We are drowning in money. Please make it stop.

[Ixal]

If you don't challenge yourself then you will always be dissatisfied by the lack of challenge in this game.

In fact the game being enjoyable and facing challenge are generally mutually exclusive as most people don't like losing. If you don't stand a chance of losing then you are not challenging yourself. What was the last time you lost a campaign?

Also I like how you passive aggressive throw in exploit, as if you have some purer game understanding based on being bored on a difficulty designed for beginning players.

Some people would also like to have a challenge when playing France. Or after 1600 when they conquered most of Europe.

You might only have fun when you are invincible, but for many people the chance of losing is part of the fun. Thats why so many people stop playing at 1600 instead of continuing to the end date. Because there is no risk anymore and all thats left is to declare war and stomp everyone with mercenary doomstacks over and over again.

 

[Dominion]

Some people would also like to have a challenge when playing France. Or after 1600 when they conquered most of Europe.

You might only have fun when you are invincible, but for many people the chance of losing is part of the fun. Thats why so many people stop playing at 1600 instead of continuing to the end date. Because there is no risk anymore and all thats left is to declare war and stomp everyone with mercenary doomstacks over and over again.

If you aren't challanged after 1600, upgrade your difficulty level. Easy as that.

 

[bly08]

Partially right. People do not primarily want realism, but a fun game which does not become a boring faceroll halfway through it. If the measures to ensure that are also realistic its a bonus.
And no, setting ever more ridiculous goals to challenge yourself like 1600 world conquests is not a solution. Most players do not have an interest in world conquest grind and exploiting the system to do it.
They want to play whatever they feel like and want the game to stay enjoyable all the time. And for that even big nations have to face meaningfull challenges (and by that I dont mean calculating how to stay at 99% overextension).
Addressing the gold flood which makes gold and manpower a meaningless ressource is a good first step. Next would imo be a rework of stability so that large nations face more internal issues (and more interesting ones than rebel-whack-a-mole) to keep players challenged once they are the "top dog".
If that results in the top players not being able to do WC as fast as they are now and medium skilled players not being able to do WC at all so be it. I trade WC bragging for an interesting mid-late game instead of a faceroll any day.

1. WCs are quite challenging before 10k dev. After too, but the challenge becomes less so strategic and more about doing all that's needed to finish a WC, which is a lot.
2. The challenge for a big nation is to become bigger, that's the way the game is designed. Feel free to play a different game instead of complaining about a lack of challenge. The game doesn't suddenly change in between 100 and 1000 development. A small nation seeks growth just as a large nation would.
3. Manpower and gold only become infinite in endgame. It's not a big deal.
4. Big nations are a lot less stable than smaller ones if only due to separatist rebels. More land means more rebels.
5. The result of implementing terrible suggestions that slow down big nations will have more of an effect to those who complained in the first place rather than those who understand how to deal with new mechanics.

I'm not sure what your experience is with the game that you think anything past 1600 is faceroll. If you can reach 10k development with any nation by 1600 on VH then sure, you have the right to complain. If you are not interested in WC then I'm not sure how you can ever find the game to be easy.

 

[bly08]

Some people would also like to have a challenge when playing France. Or after 1600 when they conquered most of Europe.

You might only have fun when you are invincible, but for many people the chance of losing is part of the fun. Thats why so many people stop playing at 1600 instead of continuing to the end date. Because there is no risk anymore and all thats left is to declare war and stomp everyone with mercenary doomstacks over and over again.

Where are you getting these assumptions from? Have you played multiple campaigns until the end and have found that there is no challenge after 1600 or are you just assuming from the streams you've watched? Just because other players make it look easy doesn't mean it's easy.

 

[Ixal]

I have played a lot of games and whenever I control Europe or India (or start as Ming) the game becomes boring. If another AI did really well I have to actually pay attention when crushing it, but most of the time I can declare wars at will and simply wipe the enemy with quantity (and usually also quality). That might be fun a few times but soon most people find this boring and rather start a new game.

 

[bly08]

I have played a lot of games and whenever I control Europe or India (or start as Ming) the game becomes boring. If another AI did really well I have to actually pay attention when crushing it, but most of the time I can declare wars at will and simply wipe the enemy with quantity (and usually also quality). That might be fun a few times but soon most people find this boring and rather start a new game.

Who is "most" people, do you have polls to back up this claim?

 

[DarkBlue]

1. WCs are quite challenging before 10k dev. After too, but the challenge becomes less so strategic and more about doing all that's needed to finish a WC, which is a lot.
2. The challenge for a big nation is to become bigger, that's the way the game is designed. Feel free to play a different game instead of complaining about a lack of challenge. The game doesn't suddenly change in between 100 and 1000 development. A small nation seeks growth just as a large nation would.
3. Manpower and gold only become infinite in endgame. It's not a big deal.
4. Big nations are a lot less stable than smaller ones if only due to separatist rebels. More land means more rebels.
5. The result of implementing terrible suggestions that slow down big nations will have more of an effect to those who complained in the first place rather than those who understand how to deal with new mechanics.

I'm not sure what your experience is with the game that you think anything past 1600 is faceroll. If you can reach 10k development with any nation by 1600 on VH then sure, you have the right to complain. If you are not interested in WC then I'm not sure how you can ever find the game to be easy.

Excuses me? Big nations are unstable? Oh come on, just place a stack around those trouble makers and they are dead! Meanwhile if an OPM got some shit event it might got stackwiped and have rebels siege it down. As far as realism is concerned, the difficulty of managing an empire is definitely not reflected in EU4 (whether we should make it happen is debatable).

And by the way I just don't understand how blobbing is fun after you are stronger than, say, the Ottomans. First of all the constraints we face at the starting years are all gone, and those challenges varying across nations are what make different countries truly different. Secondly, the AI is just too stupid to react diplomatically to a possible threat that could take over the world, but instead happily sit there and wait to be butchered. Lastly, WC as you said involves a lot of wars that are won before it started, and I would argue that the same apply to blobbing in general once you have a fair army and good income, which aren't too hard to have.

We want some realistic mechanisms about expanding and managing the realm not because we hate blobbing, but it is monotonous and repetitive. There are so many tags in EU4 and so there could be as many playstyles as possible. But for now, it seems to me that unstopped expansion is the ultimate and optimal solution to all countries problems, such that some people like florryworry have to handicap themselves to still have fun.

 

[bbqftw]

Someone with over 10000 hours in eu4 has to handicap themself? Stop the presses!

 

[bly08]

Excuses me? Big nations are unstable? Oh come on, just place a stack around those trouble makers and they are dead! Meanwhile if an OPM got some shit event it might got stackwiped and have rebels siege it down. As far as realism is concerned, the difficulty of managing an empire is definitely not reflected in EU4 (whether we should make it happen is debatable).

And by the way I just don't understand how blobbing is fun after you are stronger than, say, the Ottomans. First of all the constraints we face at the starting years are all gone, and those challenges varying across nations are what make different countries truly different. Secondly, the AI is just too stupid to react diplomatically to a possible threat that could take over the world, but instead happily sit there and wait to be butchered. Lastly, WC as you said involves a lot of wars that are won before it started, and I would argue that the same apply to blobbing in general once you have a fair army and good income, which aren't too hard to have.

We want some realistic mechanisms about expanding and managing the realm not because we hate blobbing, but it is monotonous and repetitive. There are so many tags in EU4 and so there could be as many playstyles as possible. But for now, it seems to me that unstopped expansion is the ultimate and optimal solution to all countries problems, such that some people like florryworry have to handicap themselves to still have fun.

1. Read my post, I said big nations are less stable than smaller ones, not that big nations are "unstable." Rebels become harder to deal with the more you expand. Rebel management during a WC is one of the most difficult tasks. Where do you get the idea that it's easy?

2. The representation of empires is as unrealistic as OPMs. I can simply ally the Ottomans as any minor near the Black Sea, speed 5 and survive till 1821. Do you find that realistic?

3. The constraints after becoming stronger than the Ottomans are the same as before. Neighbors need to be picked apart with planning, diplomacy, opportunism, and some luck. More importantly, just because you don't find it fun doesn't mean no one else does. If you don't care for blobbing then why does it matter what anyone thinks of it?

4. Who is "we?" I still find WCs to be interesting and challenging for most of the run. You're speaking as if you have so much experience with blobbing that you've become sick of it, yet all of these posts are made by people who have admittedly never attempted WCs.

Lastly, I have no problems with making the mid/late game more interesting and challenging. I do have a problem with terrible suggestions and assumptions on how to make this happen. I also prefer people who make suggestions regarding blobbing to have some bare minimal experience with blobbing rather than "I played Ming once and it was too easy." In general it's probably best to have some experience with the stuff you'd like to see changed rather than making suggestions based on ignorance.

 

[durbal]

Yes the AI got SIGNIFICANTLY better in the last few patches; you mean to tell me that AI's used to have a couple thousand ducats in the bank and now have a couple of TENS of thousands with all buildings fleshed out isn't better? They litterally have 1.5 to 3 times the troops they used to how is that not better?

I hear alot of desire for realism in this thread. We want realistic war costs, maintaining an empire cost; building upkeep etc... No you don't: If you do that you fight one war and then you'd be forced to pay back loans for 50 years or go bankrupt. Realistic war costs = no fun. You can argue that it might need to be more expensive, which for the record I would not, but realism is really not something to shoot for here not even close to it. Gameplay > Realistic history.

It might just be my weird perspective but I never run into 'too much money' issues. That is in large part due to the difficulty level; you don't need to set some amazing crazy goal like a world conquest to spend all your hard earned ducats. You just need to click options and bump up the difficulty slider. That's it you're done. I guarantee you'll spend your money. I can't even remember the last time I had enough money for 1 lvl 5 advisor let alone 3 let alone build some buildings. Unless it was a game where I specifically set myself up to make crazy dosh; like own India trade-money dosh. Wars ARE expensive; you are almost constantly at 0 or close to 0 manpower so you have to use mercs; 1 rebellion of 20k; thats 600 ducats down the drain.


Look i'm not trying to sound elitist or anything but really if you want to see what it's like to not have money just try 1 game of very hard. Wars and ergo 'maintaining' an empire will be twice to three times more expensive due to larger enemy armies and more agressive AI's.
The way I see it NEW player won't have too much money on normal. Experienced players do, i think almost noone who plays on very hard has too much money. Do we really want to make it harder for newer players to get into the game? Instead of just encouraging players to move to a higher difficulty setting? I think this something worth thinking about.
I can't for the life of me see how more expenses will make the game more fun but I might be proven wrong ofcourse.

Finally I realise i'm a minority position here I'm just raising the possibilty of moving to very hard in order to have something to spend your ducats on; without making it harder for newer players or excrutiating for very hard players; I mean we will adjust and cope like with loans and the more expensive mercs but one needs to ask if this is the direction we ought to be moving into. Making 'normal' the new very hard by constantly making war more expensive seems odd to me and then making very hard 'super mega ultra hard' Come to think of it I do like the sound of that. Still it might have unintended consequences: Making it a stare at the map untill you can afford 2 dudes with a stick to go hit 1 guy with a hammer instead of Sending legions of badass spacemarines against hordes of hapless enemies.

I don't know why it's so hard for some people to comprehend that too much money in the game affects other game mechanics and throws them out of whack. 'I don't have too much money because I play on VH' isn't an argument when you consider that playing on VH doesn't fix -- and in some cases exacerbates -- things like bloated treasuries, merc spam, manufactory spam, etc. VH itself throws game systems of of whack and it's why many don't want to play on it -- it's a different game that they'd rather not play. And let's not pretend that even on VH there still isn't a critical mass at which point you're still just unstoppable, especially after taking those fat treasuries and all the manufactories built by the AI.

And if difficulty is really an argument, then why are you opposed to VH actually being...uhhh...Very Hard? Having Very Hard as the new Normal just shows how messed up things are.

 

[durbal]

If you aren't challanged after 1600, upgrade your difficulty level. Easy as that.

I think people want more of a challenge than the faux-RTS microing of mercs and scrolling back and forth across continents to declare war and squash rebels.

Lastly, I have no problems with making the mid/late game more interesting and challenging. I do have a problem with terrible suggestions and assumptions on how to make this happen. I also prefer people who make suggestions regarding blobbing to have some bare minimal experience with blobbing rather than "I played Ming once and it was too easy." In general it's probably best to have some experience with the stuff you'd like to see changed rather than making suggestions based on ignorance.

Quite the strawman there. You know, there are quite a few players who routinely do WC with things like ROTW OPMs and aren't part of the streamer circlejerk crew in here. I guess that explains the elitist position the streamers and their roadies seem to be adopting -- and it makes sense given yheir viewership is tied to their playstyle and their assumed position of 'best players' is tied to their streaming income.

 

[Dominion]

I think people want more of a challenge than the faux-RTS microing of mercs and scrolling back and forth across continents to declare war and squash rebels.

Don't knock if before you're tried it.

Five bucks say you've never tried it.

 

[durbal]

Don't knock if before you're tried it.

Five bucks say you've never tried it.

I do it every time I play and it's the worst part of the EU4 experience. (I don't know why you'd even assume that I haven't given my other posts.)

 

[bly08]

I think people want more of a challenge than the faux-RTS microing of mercs and scrolling back and forth across continents to declare war and squash rebels.



Quite the strawman there. You know, there are quite a few players who routinely do WC with things like ROTW OPMs and aren't part of the streamer circlejerk crew in here. I guess that explains the elitist position the streamers and their roadies seem to be adopting -- and it makes sense given yheir viewership is tied to their playstyle and their assumed position of 'best players' is tied to their streaming income.

1. Propose some suggestions then other than more rebels.

2. What am I strawmanning? That most of the players who make terrible suggestions don't have WC experience? Are you saying that most do?

Not sure what you're trying to get at by "streamer circlejerk and roadies." I don't stream or watch streams. Everything I argue for comes from experience. You're the only one implying viewership has something to do "best player."

3. I don't enjoy faux-RTS micro but I don't complain about it. There are more important problems that need fixing.

 

[bbqftw]

Building manufactories on VH lul.

Maybe bring back building destruction upon province conquest if VH AI manu proliferation is such a big problem

 

[Rikissa]

I don't know how you can make the AI spend more if you often deal with very passive AIs which just sit around (like Ming)

 

[Canute VII]

Recently we vastly improved the AI's ability at building good buildings. This increased the money they had and, therefore all the money in the game.

So I took a good look at mid-late game finances and the biggest issue I had with it was how cheap warfare was, particularly as the game progresses. Oftentimes, Napoleonic units would be cheaper to maintain than the early gaggle of halberd men. A fairly ridiculous situation to say the least.

Unit costs have been increased the later into the game we get. Additionally the myriad of reductions to this cost (we've added many sources of maintenance cost reduction) have been reduced. The result is that large military mobilizations will prove more costly as the game progresses, and a sound economy will be required to maintain one for long. A couple other minor adjustments have been made, such as the large amount of trade and production bonuses from tech, and through observing overnights and playing, it seems to have tightened up the vast amounts of money in the mid-late game.

Of course it's something we'll continue to monitor, so I welcome any feedback on it once 1.25 lands. Thanks for your comments.

Just in case you'd run out of ideas how to fix money and power creep, I'll link one of my old suggestions, which you migh (re-?)consider :
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...flation-have-an-effect-on-corruption.1016334/

 

[Fyrion]

I think it would good to re-do other areas of the game so that excessive amounts of money wouldn't be a problem late game. Because they will be diverted elsewhere.

Some ideas could be:

Allowing us to fund the church, at least the catholic one like Portugal, Spain and other countries did back then, maybe even make new mechanics for Roman Catholics as right now it's a bit boring how they play, like the pope granting bonuses, CBs or other things the more you corrupt him..

Maybe change the way estates work and intertwine them with development, so that you need to invest part of your ducats but in return some of those estates would grant you more development on those provinces over time, even make certain events happen, like a push for a crusade, a great merchant appearing, etc. Stability could be a way of burning too, perhaps re-doing that old mechanic.

Other stuff could be like, having to re-equip your troops each time new mil tech comes out, costing money, or allowing you to buy or steal treasures like in CK2, famous pantings or build famous wonders like Italy did back then.

 

[jhanso]

i play on very hard and im always swimming in money by 1600-1650, prior to all the good changes theyve made and splitting up regions that used to be much easier to divide and conquer, i was swimming in money by 1550, in either case if my maintenance slider doesnt go into negative when im at war with 200K units, i normally end the campaign because im just unstoppable and it aint fun. in my last mazandaran->persia game, the persian trade node was a total of 130 by 1600 and i was earning 97% of that, by far the largest trade node in the world.

there really is too much money in the game at the moment, speaking from very hard difficulty experience and on a fundamental level, it has to do with the AI getting development buffs, and development being unrestricted for the player.

DDRJake can you please bring back varied terrain chosen when armies meet? You can always beat the AI with a small nation f you fight the first few battles in defensive mountain forts, and its too easy to ensure you always get the defensive bonuses when playing the AI.

 

[Sfan]

I repost what I said earlier in answer to the Very Harders.

Moving to VH is not a valid answer to the problem.
I regularly lose campaigns in normal, or to say better find them unsatisfying. I don't like to struggle a lot and I don't play to overthink anything unless I'm going for a specific and hard achievement. That's why I barely touch VH, I did less than 5 campaigns on it and the hardest country I played in VH was the Great Horde. And even with that, I still think I'm part of the fraction of players who often starts as OPMs in ROTW (albeit in normal) and who got some of the most difficult achievements. Judging from that and from what I read, I think the vast majority of the player base does not want to play in VH. Maybe it's laziness, maybe the ego, I don't know.
To me at least, it's not that the game is too easy pre 1600, it's that it's too easy post 1600. If I bumped the difficulty level, it would undoubtedly be too hard pre 1600 (unless I sticked with majors).
The heart of the problem is not that people drown in money, it's that the only way to spend money is to wage wars and to deal with revolts, which is why only putting the game in VH will help with the money flow. But that's not the same early game experience at all, and wanting a different post 1600 experience does not mean wanting a different pre 1600 experience.

It is extremely important that it is still possible to play in Very Hard and not significantly harder (or not harder at all), still possible to strech yourself super thin and to merc swarm if you want to One Tag as a ROTW OPM in normal. That's why I agree that wars should not be more expensive, unless it's part of an interesting mechanic tied to a better professionalism.
BUT at the same time there needs to be a way to spend money mid to late game if you play in normal and are successful. And achievements designed about this to make it valuable. Patronizing works of art, creating infrastructures, spending money on public welfare. Anything that would feel rewarding, interesting, that would not harm someone not going for it, but that would be an alternative to just paint the map with the excessive money a moderately experienced player would have if he plays in normal. Devastation and Prosperity is a step in that direction, but tbh I totally ignore that unless I want to develop for an institution or I have a goldmine early game, simply because it's a passive mechanic. Something along this line, on which you could spend money, could make tall play and a peaceful game once you secured a nice trade network and unified your culture group interesting, even if still less optimal. I miss the days where I was bad and could spend 3 years waiting for a church, and still feel like I was building my country and having fun. Now I built all possible churches and I drown in money after 100 years so boredom pushes me to paint the map, while in my heart I would be more of a tall and stable player if you actually had anything to build.