What do you think could be done against post-1600s snowballing?

[TolHydra]

-to make the game more challenging, engaging and as such fun to play?

Title is the TL;DR, but feel free to read the rest.

If you're like me and played both EU3, and EU4 since release, you know that; much of the idea behind monarch points was to limit late-game snowballing:

From the 5th dev diary:
Why the concept of power?
Designing a strategy game is about implementing limitations on the players, because the choice of how you will spend your limited resources is what strategy is all about. With the introduction of power, we have managed to create a system which gives a really interesting balance that works both short-term and long-term inside a game. In short, our new system is one where monarch ability places restrictions on the player according to the ability of the monarch. This system removes the rich getting richer syndrome (or the “snowball effect” as some people call it) where power begets power.

as artificial as it may have been, and I still don't like how gamey it feels to dump some mana, It wasn't the worst idea to limit expansion.

But a lot of things changed since back then, and I don't find post mid-game worth even playing anymore. And it definitely is a problem. Any player who has ever attempted a World Conquest can tell you how boring blobbing mindlessly is. And this is still the case even if you're playing on the higher difficulties, once you come over the initial hurdle, nothing can stop you.

I don't want to have to resort to crazy schemes like forming the zoroastrian Empire of Lousiana just to make the game entertaining. But I don't have all the answers, and quite frankly, there are infinitely more knowledgeable people amongst you who I know could provide great ideas to solve this problem. So please, do share what you think could be done, and feel free to disagree if anything should be done at all.

 

[Rikissa]

Do you already play on Very Hard?

 

[TolHydra]

Do you already play on Very Hard?

Yup and I love it, it makes the beginning that much more interesting to play. But you eventually reach the same problem, only later. (And with a lot more restarts. )

It's just that once you have a successful empire going. What then? What do you do? Just boring expansion. Ottomans having seemingly infinite manpower only manages to make it more tedious that's all.

But this isn't about improving my own experience, I could always play some mods, or just return to Vic II. It's about trying to come up with ways to improve the game. In that note, what about a global communication efficiency modifier? It seems a natural way to limit things once your empire stretches all over the globe.

 

[checro]

I don't think it is such a problem. There is no way to stop you being the strongest once you become the strongest.
Adding too much of artifical brakes only leads to even less fun, and also keeps the casual players away.

And, in my opinion, even if it is a little boring later, there are still stuff happening, and also, the speed of expansion and the problems you get are connected to your skill, so it is still fun. It just shifts from "can I beat him" to "can I beat him so fast" or "can I beat him and stay stable"...

 

[Zander]

The problem is that some of the most realistic and reasonable ways would be frustrating for the player:
- having more and more nations band together against you
- having more and more internal difficulties.

I honestly think perhaps the best way in terms of "feel" would just be to have extreme diminishing returns. (There are slight ones now in that OPMs get a significant boost, but they don't keep going past that.) For example, if a nation 2x the size only had 1.2x the troops and money, then you would never really reach "complete runaway" size... 16x the size would mean 2x the power, and 256x the size would mean about 4x the power.

 

[TolHydra]

and also keeps the casual players away.

I don't see the problem here

Joking aside, you're right, but how about natural breaks. Something that makes sense contextually? It's not my intention to see the 50 year rebel cycles from EU3 to see a return. All I want is something interesting to do late-game that is not expanding even further.

I honestly think perhaps the best way in terms of "feel" would just be to have extreme diminishing returns. (There are slight ones now in that OPMs get a significant boost, but they don't keep going past that.) For example, if a nation 2x the size only had 1.2x the troops and money, then you would never really reach "complete runaway" size... 16x the size would mean 2x the power, and 256x the size would mean about 4x the power.

Oh, I like this. But it alone would make the game even less fun at the later stages. Nothing to do but expanding and little reason to even do so.

 

[checro]

Joking aside, you're right, but how about natural breaks. Something that makes sense contextually? It's not my intention to see the 50 year rebel cycles from EU3 to see a return. All I want is something interesting to do late-game that is not expanding even further.

Yeah, but rebels is all you can get
That or some fixed artificial limits..

 

[Lor360]

As long as there is a achivement to conquer the world with Ryukyu, snowballing will probably never be adressed properly.

 

[TolHydra]

Yeah, but rebels is all you can get
That or some fixed artificial limits..

^^ But how about something like communication efficiency? It couldn't be as easy to rule the entire mediterranean from Jerusalem, as it could have been ruled from Rome, right?

As long as there is a achievement to conquer the world with Ryukyu, snowballing will probably never be adressed properly.

It used to be more of a way to plug exploits rather than a reasonably difficult challenge. Which it eventually ended up as being. Norwegian Wood, Jihad, Aztec Invasion all used to be tough as nails too. I missed that.

 

[checro]

^^ But how about something like communication efficiency? It couldn't be as easy to rule the entire mediterranean from Jerusalem, as it could have been ruled from Rome, right?

So, you mean getting more rebels in borderlands?

 

[TolHydra]

So, you mean getting more rebels in borderlands?

Oh come on it doesn't have to be rebels.

How about a lowest autonomy ceiling? That gets lower if you decide to invest into infrastructure? Combined with ways to cut the general amount of money generated in-game, I think it could be better than nothing. Less money would make trade much more essential and satisfying to get right too. At least, in theory.

 

[checro]

Oh come on it doesn't have to be rebels.

How about a lowest autonomy ceiling? That gets lower if you decide to invest into infrastructure? Combined with ways to cut the general amount of money generated in-game, I think it could be better than nothing. Less money would make trade much more essential and satisfying to get right too. At least, in theory.

So, you want to build some things in the lands you don't care about when you are allready the strongest tag?

I am joking a bit, but I stand by that it is not so bad, and with current mechanics I don't think much can be done..

 

[TolHydra]

So, you want to build some things in the lands you don't care about when you are allready the strongest tag?

I am joking a bit, but I stand by that it is not so bad, and with current mechanics I don't think much can be done..

I thought it more of a way to actually administer your empire and build road networks and such but fair enough, you may be right.

 

[Sparticulous]

Meioux and taxes is the game you want

 

[Seelensturm]

I didn't play much in the last patches. But I remember "reduce core creation costs!" being the key in every blobbing guide. So I did the opposite. Adding

difficulty_very_hard_player = {
   core_creation = 1.50
   diplomatic_annexation_cost = 1.50
}

helped for me to make the game much more interesting.

It makes:

• the rate of expansion more historically believable (and closer to what the AI is capable of, so AI empires stay competitive for much longer)
• you picky about which land to actually control directly (instead of vassals just being a setup for later annexation)
  
• internal development of your own country a less worse option compared to just conquering stuff

You can still blob to some extent in the late game with administrative efficiency.
When starting with a smaller country you might want to start with lower values and increase them over time.

 

[Ptirodaktill]

Game alredy has a lot of mechanic that slow down blobbing. I doubt we need moar of them - steamroll in midgame is caused by player actions in early game, so if someone whant extra challenge he can play w/o mercs and loans =)

 

[Horn and Ivory]

I'd be in favour of spectacular lategame Napoleonic-style giant coalition wars, not based on aggressive expansion but on reaching a certain threshold of threatening hegemonic power, at a point where your collected neighbours still have a good chance against you, and where peace deals are extremely low-cost for both sides. If you win a few of them you can take ludicrously enormous quantities of land and consider the game 'won'.

 

[bly08]

Any player who has ever attempted a World Conquest can tell you how boring blobbing mindlessly is. And this is still the case even if you're playing on the higher difficulties, once you come over the initial hurdle, nothing can stop you.

Really? I only find end game blobbing boring, which is way past 1600. A lot can still go wrong after Absolutism. Late game blobbing is really, quite tedious and not the cakewalk these threads make them out to be.

 

[bbqftw]

Any player who has ever attempted a World Conquest can tell you how boring blobbing mindlessly is. And this is still the case even if you're playing on the higher difficulties, once you come over the initial hurdle, nothing can stop you.

Yes it often seems like these threads just assume what people who do WCs routinely think.

If you are doing WC from a sub ~20 development position on VH it can be mid 1650s (which is already late game in my opinion since you reach former late game admin efficiencies much earlier) or even 1700s depending before you've truly won the game (or at least, can't set your WC time back 15-20 years by coalition staggering). With the new changes in 1.24 we might move it even further since the AI is far more competent about spamming alliances now (which is a great change) and AIs now much more able to chain claim catholic DotF (there probably should be a cooldown, but its not the worst).

In other words, paradox is already addressing this issue by making the AI play better diplomatically (of course the army control is still disaster but that's a far more complex problem).

Besides, with 'new' strats like stateless nationalism (well they always existed, just took a couple of people to theorycraft this) you can simply erase large countries off the map with age abso + tier 2 adm eff or tier 3 adm eff:

Boringness gone!

 

[Siu-King**]

Yes it often seems like these threads just assume what people who do WCs routinely think.

In other words, paradox is already addressing this issue by making the AI play better diplomatically (of course the army control is still disaster but that's a far more complex problem).

Besides, with 'new' strats like stateless nationalism (well they always existed, just took a couple of people to theorycraft this) you can simply erase large countries off the map with age abso + tier 2 adm eff or tier 3 adm eff:

I find it annoying how people who NEVER finished a world conquest keep putting words into the mouths of people who actually do it routinely.

AI can blob like mad now, 2000 dev PLC + 2000 dev Ottomans + 2000 dev France I just had in my Buddhist 1 faith game, they literally partitioned Germany.
now removing that is fun and challenging because Nationalism can only get you so far when they worth 600% war score each,

AND i still had the timer to beat to get my Buddhist 1 faith.