Playing as the Ottomans, you have numerous nation-specific Decisions that have serious effects on your nation. (By "Decision", with capitalization, I refer only to actual buttons from the "Missions and Decisions" tab, whereas by "decisions" without capitalization, I refer to the processes by which the player engages in various courses of action.)
Nation-specific Decisions are not a problem. Indeed the opposite: they are a great boon to making nations unique and interesting. For example, France's Edict of Nantes Decision allows it ride out the Protestant Reformation in (relative) comfort. Ultimately the player might or might not enact Revoke the Edict of Nantes, which makes for interesting emergent game-play (particularly when it converges with the religious_turmoil event series).
However, in certain cases the Decisions are either required, or completely Insane (by "Insane" I refer only to decision-making to reflect purely historical reality, vs. a "sane player" which, given all knowledge available to him/her, makes primarily decisions that are to the benefit of his nation). For example, as Japan, the player inevitably MUST enact Enforce Sakoku Law, or the player will be crippled by Christian rebels forever. (Although I have a serious beef with this Decision in that it does not appear as a major Decision in the tab, so novice Japan players might overlook it as an option. I certainly did.) In the Ottomans' case, you have "Adopt the Provincial Government System."
The problem with "Adopt the Provincial Government System" as a Decision is that 1) it sounds reasonable on its face (+1 revolt risk, +10% tax mod) but 2) once you know the events it enables, no sane player would ever enact this Decision. Fortunately I had the foresight/cynicism to read through the Events that are enabled by the Decision in question. In short, they are all bad (unless I am deeply mistaken, in which case I would be happy to consider the trade-offs).
As game design, this is pretty bad. Best case scenario, it means that the first time you play Ottomans, you might spend dozens of hours learning that the provincial bey system was a major cause of instability in the Ottoman Empire. Worst case scenario, it means that the player doesn't understand why these Events fire and becomes frustrated with the game. Following the best case scenario, a sane player never Adopt(s) the Provincial Government System ever and simply bypasses the entire problem. In reality this would have created other problems... which the game never raises.
Note that this is primarily an argument from the margins. Some national Events/Decisions are completely situational. But sometimes there are certain Decisions that are just Insane. There are probably other similar Decisions and I would be interested in hearing whether this is an Ottoman-specific problem.
Nation-specific Decisions are not a problem. Indeed the opposite: they are a great boon to making nations unique and interesting. For example, France's Edict of Nantes Decision allows it ride out the Protestant Reformation in (relative) comfort. Ultimately the player might or might not enact Revoke the Edict of Nantes, which makes for interesting emergent game-play (particularly when it converges with the religious_turmoil event series).
However, in certain cases the Decisions are either required, or completely Insane (by "Insane" I refer only to decision-making to reflect purely historical reality, vs. a "sane player" which, given all knowledge available to him/her, makes primarily decisions that are to the benefit of his nation). For example, as Japan, the player inevitably MUST enact Enforce Sakoku Law, or the player will be crippled by Christian rebels forever. (Although I have a serious beef with this Decision in that it does not appear as a major Decision in the tab, so novice Japan players might overlook it as an option. I certainly did.) In the Ottomans' case, you have "Adopt the Provincial Government System."
The problem with "Adopt the Provincial Government System" as a Decision is that 1) it sounds reasonable on its face (+1 revolt risk, +10% tax mod) but 2) once you know the events it enables, no sane player would ever enact this Decision. Fortunately I had the foresight/cynicism to read through the Events that are enabled by the Decision in question. In short, they are all bad (unless I am deeply mistaken, in which case I would be happy to consider the trade-offs).
As game design, this is pretty bad. Best case scenario, it means that the first time you play Ottomans, you might spend dozens of hours learning that the provincial bey system was a major cause of instability in the Ottoman Empire. Worst case scenario, it means that the player doesn't understand why these Events fire and becomes frustrated with the game. Following the best case scenario, a sane player never Adopt(s) the Provincial Government System ever and simply bypasses the entire problem. In reality this would have created other problems... which the game never raises.
Note that this is primarily an argument from the margins. Some national Events/Decisions are completely situational. But sometimes there are certain Decisions that are just Insane. There are probably other similar Decisions and I would be interested in hearing whether this is an Ottoman-specific problem.
Last edited:
I also see, however, that there's hardly any game out there that attempts to be complex enough for options to become a dilemma for the player rather than just the "obvious click". Of course one would also have to build uncertainties into decisions. Will I really loose the war because of that general? How upset will my nobles be? etc..png){kind=avatar}
