Victoria 2. We don´t have, so...
Honestly I'd rather it be left untouched. If Paradox refuses to develop peace mechanics, and by extent, cultural mechanics, there's no point in making another feature useless.
I think what you said is exactly something I describe as "punishing mechanic"
Rewarding mechanic: You get reward when you do thing right
Punishing mechanic: You get punished when you are not doing thing right.
AE/OE/Coalitions are all punishing mechanic. Something you have to do thing right to avoid. On the other hand, the old vassal feeding can be considered a rewarding mechanic. I don't mean punishing mechanics are always bad, but one must carefully find a balance. The recently 2 patches nerf some rewarding mechanics while buff some punishing mechanics. I don't think it will be a good idea to adding even more punishing mechanics at this point.
Rewarding mechanic: You get reward when you do thing right
Punishing mechanic: You get punished when you are not doing thing right.
AE/OE/Coalitions are all punishing mechanic. Something you have to do thing right to avoid. On the other hand, the old vassal feeding can be considered a rewarding mechanic. I don't mean punishing mechanics are always bad, but one must carefully find a balance. The recently 2 patches nerf some rewarding mechanics while buff some punishing mechanics. I don't think it will be a good idea to adding even more punishing mechanics at this point.
By your definition of a "punishing mechanic" (which I guess I'd view more as an "obstacle"), I don't have a problem with their existence, if the way they work is transparent, bears some relation to historically accurate forces, and gives me a level of control and management of them.
I think the problem with AE is how it operates where, if you expand beyond the prescribed pace for the game, you have to sit in "time out" and wait, or risk the wrath of other nations. In that sense, it operates as a "punishment" or a restriction. But I tend to think that's also because peace time is boring. It really IS a "time out" for you. You go sit and think about what you've done, young man! >fingerwag<
I fully expect a game to present players with obstacles, or to impose restrictions upon their ability to breeze through and win the game. My problem is when stuff gets so abstract that it's basically just a bunch of mathematical equations with which I barely interact, particularly when this is done at the expense of immersive, hands-on mechanisms that bear some resemblance to what a head of state might've had to deal with during this time period.
I think the problem with AE is how it operates where, if you expand beyond the prescribed pace for the game, you have to sit in "time out" and wait, or risk the wrath of other nations. In that sense, it operates as a "punishment" or a restriction. But I tend to think that's also because peace time is boring. It really IS a "time out" for you. You go sit and think about what you've done, young man! >fingerwag<
I fully expect a game to present players with obstacles, or to impose restrictions upon their ability to breeze through and win the game. My problem is when stuff gets so abstract that it's basically just a bunch of mathematical equations with which I barely interact, particularly when this is done at the expense of immersive, hands-on mechanisms that bear some resemblance to what a head of state might've had to deal with during this time period.
You honestly think that a Magdeburg who got five provinces in 5 years wouldn´t be isolated and spanked by other HRE countries?
Agressive powers SHOULD and WERE punished. It is NOT abstracted. In numbers to na extent, but not in concept. In the "example" a real life Magdeburg head of state would pay for his warmongering and guess what - in the game, he does. The external politics+war part of the game is good, the internal one, not as much. THAT is the Achilles´ heel of EU 4.
So answering the OP, yes the game does need better mechanics to rule the country in an interesting way.
Agressive powers SHOULD and WERE punished. It is NOT abstracted. In numbers to na extent, but not in concept. In the "example" a real life Magdeburg head of state would pay for his warmongering and guess what - in the game, he does. The external politics+war part of the game is good, the internal one, not as much. THAT is the Achilles´ heel of EU 4.
So answering the OP, yes the game does need better mechanics to rule the country in an interesting way.
Last edited:
Some punishing mechanics are stand-ins for internal politics. AE is not, AE is a reasonable mechanism by which neighbors respond to their neighbors expanding. But OE and stability are both stand-ins for internal political dynamics. If Paradox were to build up internal political dynamics, it would necessarily involve adjustments of stability and OE, as well as other mechanisms like accepted cultures.
Part of the reason I'd like to see more internal dynamics would be as a tool by which small states could compete with larger states, through being more efficient and capable on a per-capita basis.
Definitely. Reading about the 80 years war, such a conflict would be over in a year in EU4.
I have mixed feelings about implementing Internal Politics. On the one hand, it is something that the EU series is desperately in need of. On the other hand, if the current Ming Faction system is any indication of what Paradox would produce then I would rather they just not even try because the system they create would be absolute garbage.
I'm very interested in how Wealth of Nations is going to handle the East Indies Companies. If it is essentially a way you can 'flag' certain provinces as belonging to the Company, and they aren't treated as a subject nation like Colonies then I've got something very interesting I've been working on that will hopefully be able to take advantage of this.
We'll see.
I'm very interested in how Wealth of Nations is going to handle the East Indies Companies. If it is essentially a way you can 'flag' certain provinces as belonging to the Company, and they aren't treated as a subject nation like Colonies then I've got something very interesting I've been working on that will hopefully be able to take advantage of this.
We'll see.
CK2 for playing a ruler. EU4 for playing a country. It's a game with many streamlined mechanics but enough complexity to be interesting even if not seeking a WC. Rather than adding features, tune what's there and explain them better to the player in-game.
Or, as in CK2, add in-depth mechanics for some countries, such the republics, which have much more truly political activity than the usual monarchies. Looking at other Paradox games, Rome's map covered the "known world" but it was really at core and most fun about Rome and republican politics. The monarchies were relatively shallow, as they should be unless trying to do a CK2 character-driven game.
First, don't break it.
Or, as in CK2, add in-depth mechanics for some countries, such the republics, which have much more truly political activity than the usual monarchies. Looking at other Paradox games, Rome's map covered the "known world" but it was really at core and most fun about Rome and republican politics. The monarchies were relatively shallow, as they should be unless trying to do a CK2 character-driven game.
First, don't break it.
That's what they've been trying for the past few patches, I believe.
I think that the politics of this time were possibly even more character driven than those of the medieval period
Right along with Russia, Portugal, France, and England, who all care immensely, right?
They were not punished with magic shields that worked without armies. History has no such magic shields.
An internal mechanism that adds some depth would be nice, yes. Right now, they are poorly modeled with events, OE, stability, leader statistics, and revolt risk.