Well honestly In EU3 all you did was buy stuff with your money, the only difference was that you could be world tech leader as Oman (not westernized) before 1700 (and that is silly).
Some (Constructive) Criticism - MP, Ideas and Technology
- Thread starter Zenith Darksea
- 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.
Well honestly In EU3 all you did was buy stuff with your money, the only difference was that you could be world tech leader as Oman (not westernized) before 1700 (and that is silly).
Sorry for double posting. Jokes first, then finish reading.
I think that there might be an abundance of MilMP in general. I can't find much to spend it on outside of Mil Tech. The occasional assault, maybe a forced march late game? Diplo is used constantly and Admin as well.
Oh, a solution: Any monarch points can be converted into any other type for a 50% loss.
I think that there might be an abundance of MilMP in general. I can't find much to spend it on outside of Mil Tech. The occasional assault, maybe a forced march late game? Diplo is used constantly and Admin as well.
Oh, a solution: Any monarch points can be converted into any other type for a 50% loss.
The biggest thing for me, is that naval should be under military not diplomacy. I understand why they put it there from a logical perspective, but it fails from a gameplay perspective. As England, if I want to increase my economy, I go for trade(Diplo), I want to increase my nation size I go for exploration(diplo), I want to increase my military might I go for naval(diplo). All 3 aspects of that nation are based around your diplo points. A land nation builds his economy through production and tax(admin), his military power by mil, and his nation size by mil and diplo.
So unless overseas land are just flat better then europe land, the naval power will be weaker in all aspects of his nation then the land power is.
So unless overseas land are just flat better then europe land, the naval power will be weaker in all aspects of his nation then the land power is.
Last edited:
There is a slight thematic issue where a country will, all else being equal, be lower in tech in fields where they have idea groups compared to those where their main monarch point sink is the tech itself. That aside, the system works well from a gameplay perspective, and most of the issues people are describing come from the fact that you don't get to choose your idea group in the demo.
It's also worth taking into account monarch stats when looking at historic situations. If you have a 3/6/3 monarch then you can pump exploration ideas and keep up naval tech at the same time.
It's also worth taking into account monarch stats when looking at historic situations. If you have a 3/6/3 monarch then you can pump exploration ideas and keep up naval tech at the same time.
Yeah I was surprised to find naval stuff not under military, and as another poster pointed out we do seem to have a 'surplus' of mil points (at least in comparison to diplo and admin)
I personally treat investing in technology as hiring better advisors. A tier 3 advisor costs a lot, but gives you a whole +3 ruler points. I vastly prefer this new system when considering that. A strong economy still helps increase technology faster, especially when your ruler is awful.
I agree with Zenith that decoupling technological progress from economic power is not good idea for this game as its hugely devalue money and money equals power. This is what made EU3 a fun game for me to get more money and build a strong economy so I could research better tech to out compete another countries. I mean all the wars were fought for the money directly or indirectly. I was hoping that one could spend money on merchant marine ships to extend your trade by increasing your tonnage and no its all simplified. But the user interface is all cluttered and difficult to read. So I guess only by merging MP and income together to buy technology would somehow solve this problem as it would include economic strength not just MP. I mean in RL poor countries are technologically backward because they can't afford to implement new expensive know how.
Economy allows up to extra 3/3/3 MP. That's 36/36/36 a year , means a tech every 14 years (Western tech group) or an idea every 11 years only from adviser(=economy) points. So after 100 years you're in avarage 7 techs ahead of the countries that don't care about economy (=can't afford good advisers). I think that's a lot.
Also you can change your advisers more often to ones with "-10% tech cost" or "-20% stability cost". That's indirect converting of money to monarch points.
I think the economical advanced countries will be dominant in tech.
Also you can change your advisers more often to ones with "-10% tech cost" or "-20% stability cost". That's indirect converting of money to monarch points.
I think the economical advanced countries will be dominant in tech.
Last edited:
It's a bit counterintuitive right now, I agree. Focusing on one field doesn't really work well, and it's very frustrating when you try to move your country into one direction and it moves in every direction but the one you want it to, because that's how the system works.
But the demo is really short, and things might change at later dates. When looking at 1492 production income no one would guess how powerful production becomes later on.
But the demo is really short, and things might change at later dates. When looking at 1492 production income no one would guess how powerful production becomes later on.
I really have to emphasize again that tech level is no longer the sole determinant of your effectiveness in a particular discipline. If a player rushes through the naval ideas, he can fight better in the seas even he is, say, 4 levels behind in diplomatic technology. In return, he sacrifices some colonial range and trade efficiency due to the all-rounded bonus provided by the main tech tree.
For those who think that EU4 should adopt some tech tree system, you don't realize that EU4 already has it: the tech levels form the main branch of the tree, providing all-rounded bonuses, while each idea group is a side branch of the tech tree specializing in a particular discipline. There are 3 separate tech trees, each spending one type of monarch point as their currency. You can even somehow influence the type of monarch points that you receive, through hiring advisors. All it is lacking is some long-term and permanent way to swap one kind of monarch point for another.
For those who think that EU4 should adopt some tech tree system, you don't realize that EU4 already has it: the tech levels form the main branch of the tree, providing all-rounded bonuses, while each idea group is a side branch of the tech tree specializing in a particular discipline. There are 3 separate tech trees, each spending one type of monarch point as their currency. You can even somehow influence the type of monarch points that you receive, through hiring advisors. All it is lacking is some long-term and permanent way to swap one kind of monarch point for another.
Playing as Venice, since I was focusing on trade and diplomacy I found myself with a surplus of military points that I spent into military tech. So my military tech ended up being more advanced than anything else. Not sure that makes a lot of sense actually.
No. EU3 system creates a situation where the rich get`s richer, constantly, without any setbacks. You do not care for anything other than Money, Magistrates and diplomatic skill of your leader.
A poor (in resources) country with good leadership can get rich. Japan, Germany, Scandinavian countries come to mind. Resource rich(and money is resource) countries with bad leadership are still poor. Russia, Venezuella, pretty much most of African nations with raw resources. Money doesn`t buy everything.
In EU4 you do not sit on a pile of money. If you have enought money, do not take income ideas, take some other. But as cost of everything constantly increases, you will have to expand your economy to keep up in military strengt and advisers.
I mean, China can barely afford 3 level 2 advisors in 1492.
In the 28 years of the demo, it is difficult to grow the economy to support higher level advisors.
Hiring great advisors is supposed to represent investing money into getting more monarch points and represent a choice between funding war (raising troops/fleets, maintenance and reinforcement) and funding internal development.
In my opinion, the solution is expanding the advisor system to even better represent how economic development ties into technological, societal and cultural development.
Hiring great advisors is supposed to represent investing money into getting more monarch points and represent a choice between funding war (raising troops/fleets, maintenance and reinforcement) and funding internal development.
In my opinion, the solution is expanding the advisor system to even better represent how economic development ties into technological, societal and cultural development.
Also people try to tech a bit to fast in my opinion, don't forget that there is only 33 levels of tech now, (that is EU3 divided by 2), so normally as a western nation you should get a tech every 12 years (all techs have the same value now) to stay in the race.
with 6 points per month (3 base, level 1 advisor, 2 in monarch stats, more or less average) you need 500/6 = 84 months or 7 years to tech up.
Add to that the advisor modifiers (you want to invest heavily into admin you're going to get the -10% tech cost which nearly gives you a year of monarch points worth) and the fact that if you want to invest in a particular domain you are going to have a lot more than 6 points per month (especially true for republics) and you can afford Ideas and stay competitive in tech at the same time, you've just gotta make choices...
I liked the idea when it was first announced, but now that I've tried the demo I like it even more...
also with 6 MP/month it takes 400/6 = 67 months or less than 6 years to get an idea, so even with mediocre stats you can still get one Idea and on tech level every 12 years... (3 more MP/month gives you one more idea every 12 years, so with 12 MP/month you can have 3 ideas and 1 tech every 12 years...).
with 6 points per month (3 base, level 1 advisor, 2 in monarch stats, more or less average) you need 500/6 = 84 months or 7 years to tech up.
Add to that the advisor modifiers (you want to invest heavily into admin you're going to get the -10% tech cost which nearly gives you a year of monarch points worth) and the fact that if you want to invest in a particular domain you are going to have a lot more than 6 points per month (especially true for republics) and you can afford Ideas and stay competitive in tech at the same time, you've just gotta make choices...
I liked the idea when it was first announced, but now that I've tried the demo I like it even more...
also with 6 MP/month it takes 400/6 = 67 months or less than 6 years to get an idea, so even with mediocre stats you can still get one Idea and on tech level every 12 years... (3 more MP/month gives you one more idea every 12 years, so with 12 MP/month you can have 3 ideas and 1 tech every 12 years...).
No, I don't agree that the answer is not to try to tech so fast/not pick so many ideas. That doesn't address the fundamental problem that you will end up with better technology in areas where you're less active than in areas where you're more active. Thus you find that a colonial Portugal will have much better military tech than diplomatic tech, despite the fact that (actually because) it is much more active in diplomacy than warfare!
I don't buy any of these attempts to rationalise this design flaw from either a historical or gameplay perspective. I'm sorry to say it, but it seems like people are trying to convince themselves that the game won't have any flaws just because they don't want it to. While I like almost all the other changes and improvements in EU4, I really think that the developers have got this wrong, and I wonder if they've thought about this issue.
I don't buy any of these attempts to rationalise this design flaw from either a historical or gameplay perspective. I'm sorry to say it, but it seems like people are trying to convince themselves that the game won't have any flaws just because they don't want it to. While I like almost all the other changes and improvements in EU4, I really think that the developers have got this wrong, and I wonder if they've thought about this issue.
I'm going to have to fall into this camp as well. I want national ideas to be what your country 'specializes' in, not something you do as an alternative to research. This seemed off when Peter Ebbesen said he was specifically avoiding military national ideas in a highly military game and picking diplomatic precisely because it was least important to him and as I play it, I find it makes no more sense.
I will say I do like the way a national idea is now a series you advance up rather than being a single idea a la EUIII. It makes you focus a bit more rather than picking powerful ones willy-nilly.