The future of EU4 and Paradox games, a schism?

[zodium]

It's a bit of a counterintuitive internal narrative, but at least it's fundamentally balanced. It could be fixed by making tech progress a function of MPP spent in that category, rather than something we actively spend points on, but rebalancing MPP gain over the course of a game to account for that would be non-trivial, so it's probably not worth it.

 

[Wizzington]

It's a bit of a counterintuitive internal narrative, but at least it's fundamentally balanced. It could be fixed by making tech progress a function of MPP spent in that category, rather than something we actively spend points on, but rebalancing MPP gain over the course of a game to account for that would be non-trivial, so it's probably not worth it.

It'd also remove the choice dynamic between tech and ideas which is one of the more interesting choice dynamics in the game.

 

[Searry]

The multiplayer focus is justified. Games will ALWAYS be more interesting if there are human opponents.

 

[Dr. B]

I've got probably 10,000 hours (It's probably even more than that) combined in Paradox titles over, HOI, HOI 2, HOI 3, EU 2, EU 3, EU 4, Vicky 1, Vicky 2, Rome and CK2. I'm about as hardcore as you get and that extends beyond just paradox titles.

EU4 is the best EU in the series so far. It isn't perfect (nothing is) some of the decisions they've made are dumb (scaling truce timers) but this is just the typical "end of the world" mentality people have. The ship isn't sinking, Paradox haven't changed their values. Paradox is better than it has ever been. They've progressed from making purely aspergeresque games (which I love btw) to retaining that essential essence but streaming lining the UI and easing the accessibility of the title. More people than ever are playing them. They retain their fundamental depth.

I've been decrying the decline of PC gaming since the advent of the 3d graphics card where games have been reduced in complexity and have become formulaic in design. Where the selling point of the next big game has often been "per pixel shading bit mapping version who the hell cares". I've been raging against consolization of gaming in general. "Stream-lining" has become synonymous with dumbing down, removing depth and Electronic Arts in general. That isn't what EU4 represents. Making the UI more navigable isn't dumbing down, it is stream-lining as it should be. Making the game more playable without stripping it of its character.

Yes EU4 has some arbitrary design decisions. At the same time, EU4 has made some pretty big strides forward that people have been asking for, for over a decade. The normalization of unit stats (huge change)

EU4 is a great game. CK2 is arguably their best game. Victoria 2 might be even better than CK2, and the next stop is HOI. I personally can't wait to see the new iteration of HOI which is my personal favorite in the series and I've loved all 3 instances of it. Decline? Paradox is in their prime, better than ever.

Holy mary that was well written. And true.

The first paragraph is very scary... I might have 10.000 hours overall myself - trying not to calculate what mu bank account would look like if I had been working overtime instead......

 

[CrabHelmet]

It'd also remove the choice dynamic between tech and ideas which is one of the more interesting choice dynamics in the game.

The dynamic doesn't make any sense, though. If I'm a nation that has a strongly militaristic national identity, my soldiers are worse. It'd make more sense if ideas that made your military better cost ADM - you then have a trade-off between having a nation with a strongly militaristic identity, but has trouble with civil governance, which is more plausible. Similarly, ideas which improved your government cost DIP, and improved diplomacy cost MIL.

 

[maquis196]

Im not sure if I count as someone casual that Paradox recently recruited, im sorry to say I always overlooked EU (for some reason from the box artwork I considered it to be an Age of Empires clone? wtf i know). Paradox bringing their games to Linux meant I jumped on board and quite frankly, ck2 and now eu4 are my two favourites games with hundreds of hours between them. So I justed wanted to say thank you to Paradox, there could be improvements of course, but I tend to always have fun and thats what a game is about.

The whole "DLC you pay for pays for improvements to the base game for those who don't buy it" is win/win. I also look forward to being able to influence my next monarch more then I can (CK2 style has spoilt me in that regard I guess) but I'd understand if that made the game too much of a procession, I like randomness to a point.

Oh and I cant wait for HOI4 and a future Vicky3, I get to play all these games for the first time (and on Linux )

 

[WeissRaben]

The multiplayer focus is justified. Games will ALWAYS be more interesting if there are human opponents.

Except when they are not. I tried MP, I didn't like it, I left it there. I guess I'm not the only one, as six sevenths of the players don't do the "more interesting" thing.

 

[Sai Gon]

The multiplayer focus is justified. Games will ALWAYS be more interesting if there are human opponents.

except when you don't have anyone to play with except when you have no internet connection except when your friends are offline.

I can only play when others are ready to play with me, go through the 1-2 hour hassle of organising everyone and then playing until one person has something they have to do (usually 4 hours at most)

or

OR

we have a good single player AI so we can load up and play whenever we want thanks

 

[steveh11]

The multiplayer focus is justified. Games will ALWAYS be more interesting if there are human opponents.

Problematic, that one. I've found that, unless you're playing with real-life friends at a LAN party, you'll always find someone "being a dick" - and quite often, even then. My first intro to EU - the original EU game that Johan built, that is - was as a 2 player LAN game, and it was fun, but I quickly found that I put MANY more hours into it solo, and continued to do so well after my original opponent and I fell out and he disappeared. I've had other, similar experiences before and since. Mainly I find MP gaming incredibly inconvenient - I want to play when *I* want to play, not at some prearranged time. Even if it's just for 15 minutes.

Nowadays, I simply don't 'do' MP gaming. I find it's far too much hassle than it's worth, and I've got well over 1000 hours in EU4 and countless in other games (before I used Steam).

However, if Johan and the team are using MP as a tool to help build a suitably solid SP experience, then that (to me) is fine.

 

[zodium]

It'd also remove the choice dynamic between tech and ideas which is one of the more interesting choice dynamics in the game.

What do you think is interesting about it? I don't find myself making many choices between tech or ideas, or at least, I can't think of many concrete cases where that choice would be difficult to make. For my playstyle, this choice dynamic is already mostly non-existent for MIL tech and ideas until quite late in the game; non-existent for any ADM level which unlocks a new idea group; skewed towards ideas over tech for DIP, etc. There are a couple of places where I consistently have to make strategic choices, but they are relatively limited in scope (e.g., between getting the second and third idea group, it's often difficult to choose optimally between ideas and techs). For the most part, though, the decision tree is largely set when I pick a country, even if part of that is caused by my having memorized optimal progression for most countries.

 

[correctamundo]

The dynamic doesn't make any sense, though. If I'm a nation that has a strongly militaristic national identity, my soldiers are worse. It'd make more sense if ideas that made your military better cost ADM - you then have a trade-off between having a nation with a strongly militaristic identity, but has trouble with civil governance, which is more plausible. Similarly, ideas which improved your government cost DIP, and improved diplomacy cost MIL.

But your soldiers won't be worse. MIL ideas give MILtech discount and if you only spend MILpoints on tech you will be wasting a lot of points on ahead of time penalty and MP cap.

 

[Redron]

Problematic, that one. I've found that, unless you're playing with real-life friends at a LAN party, you'll always find someone "being a dick" - and quite often, even then. My first intro to EU - the original EU game that Johan built, that is - was as a 2 player LAN game, and it was fun, but I quickly found that I put MANY more hours into it solo, and continued to do so well after my original opponent and I fell out and he disappeared. I've had other, similar experiences before and since. Mainly I find MP gaming incredibly inconvenient - I want to play when *I* want to play, not at some prearranged time. Even if it's just for 15 minutes.

Nowadays, I simply don't 'do' MP gaming. I find it's far too much hassle than it's worth, and I've got well over 1000 hours in EU4 and countless in other games (before I used Steam).

However, if Johan and the team are using MP as a tool to help build a suitably solid SP experience, then that (to me) is fine.

People play MP for different reasons I suppose. I originally picked it up for the challenge and I guess that's why I continue to play. Real people provide much more difficulty than the AI and the diplomacy in a packed MP game really makes it very interesting.

Of course there are dicks - invade them and remove them from the game!

On topic - any schism is non-existent. MP EU4 gamers are normally hardcore SP players as well.

 

[B3ndolf]

This doesn't seem true, though. It seems to me like earlier EU games attempted to roughly simulate the decisions faced by the leaders of states. EU4 doesn't do this, because monarch points make decision trade-offs really weird - for example, building a load of new docks across my nation means my nation is more likely to have a backwards naval fleet. What monarch points do is abstract these decisions very heavily, making different option easier to directly compare but reducing the strategic depth. It feels to me like this was done in the aim of making the game more easily accessible at the cost of less accurate simulation and strategic depth, which seems like a different design philosophy to 1999. If this isn't right, could you explain why the monarch point system was brought in? Genuinely curious, because my initial impression seems to be that among fans who've been with the series a little longer, it's not a very popular design choice.

I think there are definitely lots of improvements and better systems too - AE is much better than infamy, although it still needs a few tweaks, and trade is better than EU3 too, although it would be nice if it was bidirectional - but monarch points in particular don't seem to have gone down well.

i see this argument come up fairly frequently and i have to disagree with it. in my experience it is emminently possible to upgrade both your naval infrastructure (docks etc) and keep your diplo tech up to date for the latest ships and even taking diplo ideas. i could see it being problematic if you are also spending lots of diplo points on rapid expansion and culture converting but if thats the case then you are hugely misrepresenting the trade offs you are making.

you argue you have to choose between naval infrastructure and better ships when in fact you are actually choosing 2 or 3 out of naval infrastructure, better ships, diplo ideas, rapid expansion and culture converting which is a much more reasonable choice and you absolutely should not be able to do all of these things at once unless you get a series of uber monarchs.

 

[zodium]

But your soldiers won't be worse. MIL ideas give MILtech discount and if you only spend MILpoints on tech you will be wasting a lot of points on ahead of time penalty and MP cap.

No one ever ponders whether they should only spend MIL on tech or only spend MIL on ideas. The choice is about the specific order of tech versus idea picks, since MPP generation rates are such that you can eventually (on a long enough timeline) both build docks and upgrade ships.

 

[Tufto]

...that made perfect sense. Smaller countries tended to be more technologically advanced. Russia was less-advanced than the Habsburg Realms was less-advanced than France was less-advanced than Britain was less advanced than the Netherlands, if you look at GDP per capita by 1800. Also, being several techs behind wasn't as crucial in EU3, the techs were somewhat more graduated than in EU4.

Yes, and it's well known that Hamburg was more advanced than France, or that Ulm was more advanced than Austria.

Also, GDP per capita does not necessarily equate to technological advancement; more to do with social conditions and specific government policy within Europe.

 

[Trunting]

I think, monarch points are a very good feature: The effectiveness of the government depended on the monarch.

 

[correctamundo]

No one ever ponders whether they should only spend MIL on tech or only spend MIL on ideas. The choice is about the specific order of tech versus idea picks, since MPP generation rates are such that you can eventually (on a long enough timeline) both build docks and upgrade ships.

Exactly =i)

 

[kashkin]

I think, monarch points are a very good feature: The effectiveness of the government depended on the monarch.

But that's not what monarch points do. A bad monarch should impact more on the running and stability of the government/country, but that doesn't seem to happen so much at the moment. Having a bad monarch (which for me seems to be the default, maybe bad luck or confirmation bias) puts me years, if not decades behind on tech, limits ideas gain, buildings, etc.

 

[Trunting]

But that's not what monarch points do. A bad monarch should impact more on the running and stability of the government/country, but that doesn't seem to happen so much at the moment. Having a bad monarch (which for me seems to be the default, maybe bad luck or confirmation bias) puts me years, if not decades behind on tech, limits ideas gain, buildings, etc.

Imagine it this way: The king of Spain is a guy, who doesnt't really care for change, he just wants to conquer the world for the Catholic faith. He doesn't care for new ideas, experiments etc. and hence, those ideas aren't used in the country. I don't know, ifyou know it, but the Spanish kings kept the right of the wealthy cattle owners to drive their cattle from north to south, devastating the farm land of the peasants. At the end of the 17th century, merchants in Spain still had to pay taxes, if they wanted to cross from one part of the country to another one. Under those circumstances, ideas can't spread, new technologies can't be implemented.

 

[IZob]

... It isn't perfect (nothing is) some of the decisions they've made are dumb (scaling truce timers) but this is just the typical "end of the world" mentality people have. ...

What? Its one of the best decisions they have made for EU4.