What do the developers want EU4 to be?

[RogerWilco]

There are many threads that touch sideways on this topic, but I feel it all boils down to this question.
From earlier threads and replies I understand that they don't want it to be a simulator of internal politics, dynasties or in depth diplomatics: Those are the realms of CK and Victoria.

The problem with EU4 is that it doesn't know what it does want to be:

* On the one hand the only fun thing and in depth mechanic is to paint the map your colour by beating enemies on the battlefield.

* On the other hand that's the thing that the game also tries to inhibit though all kinds of weird, inconsistent mechanics that get overhauled in unpredictable ways every patch and hotfix.

Until the developers figure out what they actually want EU4 to be, there will be no end to the frustration and hotfixes.

 

[Veta]

it's a diplomacy game first, conquest game second.

 

[RogerWilco]

it's a diplomacy game first, conquest game second.

I don't agree. There are only two points to the diplomacy system in EU4:

1) Getting allies to help beat your enemies on the battlefield.

2) Diploannexation. Which is just a slow and boring mechanic to paint the map your colour for those that attempt to circumvent the inhibitions that the game puts on direct conquest.

There is nothing like trade/economic advantages, technology benefits or anything of that sort. The diplomacy isn't a goal in and of itself, its only a tool you can use to be better on the battlefield and paint the map your colour.
It's very one dimensional. Diplomacy could be an interesting mechanic, if we had trade agreements, technology transfers, cultural and religious effects, Colonial agreements like the Treaty of Tordesillas, cheaper mercenaries, etc. etc.

Diplomacy in the current game isn't a goal, its a tool. If offers no benefits by itself.

 

[civilizedAustin]

The way I see it EU4 is first and foremost a game about territorial expansion, and the existing mechanics that inhibit said expansion serve to make the game not as easy as it would otherwise be (hence not boring). For the most part I think it works well.

 

[Talar]

Management of this game seems to have been a bit inconsistent already since before the release. EU4 is a playground where you can play games like diplomacy, war or colonization depending on your preferences and imagination. I think it will gain some more focus and depth as more expansions are added, this cannot be done with balance patches. Hopefully it can evolve more like CK2 has done since it's first release.

 

[RogerWilco]

The way I see it EU4 is first and foremost a game about territorial expansion,

I think you're agreeing with me here? It's what I call "painting the map your colour".

and the existing mechanics that inhibit said expansion serve to make the game not as easy as it would otherwise be (hence not boring). For the most part I think it works well.

I think it works in some versions of EU4, sometimes depending on what nation you play. If it's enjoyable, boring or tedious also depends on which version of EU4 you're talking about and if you enjoy mechanics like vassal feeding. There seems to be a lack of vision on where they want the game to be.

 

[RogerWilco]

Management of this game seems to have been a bit inconsistent already since before the release. EU4 is a playground where you can play games like diplomacy, war or colonization depending on your preferences and imagination. I think it will gain some more focus and depth as more expansions are added, this cannot be done with balance patches. Hopefully it can evolve more like CK2 has done since it's first release.

I don't see a fundamental difference between gaining land though war or colonization. You either use the army to grab land, or claim land and then use the army to defend it from native uprisings until it becomes yours.

Neither diplomacy or trade offer many interesting options in the game currently. They are only tools to grab more land, not interesting alternative avenues. Only the HRE mechanics have anything resembling interesting diplomacy, if you're the emperor, but that's all scripted and hardcoded, you can't create something similar in Italy, India or the Americas even though they also have a lot of small nations.

Interesting diplomacy to me would be things like:
- Being an OPM and becoming powerful, like an OPM HRE emperor could be.
- Improving trade, steering, sharing trade ship power, etc.
- Exchanging technology, culture, religion, etc.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

I usually play the game differently depending on the nation and my mood. Be it a conqueror, a diplomacy savvy monarch or developing a huge trade empire.

I usually look at what I need to do to get in the top scoring positions in each of the three categories and play to my strength from that as much as possible. My goal is to get a good score and have fun. Painting the map are just one of many possible way of playing the game, don't fall into the trap of thinking it is the only way you can be number one in the world from a scoring position.

 

[Solo4114]

I think you've characterized the overarching design of the game. It's a game about expanding territory, fundamentally. The problem is that the devs have been tinkering inconsistently with the speed at which players can expand, using gamey mechanics which are extreme abstractions of real-world concepts to slow players' expansion down.

I think the real problem is that you'll never find the right balance of speed-of-expansion. It'll always be too fast or too slow. Yet the devs have shown zero interest in creating any kind of internal realm management as (A) another sub-game to play, and (B) a means by which expansion can be checked and slowed.

I just started playing CK2 recently, and have been getting the hang of the internal realm mechanics, but I also see many of the overlapping mechanics and game aspects that appear in both CK2 and EU4. The problem is that EU4 is basically just the war portion of CK2. Everything else seems underdeveloped.

However, that appears to all be by design. I think that CK2's internal management (or something similar to it) could work quite well in a game like EU4 as a check on expansion. But they aren't interested in that, so we're stuck with what we have until they change their minds.

 

[Heliocon]

I totally agree with Roger and Solo. The game desperately needs more mechanics for internal management or diplomatic relations to make it more interesting and multifaceted. Currently the game only really rewards territorial expansion, and I think the discussion that is happening in this thread is somewhat mirrored in the "tall versus wide" thread.

 

[Neoptolemos]

I think the real problem is that you'll never find the right balance of speed-of-expansion. It'll always be too fast or too slow. Yet the devs have shown zero interest in creating any kind of internal realm management as (A) another sub-game to play, and (B) a means by which expansion can be checked and slowed.

This has come to be my opinion of the game's design vision. Paradox has put so much effort into situating its magical fairy walls of wrongbadfun so that the player always knows they're there but never runs into them, which is an impossible dream considering the wide variety of options they give the player to expand (and, more importantly, nothing else). The game is in dire need of some internal reason not to be always expanding, but I think that the MP focus and the sunk cost of designing coalitions has distracted the devs from that need.

 

[hwoosh]

I think the real problem is that you'll never find the right balance of speed-of-expansion. It'll always be too fast or too slow. Yet the devs have shown zero interest in creating any kind of internal realm management as (A) another sub-game to play, and (B) a means by which expansion can be checked and slowed.

I just started playing CK2 recently, and have been getting the hang of the internal realm mechanics, but I also see many of the overlapping mechanics and game aspects that appear in both CK2 and EU4. The problem is that EU4 is basically just the war portion of CK2. Everything else seems underdeveloped.

More to the point, C) a way for your country to advance without expanding.

However, that appears to all be by design. I think that CK2's internal management (or something similar to it) could work quite well in a game like EU4 as a check on expansion. But they aren't interested in that, so we're stuck with what we have until they change their minds.

CK2 doesn't really have internal management either. Your realm's feudal structure and crown law are as deep as it gets.

 

[Solo4114]

I totally agree with Roger and Solo. The game desperately needs more mechanics for internal management or diplomatic relations to make it more interesting and multifaceted. Currently the game only really rewards territorial expansion, and I think the discussion that is happening in this thread is somewhat mirrored in the "tall versus wide" thread.

It's happening in multiple threads, but yeah, there too.

This has come to be my opinion of the game's design vision. Paradox has put so much effort into situating its magical fairy walls of wrongbadfun so that the player always knows they're there but never runs into them, which is an impossible dream considering the wide variety of options they give the player to expand (and, more importantly, nothing else). The game is in dire need of some internal reason not to be always expanding, but I think that the MP focus and the sunk cost of designing coalitions has distracted the devs from that need.

Yup. They're chasing an impossible-to-attain goal, which explains why the patches keep swinging wildly and never quite hit the mark. It's all an attempt to reach this design goal, but they can't get there, and likely never will.

Also, I think that, because the game seems SO focused on external stuff, that they can't add in systems that will feel rewarding and fun to play, rather than just as some annoying distraction while you're trying to expandexpandexpand.

More to the point, C) a way for your country to advance without expanding.

Also true, but advancement could simply be that your realm is operating well, developing internally, and is able to rival or outshine your neighbors, rather than only valuing expansion. In other words, create for players a feeling of success for actually managing their realms

CK2 doesn't really have internal management either. Your realm's feudal structure and crown law are as deep as it gets.

I'm admittedly new to the game, but from what I see, you do have to manage your vassals' attitudes towards you so as to stave off revolt, manage your dynasty to ensure it succeeds and prospers, manage plots and factions internally, etc. That's all a lot more than what you get in EUIV (although that may be damning with faint praise).

I think similar mechanisms could be added to a game like EUIV that would deal with, say, parliamentary factions, legislation, trading companies, etc. It doesn't need to be a straight port from CK2 to EUIV, but you could have similar activities to keep the player active AND to frustrate growth while also giving the player a sense of success when the internal aspects are successfully managed.

 

[delpiero1234]

it's a diplomacy game first, conquest game second.

No it's not. The game is focused on conquest. If you don't conquer you fall behind. Diplomacy is only needed early on and to annex vassals.



Important aspects of EU IV:
+ Conquest

Not important aspects of EU IV:
- Trading (every good player is swimming in money in mid and late game)
- Colonization (sucks and not rewarding)
- Diplomacy (there is really nothing to do besides watching the AI forming coalitions against you)
- Espioange (It was great in EU III but in EU IV not worth it)


If you want to play a successful game you have to conquer. Even if you play the trade game and don't feel like conquering at all you have to - without conquest no higher naval force limit, no higher trade power and so on.
If you want to play the diplomatic game and don't feel like expanding via conquest at all then there is really nothing you can do besides expanding by vassalizing --> The game is about conquering as much as you can.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

You need to conquer some land to be in the top in the game but in my opinion that is quite realistic. There is however no need to just expand all the time. You don't need to paint the world in your colour to be in the lead and sort of win the game.

The main problem is that the game have no measure of realistically stop a player from expanding. There is a lack of any internal mechanics in nations and/or real rebellion mechanics that can be influenced by other nations(other than single provinces). There also are too many loopholes to abuse in the AI logic that makes it pretty easy to just steamroll it despite the coalition mechanic. Since there are more or less no internal pressures except for OE and random rebellion of random provinces most players can just keep expanding as long as they keep an eye on coalitions, AE and OE. Which I can understand just become tedious if you go that route.

Although no one is forcing you to play the expansion game and/or abuse obvious failings in AI predictability in single play, you can actually find some pleasure in going the diplomatic way and not make every war about conquer territory. You can try and scavenge your surrounding for how the alliance web is spinning and use that to plan your moves and disrupt your opponents and weaken them whenever you can. Look at what countries are ahead of you on the scoring track and in what way, device plans of dropping them down so you can gain more score than them.

In my opinion there are more way to play the game than do the perpetual expansion tactic, even though I agree that it is unrealistically easy to do so since the AI are not smart enough to disrupt and stop it and there are no realistic mechanic to stop you from taking over the world.

You should perhaps also try a few mods, some of them does a great job of adding additional mechanic to contain players but also give other reasons for going to war than expansion, such as just weaken a strong neighbor in some way.

 

[Nick Giordano]

Isn't it Risk on crack?

Which is a shame, I'd love to see EU4 be a as-realistic-as-can-be (but still game fun) to the early modern period instead of a digital board game of warmongering. I'd hope in a year or two, EU4 would be as dramatically different as happened from vanilla EU3 to HTTT/DW, that makes EU4 into a diverse deep game.

 

[TheRevanchist]

Kebeb removal simulator 2014

 

[Greenfrog]

Fun, the hard part is your fun may not be mine.

 

[Beagá]

Kebeb removal simulator 2014

Even better if you exchange green with purple

 

[jockedahl]

A cash cow to fund Victoria 3!