Some (Constructive) Criticism - MP, Ideas and Technology

[Zenith Darksea]

I've mentioned this already in the demo verdict thread, but I wanted to start a separate discussion about it, since it's something that's been on my mind quite a bit after playing a few games of the EU4 demo. I'd like to hear other people's opinions about this topic, whether or not it's a problem, and, if it is, how it could be fixed.


Important Preface

On the whole, I really like what I see of EU4 so far. EU3 was probably my favourite game of all time, and I am sure that EU4 will go on to be my favourite game. What's more, I've only played the demo, and I'm sure that I will get used to or grow to like many things that are still quite new to me. However, one of the problems of being a Paradox fan is that I am spoiled rotten - I would have lower expectations of a lesser game developer and so probably wouldn't complain so much. With EU, however, my expectations are so high that I'm bound to find something to gripe about. Bear in mind, however, that I want to be constructive here, and not just snipe for the sake of it.


The Criticism

While there are a few niggles that I have about the game so far (colonisation being a bit boring, conversion, coring and culture shifting being too easy, muddled and counter-intuitive idea groups etc.), the one thing that has really been getting to me is the relationship between MP and the economy, and between National Ideas and technology. I would break this down into two areas:

1. I don't really care about my economy so much as I do about my MP. In EU4, I just use money to buy stuff, and so the only thing that really interests me here is whether or not I'm earning more each month than I'm losing. In fact, in order to give money some more value, the developers have had to make advisers extremely expensive.
2. Using MP to buy both ideas and technology leads to a bizarre situation, both from a historical and from a gameplay perspective. Let's say I want to be a colonial power like Portugal, so I get the colonial idea group that requires diplomatic MP to boost. I also want to improve my diplomatic technology as well, so that I can improve my navies etc. However, I don't really spend very much time fighting and I don't have any military idea groups. As a result, I end up with very limited diplomatic MP but lots of military MP, and so my military technology ends up far outstripping my diplomatic/naval technology.

From a historical perspective: Obviously advisers didn't bankrupt countries in real life. Yes, I know that there are some examples such as the time that the Byzantines couldn't afford the Hungarian gunsmith in 1453, but these are special cases. Having Thomas Cranmer around didn't ruin Henry VIII's finances. Secondly, countries like Portugal that focused on naval and colonial expansion had better naval technology as a result, not worse.

From a gameplay perspective: Simply using money to buy stuff is really quite dull. It would be much more interesting if your country's economic well-being had a more profound impact on your game than simply buying extra advisers/buildings/troops etc. More importantly, however, it's just weird to play a Portugal game in which my military technology far outstrips that of other countries while my naval technology isn't as good. The fact that I have to divide my MP between ideas and tech means that the areas on which I want to focus end up oddly stunted. More specifically regarding the technology progress, I don't really understand why the player has to manually select and 'buy' technologies at all. That makes sense when you have a choice/tree, as in the case of the national ideas, but with technology the progression is linear (as I believe it should be). I know that it was added in to give the player more choice and input, but here I think that it adds a pointless layer of micromanagement that actually detracts from the player's enjoyment. While MP and national ideas were clearly designed to give the player more choice in how his/her nation develops, in reality they end up stunting your technological growth in the area on which you wish to focus while allowing you to rush ahead in another area.


How Could it Be Better?

Oddly enough, I think that the way EU3 handled technology was better from both a historical and gameplay perspective. Now, EU4 has made some very good improvements here - using MP to boost stability, making inflation easier to tackle in a more direct way, etc. are all good things. However, regarding technology, EU3 was more on the money. In EU3, your technological progress depended on the strength of your economy. This makes much more sense from a historical perspective, obviously - a ruler didn't (usually) directly invent a technology, but his/her policies indirectly influenced the country's economic state, and it was the country's economic state that created the conditions for technological progress. It also makes sense from a gameplay perspective: it removes the annoying layer of micromanagement in selecting new technologies (which are linear anyway) and removes the annoying choice between idea progression and technology progression. It also gives the player a reason to really care about economics in the long term, without complicating things to Victoria 2 levels.

Thus your MP are still valuable for influencing your country's policies through national ideas, coring, conversion, culture shifting, and various other ways, which influences your country's economic health, which influences your technological progression. In my view, this is much more elegant, interesting, and simply fun.


Can It Be Changed?

Obviously the developers aren't going back on this design decision any time soon, and understandably. However, it might be modded (though I'm not yet sure exactly how). A simple stop-gap solution might be to change it so that you spend money on technology and MP on ideas, though that would obviously require serious re-balancing.

What are your thoughts on this? Would any of the developers like to chip in with their views?

 

[bleakie]

First and foremost, the abbreviation "MP" should be avoided, since it can mean both "monarch points" and "manpower".

I agree that the current structure of monarch points is too rigid. A country should have some limited ability to permanently change the composition of monarch points received, other than hiring advisors. If a player wants loads of DIP monarch points rather than MIL monarch points, he should be able to swap 1 MIL monarch point for 1 DIP monarch point per month after, say, a few decades of effort or in a rare opportunity. Though this kind of things may be hardcoded and difficult to change.

I got an idea that can be easily implemented and should help in the problem. For completing an idea group, a bonus of 1 monarch point per month is awarded, the type depending on which type of monarch points are spent for the idea group. For example, for completing the expansion idea group, 1 diplomatic monarch point per month is awarded. This represents the growing capacity of the state to handle diplomatic affairs by mastering one aspect of it.

But otherwise, I don't think ideas and tech should not consume different resources, since their functions are very similar, which are to provide bonuses in related aspects. Try to think this way: when you choose an idea from exploration idea group, you are directing your seafaring people to explore far and wide rather than to build better battleships. By making your choice, you need to make your sacrifice in diplomatic technology. Just remember that diplomatic technology is not the sole determinant of the level of development of your diplomatic ability. Ideas count too.

 

[1alexey]

From a historical perspective: Obviously advisers didn't bankrupt countries in real life. Yes, I know that there are some examples such as the time that the Byzantines couldn't afford the Hungarian gunsmith in 1453, but these are special cases. Having Thomas Cranmer around didn't ruin Henry VIII's finances. Secondly, countries like Portugal that focused on naval and colonial expansion had better naval technology as a result, not worse.

Advisers are not just simple peope, it is an abstraction of the whole bureaucracy of the state, and bureaucracy was really expencive.

 

[SomethingSharp]

Yeah, I also thought of the advisor costs as the budget for the "Department of the Navy" or whatever institution had to be used to implement the advisor's function. Hopefully the scaling costs as time goes that I saw on the loading screen actually works well, since by late game in EU3 the costs were pretty irrelevant.

But I agree with everyone wondering about the ideas/tech tradeoff. As Ottomans I ended up with a lot of naval and trade tech even though I didn't care about it at all, simply because there was nothing else to spend my dip points on. If monarch points are supposed to represent something similar to tradition (as in, the combined expertise that your country has in that field), then they should boost your tech rate AND ideas in that field instead of doing one or the other.

Personally I think tech was better represented by a monetary investment as opposed to some abstract quality of your monarch. Maybe monarch points would give you a discount or a bonus to teching, but then we're back to EU3 again. We're probably all just too used to EU3 thinking at the moment. And it's probably natural that EU3 is going to feel more polished, especially to those of us who played with mods. We'll just have to wait and see what the expansions and first mods give us.

 

[BoleslavLev]

I played the demo and tried to make some money, because I was kind of still thinking in the frame of EU3 (I know this will go away after some time). I made thousands of ducats just to realize there is not a single think I can buy with it.

On the other hand, ruler points (I call them ruler points, republics have them too) are really rare There really wasn´t time when I would have like 1000 points not knowing what should I buy for them (except for game where I deliberately did nothing to try westernization as Ottomans). I know they were aiming for tradeoffs in this game and hell, did they succeed in that regard. You are really pushed to chose what you want. I am ok with that. I may be upset during the game when I am falling behind (typical paranoia that AI is just conjuring more points ), but objectively, I think it is fine.

One think I hope for is to be able to change money for points. I believe it will be possible in the middle and late game (for example university for money would save you points in tech from that point on). What I don´t like is the linear system of building (making sense somewhere, not so much somewhere else), but that is something I would have to solve myself.

Now, it may seem that there isn´t enough points, but from beta AARs we can see that even smaller nations can grow extremely quickly (it is matter of opinion, I sure know I never grew this fast, certainly not as Oman) under the good leadership. Once we will learn how to better manage our ruler points, I believe it will seem sensible and easy to us.

 

[Zenith Darksea]

But otherwise, I don't think ideas and tech should not consume different resources, since their functions are very similar, which are to provide bonuses in related aspects. Try to think this way: when you choose an idea from exploration idea group, you are directing your seafaring people to explore far and wide rather than to build better battleships. By making your choice, you need to make your sacrifice in diplomatic technology. Just remember that diplomatic technology is not the sole determinant of the level of development of your diplomatic ability. Ideas count too.

No, I don't buy this line of thinking at all. I encourage my people to explore the world, so we don't build better ships, but we do develop better armies? No, that doesn't make sense.

 

[bleakie]

No, I don't buy this line of thinking at all. I encourage my people to explore the world, so we don't build better ships, but we do develop better armies? No, that doesn't make sense.

That brings out the difference between short-term and long-term perspectives. In the short run, resources in the diplomatic and military disciplines are not interchangeable. You cannot order an army officer to design a new ship. When you need to start exploring the world, the first group of people that you would turn to is the navy, rather than the magistrates or the army. This would consume their capacity in their original duty. On the contrary, the army will follow their original trajectory of development. That's why the military tech will go up, while the diplomatic tech will not.

Of course, in the long run, a country should be able to pour its resource in the area it wishes to invest in, and this is the area that EU4 is currently lacking. The suggestions that I made in the previous post are ways to alter the long-term distribution of monarch points. I believe we are in the same league in this aspect.

And finally, a direct answer to your question: better for what? If you want a ship to travel farther, the ship will need more storage space and less cannons. If you want a ship to fight better, it will need to sacrifice storage space for more cannons. This is the type of short-run dilemma you have to face.

 

[BoleslavLev]

For designing a new ship, you actually need tech in the game

 

[bleakie]

You can increase colonial range faster than teching through exploration ideas, that's why this kind of dilemma exists.

 

[Hive]

[*]Using MP to buy both ideas and technology leads to a bizarre situation, both from a historical and from a gameplay perspective. Let's say I want to be a colonial power like Portugal, so I get the colonial idea group that requires diplomatic MP to boost. I also want to improve my diplomatic technology as well, so that I can improve my navies etc. However, I don't really spend very much time fighting and I don't have any military idea groups. As a result, I end up with very limited diplomatic MP but lots of military MP, and so my military technology ends up far outstripping my diplomatic/naval technology.

I too find this to be somewhat problematic, and had the exact same thing happen to me as Venice; I wanted to focus on trade and production ideas, but had an abundance of MIL points - so military tech was nearly the only tech I advanced in, and even began paying ahead of time penalty for it.

As you say, it feels silly to get a worse naval tech in exchange for focusing on, say, the exploration idea group.

I'm not sure having technology paid solely with ducats is the option though, as the price is a constant - which would allow extremely rapid tech advancement in the late game, when money becomes more abundant.

 

[Drakken]

Most of the problems you describe is simply spending too much MPs on ideas, too fast, and racing through idea groups, which are essentially bonuses. It is not a race, guys. You have 400 years to pass.

The simplest solution is situational, and thus player-based, i.e. less overspecialization in your idea groups, and more focus on leveling the techs you actually needs in priority. Ideas should be investments you do between two levels of techs, or when the next idea in line is actually critical.

 

[Zenith Darksea]

But it's not just a question of rushing ideas too fast. The fact is that a nation that fights a lot of wars but doesn't trade so much WILL end up with more diplomatic MP to spare and so be more advanced in trade technology than military technology. Similarly, a colonial or trading nation like Portugal and Venice WILL have much better military technology than trade/naval.

Simply not choosing national ideas for a long period of time won't solve that. The more I think about it, the more I think that EU3 had a better and more logical system for technology advancement.

 

[Drakken]

Simply not choosing national ideas for a long period of time won't solve that. The more I think about it, the more I think that EU3 had a better and more logical system for technology advancement.

Sorry, but no. The EU1-3 tech system was railroading the player, plus depended solely on money and budget was deeply flawed and quickly led to the player being continually trailing behind the AI.

Besides, idea groups which use DIP and ADM MP, but indirectly benefit nations that fight a lot of wars, do exist. More money, less revolt risks, easier coring, etc., all directly benefit a military-inclined country, thus the system is more flexible and adaptable compared to the inflation-ridden EU1-3 money sink system.

 

[Hive]

Sorry, but no. The EU1-3 tech system was railroading the player, plus depended solely on money and budget was deeply flawed and quickly led to the player being continually trailing behind the AI.

I'm not saying the old system was better, but at least technological progress was linked to how well your nation did. Now, it's basically a question of randomly getting a good monarch...

That said, I really like the concept of monarch points - I just think it needs a bit of fine tuning.

 

[Merrivale]

I completely agree that it is both counter-intuitive and poor gameplay wise to make a country that wants to focus on a particular area, say trade, choose between national ideas and tech or try both and fall in-between the stools. The moment I read in Peter's AAR that precisely because he needed to stay current in military tech he was going to avoid military ideas, even though that was the focus of his gameplay I knew something was wrong.

And I think the fix is along the lines of bleakie's idea of awarding points per idea level. Ideas and tech should be in a symbiotic, not antagonistic relationship. If you as a country decide to focus on trade and pour resources into it, it should become easier for you to advance in trade technology and national trade ideas. There are several ways to do this and it would require some testing and balancing, but getting more monarch points and reducing the number of points required for ideas and tech in your focus seem to be the way to go.

If you spend your points on opening the trade ideas you should be getting more monarch points in this area in return and your trade tech should be cheaper. If the king/ruler says I want to dominate in trade, then everyone in that society is going to be scrambling to make it so.

 

[Hive]

I completely agree that it is both counter-intuitive and poor gameplay wise to make a country that wants to focus on a particular area, say trade, choose between national ideas and tech or try both and fall in-between the stools. The moment I read in Peter's AAR that precisely because he needed to stay current in military tech he was going to avoid military ideas, even though that was the focus of his gameplay I knew something was wrong.

And I think the fix is along the lines of bleakie's idea of awarding points per idea level. Ideas and tech should be in a symbiotic, not antagonistic relationship. If you as a country decide to focus on trade and pour resources into it, it should become easier for you to advance in trade technology and national trade ideas. There are several ways to do this and it would require some testing and balancing, but getting more monarch points and reducing the number of points required for ideas and tech in your focus seem to be the way to go.

If you spend your points on opening the trade ideas you should be getting more monarch points in this area in return and your trade tech should be cheaper. If the king/ruler says I want to dominate in trade, then everyone in that society is going to be scrambling to make it so.

But making ideas and/or tech cheaper or alternatively increasing the amount of monarch points given won't really solve the central issue: that you have to choose between investing in eg. trade tech or trade ideas. That issue will stay there untill the payment for the two is seperated somehow.

 

[FredricBastiat]

Yeah, as I play around with it, I think ideas should be something you specialize in. It lets you make yourself into a trader/fighter/explorer whatever with opportunity costs. Now it is mainly a trade-off between ideas in an area and tech in an area, pick whichever one seems better.

 

[Merrivale]

But making ideas and/or tech cheaper or alternatively increasing the amount of monarch points given won't really solve the central issue: that you have to choose between investing in eg. trade tech or trade ideas. That issue will stay there untill the payment for the two is seperated somehow.

I think there's a point where you would run into a resources problem, no matter how much you want to focus on one area there are only so many bright people to go around. As I said there would be a lot of balancing work here to find a sweet spot, and I think going to the opposite extreme of being able to easily dominate your chosen area by having no negative repercussions from teching up or ideaing up would be just as problematic.

What I'm saying is: a national idea requires significant resource expenditure to create, fine. By the act of creating it should also make it easier for you to achieve other things in that area. Easier, but still requiring an investment of resources that forces choice.

 

[Zenith Darksea]

Sorry, but no. The EU1-3 tech system was railroading the player, plus depended solely on money and budget was deeply flawed and quickly led to the player being continually trailing behind the AI.

Firstly, the player did not continually trail behind the AI. If you managed your economy well, among other factors, then you could certainly be in the lead.

Secondly, the EU4 tech system also railroads the player - like I said, the tech tree is still completely linear. The only 'choice' that has been introduced is the counter intuitive one of choosing between an idea in a particular area or a technology in that same area. If there's a tree with a range of options, then it makes sense to get the player to manually choose a new technology. However, in a linear technology system, there's no point in making the player manually upgrade.

The good thing about the EU3 system is that technology actually depended on how well you managed the economy. This is good, because it gives you a reason to care about your country's economy. It was much more elegant and interesting than the set up in EU4, where you only want money so that you can buy stuff.

 

[Ethanol]

To be honest at first I was more or less of the same opinion as OP, but after a few games I'm starting to think that actually having you choose between Ideas and technology is a really good thing, it stops you from just optimizing into a branch and forces you to actually make choices (technology or tradition).

In EU3 things were boring since all you did was get richer and richer and then you were just waiting for the ducats to fill the tech bar, here I've gotten into a few situations were I'm spending 30 minutes thinking between different ideas/technologies).

In the end you've got to gamble on what will be the most useful and THAT is fun.

Also the republic system where your monarch is just awful in two stats is cool, after all if you're earning two-times as much in DIP then in MIL you'll be able to expand your DIP ideas and tech at the same time while you'll have to make hard choices in MIL.

Keep it that way paradox, you've really hit the perfect system for EU4 there.