UNlucky nation status.

[Celtic Emporer]

Ive been thining... for a while... how PDX could do a better job of simulating the fall of powerful empires, as often happened throughout history... The idea is simple, but it didnt come to mind till lately....\
The "Fall of the _______ Empire!" Event!
This could be done a host of different ways... It would be more of a way of keeping one empire from being an unstoppable superpower 100 years after it historically fell to pieces...
Causes would be different, but mostly center around an empire that reached too far, and starts collapsing in on itself... Timurids would be good to start off with it... Or an empire that was massive, and was still on its way up, when something majorly bad happened, and suddenly it was unable to keep it up... Such as Spain losing it Armada to England.

Maybe...in terms of game mechanics, it coud be:
-Is an empire.
-one of the following must be true:
*Has taken ____(amount of) provinces within last _____(amount of) years.
*Lost a war where odds were majorly in your favor(Spanish Armada situation).... Maybe if one of the Peace aggreements was "Humiliate"? Im not sure HOW exactly this would work...
*Has ____(amount of) over-extension.
*Has _____(amount of) Aggressive expansion in average.

Meantime to happen: within 50(changeable) years of reaching these things.
How long it would last: Id say....75 years?

Effects: Basically the exact oppoite of lucky nation status, or worse, Id say...
Cores disapearing faster, decreased hostile coring cost, less spy efficiency..make it HURT...

If they somehow win and humiliate the enemy that humiliated them, hold on to all the provinces that caused them to have this event, or whatever it caused the fall of empire event, it would give "recovering nation" which would give them basically half the bonuses that lucky nations give...
Whaddyall think?

 

[Sarmatian]

The problem with this is that if it happens to the player, all hell's gonna break loose. "I lost a war and my country is breaking apart!!! FIX THIS, Paradox."

Second issue is that it would potentially be too exploitable. DOW a rival at a proper moment, destroy its army/fleet, humiliate and watch it fall apart.

I think I'd rather have a series of not so devastating modifiers, like peasant wars and stuff, than one huge which breaks countries apart. Also it it has got complicated conditions, it's gonna be problematic to teach AI how to deal with it.

 

[Celtic Emporer]

The problem with this is that if it happens to the player, all hell's gonna break loose. "I lost a war and my country is breaking apart!!! FIX THIS, Paradox."

Second issue is that it would potentially be too exploitable. DOW a rival at a proper moment, destroy its army/fleet, humiliate and watch it fall apart.

I think I'd rather have a series of not so devastating modifiers, like peasant wars and stuff, than one huge which breaks countries apart. Also it it has got complicated conditions, it's gonna be problematic to teach AI how to deal with it.

1. That one can be a bit of a problem, and it would be annoying, but if you are expanding so much that in the real world, your empire wouldve allen apart 50 years ago, you need to be hurt a little...

2.I as thinking it would be more of a "if the odds are majorly for/against you...like if Lucca single-handedly destroyed France when France was at full strength, and not when they were alredy beaten to a pulp by a massive succession of wars, and then they were humiliated on top of it...

3. If an AI got in such a situation, it would be a bit more realistic. It would make the Timurids of the EU4 world fall more historically.

 

[Freudia]

1. That one can be a bit of a problem, and it would be annoying, but if you are expanding so much that in the real world, your empire wouldve allen apart 50 years ago, you need to be hurt a little...

"This game penalizes me for playing well! What the hell, Paradox?"

Also, forcing players to slow down in a game where there's nothing to do aside from invading people is a bit of a dubious request.

 

[Celtic Emporer]

1. For doing TOO WELL though, they should go through *a bit* of punishment. After all, Ulm didnt control all of HRE, France, and Poland by the year 1700, or by the year ever. It should be a little harder to do that kind of stuff.
2.I agree, but I personally believe the game needs a major peace-time overhaul...thats a discussion for another time, though.. I did see a thread, not too long ago, that had some great ideas on peace-time activities and such.... https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-make-peacetime-enjoyable.870433/

 

[Freudia]

1. For doing TOO WELL though, they should go through *a bit* of punishment.

Why? Under what logic is it fair to the player doing well to punish him for doing well? Such reasoning only really functions in party games like Mario Party or perhaps Mario Kart, and even in those games it's dubious.

It should be harder to reach that point, sure, but punishing the player arbitrarily because he has reached that point is stupid.

 

[Celtic Emporer]

I wouldnt really call it arbitrary... In real life, if a nation did that well, they were doomed to fall apart... Only 2-3 nations pre-1700s ever mastered doing that well without falling apart, and that was because they got so powerful that they could deal with it, and already had a firm, and not quickly grabbing it all at once... Just grabbing massive chunks of land only counts as "doing well" up to the point where your nation says "boom".

 

[Freudia]

I wouldnt really call it arbitrary... In real life, if a nation did that well, they were doomed to fall apart... Only 2-3 nations pre-1700s ever mastered doing that well without falling apart, and that was because they got so powerful that they could deal with it, and already had a firm, and not quickly grabbing it all at once... Just grabbing massive chunks of land only counts as "doing well" up to the point where your nation says "boom".

And this is logical from a game development perspective... how? Like I said, you are punishing a player for doing well and playing the game as intended. Furthermore, how do you determine what the threshold of doing 'well' and doing 'too well' is?

Also, EU4 is not a game built on 'realism' in any stretch of the word (it actually has made many changes that have made the game less realistic), so arguing something purely on the stance of realism is not acceptable. If you could explain how this is able to improve the game, then I'd be interested in reading, but as is, this does not sound like an idea that would improve the game, at least to me.

 

[Celtic Emporer]

Im not talking about making it hyper-relistic(though I wouldnt complain about that either). Im talking more of...since an experienced player could easily game the system to avois it, as they do every bad thing in the game.... Im more talking about the horribly annoying situation where nations like Spain.... even in AI hands, end up growing, and growing, and growing... When they get powerful enough, their colonial nations never break free, they never lose their massive swaths of terriroties... Like historical Spain... when they hit the point where they were counted as "unlucky"... They were completely incapable of holding Austria, the Netherlandds, Naples, and Milan at th same time...in EU4, the AI Spain could do it with absolute ease and laugh at their petty peasents.....

 

[MWSampson]

I agree that a dynamic Rise and Fall mechanic would be welcome. After all in CK2 I don't mind so much when after 100 years of steady growth something comes along and knocks me back. But the solution isn't this.

I like the idea of a nation in decline, but probably the better way of doing this is altering the lucky nations mechanic. Perhaps simply to slow the tech development of the largest nations with the biggest (and therefore nearly unbeatable) armies.
EDIT: To clarify this could be a date at which they lose the +1 to their monarch's military mana.

 

[BrokenSky]

Ive been thining... for a while... how PDX could do a better job of simulating the fall of powerful empires, as often happened throughout history... The idea is simple, but it didnt come to mind till lately....\
The "Fall of the _______ Empire!" Event!
This could be done a host of different ways... It would be more of a way of keeping one empire from being an unstoppable superpower 100 years after it historically fell to pieces...
Causes would be different, but mostly center around an empire that reached too far, and starts collapsing in on itself... Timurids would be good to start off with it... Or an empire that was massive, and was still on its way up, when something majorly bad happened, and suddenly it was unable to keep it up... Such as Spain losing it Armada to England.

Maybe...in terms of game mechanics, it coud be:
-Is an empire.
-one of the following must be true:
*Has taken ____(amount of) provinces within last _____(amount of) years.
*Lost a war where odds were majorly in your favor(Spanish Armada situation).... Maybe if one of the Peace aggreements was "Humiliate"? Im not sure HOW exactly this would work...
*Has ____(amount of) over-extension.
*Has _____(amount of) Aggressive expansion in average.

Meantime to happen: within 50(changeable) years of reaching these things.
How long it would last: Id say....75 years?

Effects: Basically the exact oppoite of lucky nation status, or worse, Id say...
Cores disapearing faster, decreased hostile coring cost, less spy efficiency..make it HURT...

If they somehow win and humiliate the enemy that humiliated them, hold on to all the provinces that caused them to have this event, or whatever it caused the fall of empire event, it would give "recovering nation" which would give them basically half the bonuses that lucky nations give...
Whaddyall think?

It'd be good if Lucky Nations got something like this MTTH ~ 100 years maybe? Where it flipped to unlucky and the lucky nation got moved on?

 

[Maq]

Under what logic is it fair to the player doing well to punish him for doing well?

Firstly, I always disable lucky nations. I don't like determinism.
The logic of 'punishing success' from purely gameplay perspective is quite obvious: When you get too strong, the game gets boring. You played well? All right, so you deserved higher level of difficulty to expand further, champion.

 

[IHateThisCo]

Desire for liberty is decently close. +7 unrest is not insignificant. Perhaps +10 instead so increasing local autonomy removes the decline modifier. For long held territories, most late game empires have -10 revolt risk, be it from tolerance or humanism or plutocracy. Trying to add territories will be constant rebellions until separatism dies down. So it becomes more difficult to add more land, but long held land is safe. Unless of course someone is supporting rebels...

The problem is still what already occurs late game. Large enough empires can simply soak up the rebels and just not care. It doesn't actually make it any harder, just more tedious on the player. Most AI nations don't tend to do that well anyways.

 

[Celtic Emporer]

• +1 Yearly legitimacy

• +25% Chance of new heir

• −1 National unrest

• +1 Yearly republican tradition

• +1% Missionary strength

• +1 Monthly fervor (only with Wealth of Nations)

• -10% Stability cost modifier

• +1 Possible advisors

• −1 Interest per annum

• +10% Global trade power
• +5% Settler chance
• +5% Spy offense
• +25% Improve relations
• −25% Aggressive expansion impact
• +1 Land leader fire
• +1 Land leader shock
• +10% Fort defense
• +5% Siege ability
• −25% Mercenary cost

+33% Manpower recovery speed

Basically reverse this, add +10 unrest, and let the UNlucky nation try to survivee THAT... How about this?