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

[The-Doc]

I think that you put it wrong. Not the distance is the issue, but the cultural differences. Distance is a secondary issue IF and only if there are cultural differences.

EDIT: A good example is the USA. Huge land, huge country, and since at the beginning it was an amalgamation of cultures, it worked out fine, they don't need to repress minority ethnic groups, forbid rights and send to prison the "bad" people. Other large countries need to do that even now, because of cultural issues.

Culture should be a key here. And if anything, your ability to tolerate and rule multiple cultures should be tied to your level of central control.

I wouldn't wholly discount distance though. In an era when roads were few and often bad and sea and river travel dangerous simply communicating with or administering distant areas was either impossible or required enormous effort. You as a ruler should have to effectively rule far out areas via semi-autonomous governors.

If we take the empire of Charles V as a prime example I'd say it was the limits of cultures and customs as well as sheer distance involved that made it nearly ungovernable.

At any rate, there is not much example in history of the kind of highly centralized state that you're capable of running ca. 1444.

 

[Northernwwater]

What do you find difficult about this game?

Why do you ask?

 

[bly08]

Why do you ask?

Because you seem to find everything I find difficult easy, so I am curious what you find to be difficult.

 

[StefanFan]

Players are welcome to not expand fter mid game if they find blobbing boring. .

Oh really, and what should they do? Wait for 200 years so the game ends? The problem is not boredom, but that it lacks challenges once you reach a point. And anyway, this is not the point of the OP. It's this: "What do you think could be done against post-1600s snowballing?". It's not for you or me or anybody else to question one's likes and likes not.

 

[Northernwwater]

Players are welcome to not expand fter mid game if they find blobbing boring. Yet instead of doing so, multiple threads are made every week that try to impose arbitrary restrictions on others who choose to do otherwise. Most of those suggestions do nothing to prevent players from wanting to expand and instead only makes WCs more tedious. I find this just a bit annoying, along with ignorant assumptions such as WCs are easy, or that WCs only consist of mindless blobbing, or that all WCs are the same, etc, especially from players with no experience and are, to put it crudely, talking out of their asses.

You want others to quite the game half way through so we can maintain the status quo?

I find many of the suggestions for restricting the mega power situations of mid to late game to be adding to the overall quality of the game. maybe your view is biased?

 

[Northernwwater]

Because you seem to find everything I find difficult easy, so I am curious what you find to be difficult.

Everything? I don't even know what "everything" is to you let alone hold an opinion about whether it's difficult or easy.

 

[bly08]

Oh really, and what should they do? Wait for 200 years so the game ends? The problem is not boredom, but that it lacks challenges once you reach a point. And anyway, this is not the point of the OP. It's this: "What do you think could be done against post-1600s snowballing?". It's not for you or me or anybody else to question one's likes and likes not.

The quote was "how boring blobbing mindlessly is," from which I assumed boredom plays a part in the complaint. The game loses variety after a certain point, but it can be made up for without introducing purely negative mechanics that constrain existing playstyles.

 

[Mutagen_Prime]

When I want to play CK2, I bloody well play CK2.

It would be a crying shame if we had to omit fully functioning mechanics that serve a purpose just to differentiate vastly different games. The estates already essentually try to abstract this mechanic somewhat, but it's not fully fleshed out enough to serve it's entire purpose, and the code is already there.

 

[bly08]

Everything? I don't even know what "everything" is to you let alone hold an opinion about whether it's difficult or easy.

You find playing the debt game easy, specifically going into bankruptcy to stay afloat à la atwix and florry. I find that difficult. Thus I ask what you consider difficult. It's a simple question.

 

[Northernwwater]

You find playing the debt game easy, specifically going into bankruptcy to stay afloat à la atwix and florry. I find that difficult. Thus I ask what you consider difficult. It's a simple question.

So it's not everything? You need to continue with your self corrections. Did I say anything about bankruptcy. No I did not.

So what do you find hard about playing debt?

To answer your question, I find many, many, many, many of things to be hard early game. I find the game boring once the decisions become which war and how many wars and not how/when to war.

 

[Viktor Vaughn]

In the end these threads always look like the fun police cracking down on other people enjoying playing the game their own way. People who dont WC trying to prevent WC, and people who play tall suggesting ways to prevent wide play from being successful. The suggestions revolve around preventing other people from playing the way they do, rather than adding actual interesting mechanics or strategy decisions.

This is why I think until the game makes both a viable option (via a DLC or an option in the game start up menu), this conversation will never end. There is no feasible way to satisfy both parties without implementing two separate and very different core mechanics.

Culture should be a key here. And if anything, your ability to tolerate and rule multiple cultures should be tied to your level of central control.

I wouldn't wholly discount distance though. In an era when roads were few and often bad and sea and river travel dangerous simply communicating with or administering distant areas was either impossible or required enormous effort. You as a ruler should have to effectively rule far out areas via semi-autonomous governors.

If we take the empire of Charles V as a prime example I'd say it was the limits of cultures and customs as well as sheer distance involved that made it nearly ungovernable.

At any rate, there is not much example in history of the kind of highly centralized state that you're capable of running ca. 1444.

I think I've actually suggested something about both culture and distance like this. If we wanted to go for more historic accuracy, non-accepted cultures should have harsher penalties, and accepting cultures should be far more difficult than just spending a trivial 100 dip points. Distance as well for sure should have a role to play. Coring cost should increase for provinces further away from the nearest state, and rate of autonomy decrease would be slower for further provinces.

Again though this just serves to satisfy one of the style of play, while disregarding the other. There is no resolution other than essentially making two different games in the same package.

 

[inreadible]

Oh really, and what should they do? Wait for 200 years so the game ends? The problem is not boredom, but that it lacks challenges once you reach a point. And anyway, this is not the point of the OP. It's this: "What do you think could be done against post-1600s snowballing?". It's not for you or me or anybody else to question one's likes and likes not.

But wouldn't pretty much any changes I've seen suggested affect the AI in proportion too and there would still be a point you reach when no AI country can challenge you and you get bored? I do agree that usually the most interesting times are at the very beginning of the game when you are just starting to expand. And I do quit a lot of games rather early. But when you think about it, is it actually a bad thing? I mean, is it necessary to play until 1821 if you hit your goals and get bored? If the timeline was expanded to 2400, would you feel that you have to try to play until that date even if the game felt boring long before?

 

[Northernwwater]

And I do quit a lot of games rather early. But when you think about it, is it actually a bad thing? I mean, is it necessary to play until 1821 if you hit your goals and get bored? If the timeline was expanded to 2400, would you feel that you have to try to play until that date even if the game felt boring long before?

Yes, it's a bad thing. There is no reason the game could not be just as dynamic and fun right up until 1821. World history in 1821 was not a world of unchecked blobs. It still had great powers but there is and still is today always major and serious checks to power.

No matter how quickly or how difficult the start was for any WC I don't believe they have any fun the last 100 or 50 years - except the glee in envisioning the one color 1 tag 1 faith picture they will have as a trophy. The last 50 years might as well be shaved from the game.

 

[bly08]

So it's not everything? You need to continue with your self corrections. Did I say anything about bankruptcy. No I did not.

So what do you find hard about playing debt?

To answer your question, I find many, many, many, many of things to be hard early game. I find the game boring once the decisions become which war and how many wars and not how/when to war.

I can quote all the things you've put down as easy from other threads later if you can't remember. "The debt game" which refers to using bankruptcy to stay alive in tough starts is the most recent example, and does not mean what you think it means. From how easy you find the game to be I can only assume you're either extremely good or extremely ignorant, thus my questions, which you can't seem to answer without asking another irrelevant question.

 

[bly08]

No matter how quickly or how difficult the start was for any WC I don't believe they have any fun the last 100 or 50 years - except the glee in envisioning the one color 1 tag 1 faith picture they will have as a trophy. The last 50 years might as well be shaved from the game.

Are you speaking for yourself or for all WC runs?

 

[Northernwwater]

It would be a crying shame if we had to omit fully functioning mechanics that serve a purpose just to differentiate vastly different games. The estates already essentually try to abstract this mechanic somewhat, but it's not fully fleshed out enough to serve it's entire purpose, and the code is already there.

I like estates, and I don't think estates and regional governors are mutually exclusive. They could be combined into a very nice game mechanic.

 

[Northernwwater]

I can quote all the things you've put down as easy from other threads later if you can't remember.

You can?

"The debt game" which refers to using bankruptcy to stay alive in tough starts is the most recent example, and does not mean what you think it means. From how easy you find the game to be I can only assume you're either extremely good or extremely ignorant, thus my questions, which you can't seem to answer without asking another irrelevant question.

Where is the term "the debt game" defined? So the "the debt game" uses bankruptcy as an integral part of the stratagem? You seek bankruptcy? Here I thought it was using debt as a resource.

 

[bbqftw]

Yes, in certain starts you all in on the loan limit to stay alive, which does enough damage to your economy that it's a better play to declare bankruptcy.

Other starts you're sitting on enough debt and corruption that it takes decades to recover.

Yes, you can play loans badly since interest mechanic forces you to get some return or you've worsened your position.

But of course you knew this, guy who's watched some streamers so he knows how easy it is despite never trying it in practice. You could probably become a tenured professor by taking some first year classes too.

By the way, TTM is hardly an elite achievement (I am 100% serious). But of course you knew that. Just hit the loan button 200 times and run your scripts right?

 

[Northernwwater]

Yes, in certain starts you all in on the loan limit to stay alive, which does enough damage to your economy that it's a better play to declare bankruptcy.

So the strategy is to go bankrupt? You planned it that way, or perhaps, the RNG forced you into the situation? So the idea is a restart is a worse option than declaring bankruptcy? Restarts are a part of difficult WC attempts, no?

By the way, TTM is hardly an elite achievement (I am 100% serious). But of course you knew that. Just hit the loan button 200 times and run your scripts right?

The game does not allows us to run scripts so clearly you are bing facetious. If the achievements are not strategically scripted then why are there so many guides and howto youtube videos. If these are not strategically scripted then why do the WC "elite" always, always recommend the same basic set of idea groups?

 

[grommile]

If these are not strategically scripted then why do the WC "elite" always, always recommend the same basic set of idea groups?

Because doing WC is made easier by having certain things which can be obtained in sizeable lumps from idea groups:

• fewer rebels (Humanist)
  
• reduced coring cost for faster and cheaper cores (Administrative)
• more dip rep for faster subject integration (Influence, Diplomatic)
• reduced annexation cost for cheaper subject absorption (Influence)
  
• reduced diplo expenditure on peace treaties (Influence)
• reduced AE (Influence)
• occasionally there is utility in faster AE burn (Humanist, Diplomatic)
  
• taking more land from the same target in a certain amount of time (Diplomatic's -20% WS cost lets you get the same land for less truce timer, or more land for the same truce timer)

So... yes, you can legitimately say that your idea group picks will tend to follow a script, because you've got four clear and obvious picks. (Which, honestly, are clear and obvious picks in any blobby playthrough, even if you aren't going for WC.)

That doesn't mean you can boil down the whole process of WC into a set of simple script-following exercises.