Theocracy nullifies a national idea.

[Palbulchul]

I am on Afghanistan run now. I liked the two government reforms that give the defensiveness (10%/15% each) so I turned to theocracy. (Mysticism gives War score discount on top of fort defense. What's not to like?)

Then - I checked the national ideas and noticed that, the penultimate bonus (Loya Jiga one) has been greyed out. (That gives you Yearly Legitimacy +1 annually, which is useless in theocracy.) Essentially, I've been playing without this bonus for quite some time before I noticed it.

Shouldn't pdx address this issue?

 

[KRAKATIK]

I noticed the same thing in a Kilwa pirate game, their Legitimacy idea did nothing for me.
Would be nice if these ideas had fallback conditions to grant devotion or republican tradition when appropriate. That function is present in the game so shouldn't be too much of a hassle

 

[jonjowett]

Actually, I find it relatively easy to understand why this might occur for some nations. It all depends on the flavour text and justification for the idea. (NB: I'm talking about the general point here; I'm not sure if legitimacy-only is justified for Afghanistan specifically.)

Other examples:

• Nations that get republican tradition but not legitimacy or devotion. Eg: Hamburg, Novgorod. Explanation: This is specifically about having a long historical tradition of republicanism.
• Nations that get Papal influence but not church power / patriarch authority / etc. Eg: Jerusalem, Ireland. Explanation: This nation was traditionally very Catholic.

Jerusalem is actually quite an interesting example: It's definitely Catholic (Papal influence and no church power), but can be either a monarchy or theocracy (legitimacy and devotion).

 

[Banedon Runestar]

What’s there for PDX to address?

There’s nothing here to fix, and nothing is broken.

You, the player, made a series of choices.
Some of the choices you made nullify a minor bonus. So now you have the freedom to make yet another choice: accept that your stacking of Defensiveness and War Score discount means you don’t get a minor boost to your government support, or swap government types and give them up.

 

[aono]

I believe it was at some point mentioned that a number of ideas like that are changed to give whatever legitimacy mechanic your country using. But I don't think it would be all of them.

 

[cuendillar]

I am on Afghanistan run now. I liked the two government reforms that give the defensiveness (10%/15% each) so I turned to theocracy. (Mysticism gives War score discount on top of fort defense. What's not to like?)

Then - I checked the national ideas and noticed that, the penultimate bonus (Loya Jiga one) has been greyed out. (That gives you Yearly Legitimacy +1 annually, which is useless in theocracy.) Essentially, I've been playing without this bonus for quite some time before I noticed it.

Shouldn't pdx address this issue?

Square peg, meet round hole.

Nothing wrong here, some strategies just has better or worse synergy with certain countries.

 

[Me_]

I am on Afghanistan run now. I liked the two government reforms that give the defensiveness (10%/15% each) so I turned to theocracy. (Mysticism gives War score discount on top of fort defense. What's not to like?)

Then - I checked the national ideas and noticed that, the penultimate bonus (Loya Jiga one) has been greyed out. (That gives you Yearly Legitimacy +1 annually, which is useless in theocracy.) Essentially, I've been playing without this bonus for quite some time before I noticed it.

Shouldn't pdx address this issue?

Make a bug report. This is a leftover from an older design principle. Lately all such ideas have been replaced with proper ones that give bonuses for all government forms, but it has been done on-a case-by-case basis, so without a bug report its unlikely to get fixed.

 

[001andstillAlive]

Another thing: In EU4 wiki, you can find that:

• Divine idea 3: True Defender of the Faith

This gives 25% Fort defense bonus. It doesn't. Divine Idea 3 is actually:

• Divine Idea 3: Friends in High Places

This gives -33% cost bonus of reducing War Exhaustion, plus -10% leader cost bonus.

(I was almost overjoyed to find that juicy 25% fort defense bonus from Divine ideas - which I was already using - until I looked up my fort defense bonus, which was neatly stuck at 95% without Fort Engineer. I was expecting good 170% with fort engineer and 3 policies. NO.)

You appear to be confusing the divine idea group with the divine idea set, the set are the national ideas most theocracies used to have europe (some still do).

Otherwise there are some policies to pick up, I can remember influence&defensive if you want to stack it futher.

 

[Palbulchul]

You appear to be confusing the divine idea group with the divine idea set, the set are the national ideas most theocracies used to have europe (some still do).

Otherwise there are some policies to pick up, I can remember influence&defensive if you want to stack it futher.

It's neither actually. It's a national idea from generic "Divine" countries. (I found it the hard way.)

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Actually, I find it relatively easy to understand why this might occur for some nations. It all depends on the flavour text and justification for the idea. (NB: I'm talking about the general point here; I'm not sure if legitimacy-only is justified for Afghanistan specifically.)

It's bad as a matter of design. Country that might well be the most successful theocracy in the world unlocks a "flavor" bonus related to monarchy, despite in no way resembling its historical namesake? How is that "flavorful"?

Though notably, yearly legitimacy is a sufficiently lackluster idea that it is more or less an empty NI slot even if your government form is a monarchy. If your goal is to expand, generic theocracy remains much better than generic monarchy, and most other non-horde governments (cases can be made for shogunate and pirate republic).

I am aware of the implications of the above to NIs generally.

 

[jonjowett]

It's bad as a matter of design. Country that might well be the most successful theocracy in the world unlocks a "flavor" bonus related to monarchy, despite in no way resembling its historical namesake? How is that "flavorful"?

It's a game design choice. National ideas/events/missions/etc are usually inspired by what happened in that nation in real-world history; they do not relate at all to the alt-history of that particular game.

You're free to disagree with this choice, obviously, but it's a pretty core principle of EU4. An EU4 where every nation was fully customisable as the game progressed would arguably be a completely different game.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It's a game design choice. National ideas/events/missions/etc are usually inspired by what happened in that nation in real-world history; they do not relate at all to the alt-history of that particular game.

Sort of!

Missions are notable in that they actually require you to meet an objective aligned to the reward...if you go alt history and don't bother with that objective at all, you also don't get said reward. I would prefer if missions were more contingent on game situation than on TAG, but even as they are they are clearly more aligned to game state than NIs. It's not even close.

Events have weights and prerequisites, to the extent that many outright can't happen at all if the game state drifted far enough away from history. Even nation specific ones. Some of the worst/most complained about events are exceptions that disregard the game state in frustrating ways too.

National ideas are unique/distinct from the others mentioned, because they are always the same rewards unlocked in the same sequence no matter what happens to that country or its people in the timeline. Even if Portugal somehow inherits land in the HRE then gets its Iberian land annexed, that HRE prince will still have some of the best shipping constructions/management capabilities per capita in the world...without a port and even without ruling over any of the people who historically had that expertise (or any reason to have it). This is a pure gameplay mechanic then, but feels more at home in Civ than EU...it's much more like unique units or buildings than it is a part of the EU 4 game environment.

An EU4 where every nation was fully customisable as the game progressed would arguably be a completely different game.

It would almost identical to the game we're playing, with one less extra step (culture drifting), which for most nations gives them their pick of government, religion, culture group, missions/rewards...and indeed a pick of NIs.

 

[jonjowett]

It would almost identical to the game we're playing, with one less extra step (culture drifting), which for most nations gives them their pick of government, religion, culture group, missions/rewards...and indeed a pick of NIs.

First, not all missions/rewards are available via culture-shifting and nation formation. (Eg: Portugal is not formable.)

Next, I'd argue that culture-shifting to something that's not near to your starting location is very non-trivial. So much so that it's almost not worth considering, unless you're doing it for the memes. (Eg: Forming Prussia as the Mamluks vs forming Prussia as Poland - both are annoying and expensive, but one is just brutal.) Equally, if you start with (or rapidly acquire) end-game tag status, you're not going to be forming anything.

I believe that this relative uniqueness of missions, NIs, events, starting position, etc is what drives the replayability and success of EU4. I think it adds to replayability if different nations are steered down different paths - there isn't one "best" path that's always best for all nations, so it's a long time before you repeat yourself.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Next, I'd argue that culture-shifting to something that's not near to your starting location is very non-trivial. So much so that it's almost not worth considering, unless you're doing it for the memes. (Eg: Forming Prussia as the Mamluks vs forming Prussia as Poland - both are annoying and expensive, but one is just brutal.)

Depends how many full cores you make. There's a reasonable argument to not spam too many (easier to de-state for institution embrace, multiple drifts, getting absolutism quickly, etc) and thus the sacrifice for switch is smaller.

If you're trying to min/max mission rewards and whatnot, you're also more likely to be expanding fast enough that these things are actually attractive (and full cores less so, since the autonomy difference won't be as pronounced). Unless it is 100% intended as a meme game from the start (always Sunni in Moortugal!).

I believe that this relative uniqueness of missions, NIs, events, starting position, etc is what drives the replayability and success of EU4.

Quite likely, but I would argue that NIs are the smallest component of that equation, because they're the least interactive and players have the least agency over them. In most cases they just make you do some things you're already doing anyway marginally better...they don't drive decisions the same way as missions or even idea group selection tradeoffs might. Also, depending on how you implemented an alternative, start position + game state might mesh into NI replacement in a way that's more interactive than present, with outcomes still very likely given particular geographies or alliance situations etc. There are ways to make Britain-like NI outcomes that Britain itself is likely to get a lot of, without having "British national ideas" in the game.

IMO that would have been the better implementation, but I also acknowledge that I'm talking about a ~10 year old mechanic that existed alongside other mechanics that are long since archaic but was not itself broken...not a strong candidate for a rework. And if you offered me better UI, a better system to model AI willingness to peace out to replace "length of war plus other modifiers" etc I'd pick those in a heartbeat. IMO NIs are bad in terms of current EU 4 design, but they're not devastating and they don't hinder gameplay or anything like that. I'm not convinced they merit a rework in EU 4 even, though I'd be disappointed to see them in EU 5.