Some (Constructive) Criticism - MP, Ideas and Technology

[unmerged(148491)]

If one has low mil leader then you will barely have enough points to keep on par with others in tech. Same with any other points except perhaps diplomatic - this one is used A LOT, no matter who you play as. One can afford ideas without a malus to his technology only if he has high skill leader in that department and pays a lot for the advisor. Republics are best example here - if you never chose admin or military leader in the election, you will stay at the same tech lvl in all 3 lines, but then you will also have additional trade ideas to play with.

I guess what is most annoying is that player has little influence what his nation will be focusing on when playing a monarchy - some sort of "focus" (IE. +1 of chosen field and -1 to the others) could probably help give some feel of influence on the matter and at the same time be a hard choice to make.

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.

Or prohibit the insta-teleporting of your one uber-leader all over the world: that would actually make having multiple leaders a reasonable strategy.

 

[ainyru]

Played eu3 alot and two games in eu4 demo. I like new system more, but i understand OP issue. I think small modification can solve it, something like national focus, that can be changed once per monarch life and provides +1 MP generation in specified direction.

 

[knul]

I guess what is most annoying is that player has little influence what his nation will be focusing on when playing a monarchy - some sort of "focus" (IE. +1 of chosen field and -1 to the others) could probably help give some feel of influence on the matter and at the same time be a hard choice to make.

This is the first mechanic that I've seen in weeks that I would actually like to have in the game.

 

[Decimal]

This is the first mechanic that I've seen in weeks that I would actually like to have in the game.

I must agree. Adding a very small amount of control to the MP system (outside of advisers) would be a welcome addition.

 

[unmerged(139685)]

The issue could be mitigated by giving a 1% discount on the relevant technology for each idea. Having six military ideas would give you 6% discount on buying military technology. That way, choosing military ideas really is a long-term investment in military excellence.

But it is an important problem: the player has to be able to choose to invest more in a certain branch of government. If investment is 100% determined by the monarch stats, then the player can't make meaningful choices... The player can't make real choices, since monarch points of type x are inevitably always used for investments of type x.

Another mitigation is to give the player monarch points for money spent in the relevant area. For example: spending a lot of money on troops would give you military points (proportion to be determined, size of the state has to be factored in most likely). Spending a lot of money on bribes would give you diplomatic points, and so on.

 

[pedrito_elcabra]

Yes the system needs some other way of getting monarch point that the player can influence. Give us an EU3 kind of slider that we can move every 10 year towards either Mil, Dip or Adm, and this way a nation can really focus in one field.

Also, a lot of the posts in this thread which are trying to defend the current system don't really address the issue brought up by the OP:
The point system is fine.

The fact that a nation trying to specialize in a certain field will leave it lagging behind in this same field is irrational and unfounded.

 

[shaldon]

I agree with the OP about the specific problem of military power - as Portugal in the demo I made 3 military advances to 1 in each of the other two techs, simply due to not needing to spend Military power on anything else. Seemed odd.

I would like to see Military power generated much more slowly in peacetime than in war. And I also like the 'focus' ideas mentioned above to steer focus towards a specific area.

 

[unmerged(148491)]

Yes the system needs some other way of getting monarch point that the player can influence. Give us an EU3 kind of slider that we can move every 10 year towards either Mil, Dip or Adm, and this way a nation can really focus in one field.

Also, a lot of the posts in this thread which are trying to defend the current system don't really address the issue brought up by the OP:
The point system is fine.

The fact that a nation trying to specialize in a certain field will leave it lagging behind in this same field is irrational and unfounded.

It is very rational if someone lags behind because he overextends his spending on ideas while not having enough of resource. If you have 1 dip ruler and you decide "I am a naval/trading nation" and you are frustrated, then well - you are the problem, not the system. Player has to be more flexible and if you end up having few 7-9 mil rulers in a row, who at the same time have shit dip/adm stats, then its only problem with you that you are stubborn enough to keep insisting that you will not take advantage of that and will just dump everything in technology (which is almost always worse than ideas).

Now - the problem that can be pointed out here is that we have very little influence on the matter, which, while in my opinion is not a bad thing, can certainly be frustrating. Choice should probably be there. It should - overall - cripple you more than it helps you, but it should be there.

 

[iShurik]

I guess the game will get a lot of fine-tuning after release. But that's perfect imo. If you remember the first release of CK2, the game has changed a lot since then. That's what I love about paradox. They actually care about fan-feedback.
I think the Idea with changing base MP by the player once every 10 years in a direction is nice. The small tech bonusses by using idea groups could also work out.
I am really excited about this game and about how it will grow over time. I'm also perfectly fine with the DLC-policy.

 

[Zenith Darksea]

technology (which is almost always worse than ideas).

Now THIS is exactly the problem. Given the choice between technology and ideas, the player is encouraged to pick ideas. The whole point about technology is that it represents the practical and technical progress made by a country over the centuries, whereas the ideas are supposed to represent policy decisions by the government. Now policy decisions and technical progress are obviously related and co-dependent, but it's not right that a country would have to consistently choose between making a policy decision or making technical progress, unless we're talking about reactionary, traditionalist policy decisions (which are not represented in the majority of National Ideas).

Great Britain historically made policy decisions to focus heavily on its naval power. Did this result in Great Britain having a navy that was technologically inferior to that of Russia, which focused more on its land power? I think that people can answer that for themselves.

 

[iShurik]

It should also be considered, that ideas make some actions, which involve MP, cheaper (like core creation and so on.) and some ideas lower tech costs directly. The question is how it works out over long periods of time. After this short Demo it's really hard to say.


Edit:

Overview:

Administrative:

Innovative Ideas: -5% Tech cost

Religious Ideas: Stability cost -25%

Economic Ideas: Build cost -20% (I don't know whether this includes MP)

Administrative Ideas: -33% cost of reducing WE

Diplomatic:

Diplomatic Ideas: core creation cost -33%, unjustified demands -33% (I don't know whether this includes MP, I think it doesn't)


Military:

Aristocratic Ideas: -20% WE reducing cost, -10% military tech cost

Plutocratic Ideas: -10% tech cost


These are just the ones with direct impact on MP-costs. There are also a lot of effects which indirect lower MP-costs, like lower revolt risk-> less revolts to supress -> more Military points for other things.


Also there are cross effects:

e.g. you have -33% core creation modifier, means you can handle overextension faster-> you lower your stability costs and revolt risk -> you have more points to spend on other things

 

[knul]

The whole point about technology is that it represents the practical and technical progress made by a country over the centuries, whereas the ideas are supposed to represent policy decisions by the government.

I don't think Ideas represent policies, as Ideas are permanent whereas policies could change quite quickly.

EU4 Ideas are quite different from EU3's, which could be seen as policies that could be revoked. At the moment, I see Ideas rather as seperate technology tracks of which you can only have a select few. The standard technology track then can be seen as a common, mainstream technology track available to everyone. In that view, it's no problem that Ideas and technology draw on the same resource, as they are basically the same thing.

Imagine a tech tree with one big branch and 15 smaller branches.

 

[unmerged(148491)]

Now THIS is exactly the problem. Given the choice between technology and ideas, the player is encouraged to pick ideas. The whole point about technology is that it represents the practical and technical progress made by a country over the centuries, whereas the ideas are supposed to represent policy decisions by the government. Now policy decisions and technical progress are obviously related and co-dependent, but it's not right that a country would have to consistently choose between making a policy decision or making technical progress, unless we're talking about reactionary, traditionalist policy decisions (which are not represented in the majority of National Ideas).

Great Britain historically made policy decisions to focus heavily on its naval power. Did this result in Great Britain having a navy that was technologically inferior to that of Russia, which focused more on its land power? I think that people can answer that for themselves.

Thing is - if you have like 7-8 points of diplo/mil per month, you are unable to just tech with it - you will hit rather severe ahead penalties, and that is where you need to use the points for ideas. Now - being Russia you will spend these extra points on something else than the UK would.
Only way to have one tech surpass the other, given that you really focus on the lagging one (ergo - most of your advisor budget goes there), is that you take too many ideas too fast. To me it seems impossible to play a republic and have mil tech higher than diplo one - when I read of people Venice games turning this way I seriously doubt in their strategic sense. Wouldn't surprise me as a feudal country though, as it really can be very random

 

[maxirage]

Yes the system needs some other way of getting monarch point that the player can influence. Give us an EU3 kind of slider that we can move every 10 year towards either Mil, Dip or Adm, and this way a nation can really focus in one field.

That sounds amazing. I really hope Paradox implements something like this. This would improve both the idea/tech clash, and the overt randomness of ruler points.

 

[ainyru]

This is the first mechanic that I've seen in weeks that I would actually like to have in the game.

Played today and just realised, this mechanic already in game. Its advisors selection, i mean most time you cant afford to have all advisors with +3 skill, but you can have one of them with +3 and others with +1 +2, which will more powerfull is players choice. So, looks like current system is ok.

 

[bleakie]

Played today and just realised, this mechanic already in game. Its advisors selection, i mean most time you cant afford to have all advisors with +3 skill, but you can have one of them with +3 and others with +1 +2, which will more powerfull is players choice. So, looks like current system is ok.

The advisors are too volatile to represent the long-term strategic choices, and are basically the toys of large and wealthy empires. Even Portugal would find it strained to have 3 +1 advisors. There should be some mechanic that represent the effect of the national tradition on the gain of monarch points, and associating a small monarch point (or tech) bonus to every idea group (or idea) is IMO the best way to represent this.

 

[unmerged(148491)]

The advisors are too volatile to represent the long-term strategic choices, and are basically the toys of large and wealthy empires. Even Portugal would find it strained to have 3 +1 advisors. There should be some mechanic that represent the effect of the national tradition on the gain of monarch points, and associating a small monarch point (or tech) bonus to every idea group (or idea) is IMO the best way to represent this.

Definately not that. IF ANYTHING it could at most decrease tech cost at something like 0,5% per idea, but in all honesty - I've put much thought to the matter, and the system will definately be fine, especially once everyone has 3 separate idea groups to fill. Idea is that each uses different resource, and at this point it balances itself very nicely. The only resource you can afford not spending on ideas is adm, which will eventually start overflowing - once you have extended period of peacetime and stability. You need those ideas or you will see yourself at 999 cap, or overpaying for tech - especially if you will play western country with tech bonuses. At the same time your "main" tech will catch up rather fast after spending on ideas - there are just too many points to just tech with them, and you will waste most.

Also regarding advisors - they are a good way to sort the problem, even if perhaps should not be the only way - firstly, I don't know about you, but I was able to support one +3 advisor as portugal in 1515, so I guess it won't be much problem for any player to do that later on. Secondly - obviously the best advisor is the one who reduces tech cost. having dude with +3 skill and -10% tech cost in the same area really makes a huge difference - it is a free idea (without slowing tech progress) every 8-10 years. Considering that such advisor will eat nearly whole surplus in the bugdet, I don't see how can you say it is not valid - it's nation's efford to head in chosen direction.

Finally - in history rulers very rarely did anything like "long term strategic choices". They represented more "here and now" attitude, and I know it may be difficult for the player to adjust to, but I really like the fact that system forces you to consider that in a way. You may want to focus on diplo ideas, but if the setup is not in favor of that it is up to you to adjust your strategy, and not the games, to make you happy.

I really hope they will not go with the approach to give players even more tools to decimate the AI. If anything - I would like to see severe penalties to neglected branches. Other than that - obviously monarch points will be rebalanced a lot so we just wait ^^

 

[unmerged(52491)]

To me it seems like people are trying to laser-focus on one aspect and cry foul when they find they are strapped for points in their chosen area. That's not how you are supposed to play, you want to develop your tech in all areas. It's your ideas (most importantly national ideas) that lets you specialize in a field.

Here is an example: So you are Venice and you find yourself trying to juggle your DIP between ideas and tech and don't know what to do with your MIL other than teching? Well, why not take take a MIL idea suitable for Venice such as Plutocracy or Quality? Over-teching has diminished returns while those new MIL ideas will help you to unlock your national ideas faster, which for Venice means further specialization in trade, diplomacy & navy. Ta-da! MIL points used in service of DIP features.

And if that's not enough specialization for you, don't forget to always hire high level DIP advisors. Do the math yourself. The points are generous enough to unlock both techs and ideas!