Some (Constructive) Criticism - MP, Ideas and Technology

[Gemberkoekje]

On one hand, the players focus should be rewarded. So having a lot of DIP idea groups should give you relatively more DIP points than MIL points. It may still take 100s of years, but you should end up with a significantly lower amount of MIL points on average.

HOWEVER, on the other hand, the system is designed for RULER focus, rather than player focus. Ergo, one should look at it's ruler, see where it's good at, and do that for the coming 30-40 years. If he's good militarily, you go rob some land, if he's a good diplomat you can trade/colonize/be a nice guy, and if he's an administrator... well, I'm sure we have an abacus laying around where he can play with.

I'm not sure what the solution is, and only careful exploration and research of the full game might give an answer.

 

[Skrytwitch]

Instead of having a base of +3 to all monarch point categories, what about having a total of nine points that you could allocate between the three groups? This would represent better I think how some nations focused on one area of development. You could also make it so that you could only move a limited amount of points at a time (say, one point a decade or something, maybe make the rate in which you can move the points dependent on gov't type like the sliders used to be).

 

[knul]

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.

Have a bit more trust in Paradox. They have designed grand strategy games for many years and this game isn't exactly build in a weekend. I'm quite sure they have thought about, especially as it is such a central issue.

I personally do not see that much of a problem, as Ideas and technologies are basically of the same kind: global improvements of your nation. So if you substitute tech with ideas, it doesn't mean you're suddenly behind the rest, but rather that you have focussed on more nationspecific, specialized aspects. Ideas are basically more focussed technologies and techologies are basically a non-nation-specific, broader improvement of your country.

That you have to choose between them makes the decision making only more difficult, a good thing IMO.

 

[Tayran]

I think they should expand the advisor system to make money more important. Why settle for lvl 3? Expand it to say lvl 5 or why not 8? Gives you something to strive for. Also you can then focus. Say you ger 1 lvl 5 admin guy but 2 lvl 2 diplo and military.

Makes cash more crucial and also makes the system more interesting.

 

[Gemberkoekje]

I think they should expand the advisor system to make money more important. Why settle for lvl 3? Expand it to say lvl 5 or why not 8? Gives you something to strive for. Also you can then focus. Say you ger 1 lvl 5 admin guy but 2 lvl 2 diplo and military.

Makes cash more crucial and also makes the system more interesting.

I think that would give you points too fast. However, I can live with making the lvl 3 advisors even more expensive, making it that much harder to have that balance checked.

 

[Tayran]

I think that would give you points too fast. However, I can live with making the lvl 3 advisors even more expensive, making it that much harder to have that balance checked.

Well since lvl 4 guys will cost more than lvl 3 guys I think it will not be a big issue. Its all about money. It makes little sense that there is a limit of 3. If I got the cash, why cant I get a lvl 4 guy?
You are not literally hiring a guy but more spending money in the field hiring tons of guys. So why is there a limit?

 

[unmerged(148491)]

Only way one can run short of favoured tech is to overextend on ideas. Playing as Venice I've had roughly the same tech lvl in diplo and mil, and additional 3 ideas from trade group. Admin was lower. I don't think it's unreasonable given that its 28 years of game. I guess most of you who complain either a) try to get far too many ideas far too quick or b) don't really focus on that one aspect, but just confuse focusing on something with spending shit on it.

Long story short - if you really want to focus on something you have to make sure you have resources to do so - republics are advantaged here, but really: if you use 3 +1 advisors as opposed to one +2 advisor you can't say you "focus" on something ^^.

 

[Dafool]

Perhaps I'm wrong but it doesn't look like there's any effect in the game files to give regular monarch points. Therefore we can't add an effect like "DIP Power: +1 per month" to anything. This is very annoying as it means we have to distribute power points in lump sums. This makes it very difficult to make idea groups feed back into your monarch points.

 

[Galleblære]

You raise a good point. Perhaps a sort of 'focus' triangle could be created, with Administration, Diplomacy and Military focus in each corner. Every decade or so you get to move this focus towards either the Adm, Dip or Mil corner. Move it far enough and you get a malus in say Dip and Mil, but a bonus to Adm.

So if you have a 'neutral' focus you are centered in the middle of the triangle and get 3/3/3 base, as its in the game right now.
Heavy Military focus gives you 5/2/2 base for example.
Military AND Diplomacy focus might give 4/4/1 and so on.
If unbalanced, maybe a cap needs to be put in to avoid 9/0/0 or 7/1/1 type situations?

So while not a perfect solution, its a way to 'nudge' your nation in the direction you want to focus and not run into the weird problem the OP describes.

 

[coldsteel]

I really like the idea of monarch points and the implementation is a lot more fun than in EU3.

However, the OP has brought up an excellent point. I think there's a design problem here.
Because you do diplomatic/trade actions, you should be better at it, not penalized at it.
Likewise, if you're playing a military game your technology and ideas should become better because you're doing military things.
Right now, it's completely the other way around.

 

[bleakie]

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 can agree with the first paragraph. There is some design flaw in the current monarch point system. Currently, no mechanics exist to reflect the effect of accumulated tradition to the capacity of the state in different disciplines. But that does not mean that the monarch point system has no merit in terms of explanatory power.

When you consider a shorter time frame (say 5 years), the system makes sense. Different disciplines of talents are not interchangeable in a short period of time, so there is a fixed amount of things that you can do in each discipline, you have to make sacrifices if you want to do too much in one particular discipline. The problem lies in extending this view to 3 centuries of gameplay, without allowing the player to permanently change the composition of monarch points he receives (advisors can't really count, since they are too volatile) over a long period of time. For example, an extended period of administrative focus in terms of investing in admin ideas should reward the player with more administrative bonuses than others who does not choose to do so. (This is actually the case if you play your cards right, but since no explicit effects exist, I do not count this as intended)

And being active in EU4 does not exactly cost you monarch points. You do not use up monarch points when you build your armies and navies, send them to the battlefield, conclude peace treaties not involving provinces, improving relations, even fabricating claims and converting provinces. The only significant non-idea non-tech monarch point costs are stability, cores, culture flips, buildings, peace deals involving concessions, and leaders, all of which directly expand your country's capacity in one way or another. It's the attempts of expansion that drains monarch points, rather than activity.

I know it's hard, but please don't try to place judgments in the middle of a discussion like this. When you think that an argument is problematic, point out which part is wrong, and let the others understand your point. Claiming that 'I don't buy it' and throwing phrases like 'attempt to rationalize' and 'try to convince themselves' sounds more civil, but are nothing more than argumentum ad hominem.

 

[Belissarius]

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.

Money is extremely important. Money allows you to compensate for the new changes to Manpower. manpower by far a more scare resource than in EU3. Money allows you to buy mercs which is a very viable means to compensate for this new dynamic. You can only do this with a strong economy. Money makes the construction business go round. So many things that tie into a national strategy are gained by buildings. Buildings cost MP divided among the three types based on the type of building but they ALSO cost many times more gold than they do MPs. One of the ways to dominate a trade node is to build light ships which cost GOLD.

[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.

You my friend just ran into EU4's gating system, designed to sloooooooooooooow the player down. Far better than the silly wait 50 years for a core to form gate. Technology is not the lone benchmark to gauge a countries effectiveness in a field. A player with higher technology in a field but ZERO ideas doesn't have a significant edge because the NIs give you bonuses that directly impact your effectiveness in the field. Technology should be viewed as a broad understanding of a field while NIs should be looked at as taking this knowledge and making innovations that provide practical advantages in said field.

So how does the gating system work? When you spend too much in one area the game creates a situation where you should consolidate, but players don't realise this until they get into your situation. This consolidation can be seem by integrating your gains into your nation. These gains can be territory or ideas. In your example you need to slow down on your idea progression and work on other areas your nation has MPs in besides just buying tech. Give a chance for your nation to catch up in technology and cultivate other aspects of the nation you neglected.

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.

Yet by investing naval Ideas you are investing in the technology of the navy so you are better than if you spent zero.

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.

This is a subjective statement. Its valid for you but that doesn't mean its valid for everyone. I enjoy spending coin to improve a province or by mercs or be able to afford a better advisor. My experience doesn't take away your experience but simply because you don't like it isn't enough reason to change the system at hand.

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.

I already addressed how NIs are innovations so you have to take your combined tech and NIs together in a field to see how effective you actually are. Second it the nature of the game gating system to slow you down, instead of siting there waiting for cores or techs to tick off like in EU3 you can actively take charge of other aspects of your nation while you consolidate in your primary focus.

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 is pressing a button once in a while after an alert fires too much micromanagement? I can't see the validity of this argument here. Seems like you are manufacturing an excuse.

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.

Again this is purely a subjective view and I just don't share it. Again my disagreement doesn't invalidate you view but bare in mind other s will not share it your view point. I see you suggestion as three steps backwards all so you don't have to press the gain tech button. Can't say I want to give up the choices I have been given by paradox just to eliminate the press of one button.

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?

I'm all for players modding anything their little hearts can dream or do. If player want to mod EU4 to be EU3 then be my guest. I will just fight tooth and nail to see these ideas come into the vanilla product of EU4.

 

[VoltanTheBlack]

Wouldn't it make more sense that an ADM idea (for example) takes MIL and DIP points to complete. This way investing in an idea takes resources away from tech advancement in the other groups. This would open the way to really specialize in one field and by doing so you would have to neglect the others.

 

[Stadhouder]

With Venice I developed the Plutocracy idea group to have something useful to spend my MIL points on. That way I could save some DIP points for technology and I still developed ideas beneficial to me as a trading nation.

I do think it would be cool if there were also some mixed techs and idea groups. For example Naval & Exploration uses DIP and MIL, Trade DIP and ADM, Government ADM and MIL, Diplomacy & Espionage only DIP, Production only ADM, Military only MIL.

 

[Hive]

I do think it would be cool if there were also some mixed techs and idea groups. For example Naval & Exploration uses DIP and MIL, Trade DIP and ADM, Government ADM and MIL, Diplomacy & Espionage only DIP, Production only ADM, Military only MIL.

I like the idea of mixed idea groups.

 

[Dutchling]

Question: what can you do with Military Points other than tech? It seems that you need admin power to conquer land.

 

[bleakie]

You can use military points reduce the revolt risk of a province through the "harsh treatment" action to reduce revolt risk, thus indirectly conserving manpower by having less rebels. Military buildings also require of military points to build.

 

[knul]

Question: what can you do with Military Points other than tech? It seems that you need admin power to conquer land.

A possibly major expenditure of military points are generals: 50 Mil points to create, 1 Mil point per month to maintain when over the general limit.

 

[Decimal]

A possibly major expenditure of military points are generals: 50 Mil points to create, 1 Mil point per month to maintain when over the general limit.

This expense is constrained with the ability to only have one "free" leader. I think if they bumped it up to 2 you would be going through the 50 Mil points a bit faster.

 

[l3lacksheep]

This expense is constrained with the ability to only have one "free" leader. I think if they bumped it up to 2 you would be going through the 50 Mil points a bit faster.

Or the game could be designed so it is a very viable strategy to have more leaders then you can upkeep for free. This would create a MilMP expense/drain and you wouldn't mind spending points each month on it because these leaders would be important for large nations with many fronts in a war. I think the demo is too short a time to conclude that MilMP will not be a very useful resource. And that is even before considering how much manpower means now. Those military buildings should use quite a few point too.