What if idea groups costed...

[alanschu]

I think this is looking at too-brief a timeframe though. Over the course of the game, it should be quite possible to specialize your country in a certain field. Random monarch stats already prevent this focus from becoming excessive for too long, so that does not seem like an issue. Leaders with such extreme stats will be very rare, and nations will tend to have fairly even numbers of points in every area. This (roughly) even distribution of points, coupled with the overlap between tech and ideas, makes player-driven specialization (the foundation of most approaches to the game) a very limited aspect of the game.

So "eat up" while the pickings is good for a particular stat then? Might be a better way to do it than to keep the same general MO regardless of the leader.


The real issue comes down to whether or not a nation that picks military ideas falls behind compared to a nation that picks exclusively technology.

And to be fair, all of the judgments come over a very brief timeframe, as well. So even if we conclude, for the demo, that picking only technology makes more sense, we can't be sure if that is always the case.

 

[Crymson]

Well, it`s mostly your porblem of lack of logic, not the games one.

You have to quit the notion that tech is a measure of being advanced.
The measure of being advanced is your trade efficency, global trade power, the number of merchants, the amount of trade power you gain per unit of light ship maintenance expences, ex. (similar for military, where power is ependent on your manpower pool, discipline, morale, special troop power modifiers and unit types).

You can get those trugh tech, or ideas. A combination of techs and ideas in same aeria makes you more advanced than just tech level, even if it is higher.

I lost you after you said that tech is not a measure of being advanced. Tech is absolutely a measure of advancement. There's no disputing that. And once again, it simply makes no sense for focus into a certain area to produce a technological shortfall in that area. That is indisputable.

 

[airpirate]

1. I am sure that everybody here understands the inherent limitations when discussing the game's balance on the basis of the demo. However, it was released as a demonstration (obvious, but still worth pointing out) of the game. That means that we can certainly begin to discuss aspects of the game, as long as we do not draw conclusions yet.

2. I agree.

3. I think this metaphor was taken too far, if it ever worked to begin with. I am very happy with EU4, and spent far too much time with the demo when I was able. This is not bashing the game, but seeking to improve it. It would be a disservice to both the fans and the developers if everyone just stopped and decided that this is the best it can get. There is always room for improvement, and there is nothing wrong with taking a critical look at various aspects of the game, so long as the discussion remains constructive.

1) Conclusions about the monarch point system are being drawn here though. People are saying that focusing on a particular set of national ideas will lead to the player falling behind in that area. This is not guaranteed to happen. I've also seen posts about the importance of monarch points leading to biases towards stronger nations (the idea being that larger nations can overcome bad monarchs while smaller nations cannot), which is again something that is not necessarily true.

2) Good

3) I would argue it is impossible to make any really constructive criticism about the game until we actually get our hands on it. This discussion is effectively one about monarch point balance and about whether investing in ideas will mean falling behind in tech. Until we see how significant neighbor bonuses get and how important tech actually is mid and late game compared to ideas (as well as various other things like how the AI deals with everything), most things we can say about how the system is balanced is pure speculation. We just don't have enough information to make any judgements about balance and trying to improve a game before actually seeing what needs improving is (IMO) just plain silly.

 

[unmerged(303856)]

So "eat up" while the pickings is good for a particular stat then? Might be a better way to do it than to keep the same general MO regardless of the leader.


The real issue comes down to whether or not a nation that picks military ideas falls behind compared to a nation that picks exclusively technology.

And to be fair, all of the judgments come over a very brief timeframe, as well. So even if we conclude, for the demo, that picking only technology makes more sense, we can't be sure if that is always the case.

I agree that we cannot be certain of long-term gameplay ramifications without having played the full game, but we can be certain of counterintuitive design, which is never a good thing. Just look at this quote from Peter Ebbesen's Phoenix Rising AAR: "If you try to enable the ideas in the group you choose as your first quickly, you will fall behind in tech unless you have an uncommonly good ruler and good advisors. As I neither have an uncommonly good ruler nor the funds to afford good advisors – even being able to afford the cheapest +1 advisors is something I am only barely capable of doing at this point in time – it is clear that I should choose a group from a category of monarch points that is not essential to my survival."

Note that this is a quote from someone who has had access to the game's complete timespan, and who certainly understands its mechanics.

That runs counter to any sort of logical approach, and clearly makes the focus of a nation a matter that is typically out of the player's control. That undeniably reduces the number of strategic decisions the player can make.

 

[WeissRaben]

My idea is simply that if you want to pull off a Frederick the Great, you need to HAVE a Frederick the Great in your hands. With a MIL 6 ruler it's ABSOLUTELY feasible to manage both ideas and tech - otherwise you have to slow down. And yes, MIL 0-2 will end up in stagnation. I see no problem in this, either.

 

[unmerged(303856)]

1) Conclusions about the monarch point system are being drawn here though. People are saying that focusing on a particular set of national ideas will lead to the player falling behind in that area. This is not guaranteed to happen. I've also seen posts about the importance of monarch points leading to biases towards stronger nations (the idea being that larger nations can overcome bad monarchs while smaller nations cannot), which is again something that is not necessarily true.

2) Good

3) I would argue it is impossible to make any really constructive criticism about the game until we actually get our hands on it. This discussion is effectively one about monarch point balance and about whether investing in ideas will mean falling behind in tech. Until we see how significant neighbor bonuses get and how important tech actually is mid and late game compared to ideas (as well as various other things like how the AI deals with everything), most things we can say about how the system is balanced is pure speculation. We just don't have enough information to make any judgements about balance and trying to improve a game before actually seeing what needs improving is (IMO) just plain silly.

1. I am not drawing conclusions about the system as a whole, other than that I am in favor of it. However, conclusions can be drawn in some cases. For instance, if a player has a finite amount of a currency, and it is used for two (or more) things, it is inevitable that a significant usage on one thing will come at the expense of the other. Elements such as neighbor bonuses and events are mitigating factors, but no more. You will never get a neighbor bonus that makes a tech free. This is a zero-sum situation.

2.

3. I would argue that you are wrong. If we keep the demo's limitations in mind, it is quite possible to make truly constructive criticism based on it. I don't know how AI is relevant here. To say that discussion of how the system is balanced is pure speculation is clearly hyperbole.

 

[unmerged(303856)]

My idea is simply that if you want to pull off a Frederick the Great, you need to HAVE a Frederick the Great in your hands. With a MIL 6 ruler it's ABSOLUTELY feasible to manage both ideas and tech - otherwise you have to slow down. And yes, MIL 0-2 will end up in stagnation. I see no problem in this, either.

This is a reasonable (but certainly debatable) stance to take from a historical perspective, but think about the gameplay implications.

1. Spending on ideas in a field will reduce the capacity to spend on its tech. Intuitive design is something to strive for, and this is its antithesis. The degree of this reduction is difficult to specify, but it is a fact that it exists.

2. The removal of player-driven focus culls the number of strategies available, which is absurd considering how much Paradox has stressed their desire to create meaningful choices.

 

[WeissRaben]

This is a reasonable (but certainly debatable) stance to take from a historical perspective, but think about the gameplay implications.

1. Spending on ideas in a field will reduce the capacity to spend on its tech. Intuitive design is something to strive for, and this is its antithesis. The degree of this reduction is difficult to specify, but it is a fact that it exists.

2. The removal of player-driven focus culls the number of strategies available, which is absurd considering how much Paradox has stressed their desire to create meaningful choices.

Both ideas and techs give you improvements in the field. Getting the next level of DIP tech can raise your colonization range, and reaching the third Exploration idea improves it by half. The same tech improves trade efficiency, but there is no way to get more merchants to direct trade out of ideas. Ideas and techs are parts of the whole improvement - if you improve technology alone you still have less power than if you got both the parts. And this, for most nations, is good - you are getting better, but not that much. If you want to go the extra mile you need to put some more effort in it, and the game COULD block you. Which is fine - in CK2 a generation of Ambitious vassals can ruin your reign, while all of them being Content gives you some incredible space to work with. Here, Prussia being all fluff (ideas) but actually backwards in military matters (tech) after the death of the 6-MIL Frederick is a possibility. Let's be honest: would that have ever happened to anyone here, if you had a way to groom MORE tactical geniuses?

 

[Yeekim]

Agreed. But perhaps there's a middle ground.

The philosophy we've identified -- and have found lacking -- is a national focus on a particular area. It doesn't seem entirely implausible to presume that this focus will be coupled with a willingness to sacrifice in other venues. To that end, while it's clearly not amenable to permit the cross-categorization of points, perhaps it's plausible to affect in some manner how those points are generated. That is to say, perhaps we should allow nations to focus one area (diplomacy, for example) while de-emphasizing other areas (admin, military). The net effect of this prioritization might look like this:

NO FOCUS: +0 admin point gain rate, +0 diplomacy point gain rate, +0 military point gain rate

FOCUS on Diplomacy: -1 admin point gain rate, +1 diplomacy point gain rate, -1 military point gain rate

STRONG FOCUS on Diplomacy: -2 admin point gain rate, +2 diplomacy point gain rate, -2 military point gain rate

Note that with this mechanic, the nation actually net loses MPs; but, it gains at a faster rate in the area that most concerns it. This needn't be a permanent change, either; it can be a policy that can be changed every so often, or perhaps constantly, akin to the sliders of old.

This can also allow a nation to accommodate for having a particularly bad leader at a particularly crucial time.

Actually, I thought of what I think is a more elegant solution and made a thread about it: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?707948-Mod-request-to-eliminate-teching-conundrum
The idea is to allow more leeway in recruiting advisors, so that instead of always having three different types you could have whatever combination of three; even if they are of the same type.

 

[unmerged(303856)]

Both ideas and techs give you improvements in the field. Getting the next level of DIP tech can raise your colonization range, and reaching the third Exploration idea improves it by half. The same tech improves trade efficiency, but there is no way to get more merchants to direct trade out of ideas. Ideas and techs are parts of the whole improvement - if you improve technology alone you still have less power than if you got both the parts. And this, for most nations, is good - you are getting better, but not that much. If you want to go the extra mile you need to put some more effort in it, and the game COULD block you. Which is fine - in CK2 a generation of Ambitious vassals can ruin your reign, while all of them being Content gives you some incredible space to work with. Here, Prussia being all fluff (ideas) but actually backwards in military matters (tech) after the death of the 6-MIL Frederick is a possibility. Let's be honest: would that have ever happened to anyone here, if you had a way to groom MORE tactical geniuses?

I think that you're being a bit optimistic about this. You say "If you want to go the extra mile you need to put some more effort in it, and the game COULD block you," but what effort are you actually referring to? Your CK2 parallel is worthless here, because in CK2 the player has a large influence on their rulers. In EU4, there is literally no way to influence your ruler, other than instituting a republican government. I do not mind that at all, as this is not a character-based game. In fact, I do not understand why you are responding as if I have spoken in favor of monarch stats being player-influenced. However, it is a country-based game, and as such, the player should be able to focus their nation of choice. The randomly generated monarchs already limit the extent of that focus, so there was no need to remove it entirely by making techs compete with their corresponding ideas. Can you at least acknowledge that the system reduces the number of strategies available? The player's ability to focus their nation is hamstrung by the current overlap between ideas and techs.



Yeekim, I think that your proposal is excellent. It resolves the issue without significantly altering game mechanics, and it is simple. My main suggestion would be that it may be better if each additional advisor in the same area (military, administrative, diplomatic) comes at a slightly higher price. This would make an extreme focus less desirable as a standard strategy, and more applicable to heavily specialized approaches. Also, I would probably disable choosing the same advisor type (for example, "master of mint") in more than one slot.

 

[Crymson]

My idea is simply that if you want to pull off a Frederick the Great, you need to HAVE a Frederick the Great in your hands. With a MIL 6 ruler it's ABSOLUTELY feasible to manage both ideas and tech - otherwise you have to slow down. And yes, MIL 0-2 will end up in stagnation. I see no problem in this, either.

And thus national focus is out of the player's hands, which makes for an uninteresting game.

Actually, I thought of what I think is a more elegant solution and made a thread about it: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?707948-Mod-request-to-eliminate-teching-conundrum
The idea is to allow more leeway in recruiting advisors, so that instead of always having three different types you could have whatever combination of three; even if they are of the same type.

Your thread appears to have been deleted or merged.

 

[SirCrocodile]

Because it will inevitably cause the area you choose to focus to be the worst tech you have, ceteris paribus. You don't have choice: you will always spend military points on military matters, and if you aren't particularly active militarily than naturally military tech is the obvious leftover option. Putting more effort in the fleet shouldn't result in you having a more backwards fleet than the countries that don't do it.

No. I think people have it all wrong on this.

The choice isn't between Diplomatic, or Administrative, or Military. It's how you use that combination. You should know when you can gain more from a new idea or a new technological advance.
If you focus on nothing but military, you're going to lose out in other areas. You should have a certain policy in each area.

For instance, I could have a nation with Espionage (Admin), Trade (Diplo), and Quality (Military) as its main three idea groups. You level these up parallel to each other, so if you fall behind in trade it won't cost you opportunities in the other two trees to catch up again. This is about having a mix of balance and specialisation.

http://eu4wiki.com/Ideas

Look at the list of idea groups. They're something of a mix between national ideas and policy sliders.

 

[unmerged(303856)]

And thus national focus is out of the player's hands, which makes for an uninteresting game.



Your thread appears to have been deleted or merged.

His thread was moved to the mods section, but I am experiencing some issues with the site now. I am receiving an inconsistent error when using that section; sometimes the section/a specific mod's thread will open for me, and sometimes it tells me I can't access it.

Edit: Now I can always open the mods section, but it is displayed as empty, despite the fact that the general EU4 forum clearly tells me there are 13 threads in that section at the moment.

 

[unmerged(303856)]

No. I think people have it all wrong on this.

The choice isn't between Diplomatic, or Administrative, or Military. It's how you use that combination. You should know when you can gain more from a new idea or a new technological advance.
If you focus on nothing but military, you're going to lose out in other areas. You should have a certain policy in each area.

For instance, I could have a nation with Espionage (Admin), Trade (Diplo), and Quality (Military) as its main three idea groups. You level these up parallel to each other, so if you fall behind in trade it won't cost you opportunities in the other two trees to catch up again. This is about having a mix of balance and specialisation.

http://eu4wiki.com/Ideas

Look at the list of idea groups. They're something of a mix between national ideas and policy sliders.

But in many cases, that division of focus makes no sense. For instance, Portugal is heavily focused on trade, colonization, and the navy. All of those areas draw from the diplomatic point pool, which means that a logically (and historically) specialized Portugal will be behind in diplomatic technology. This same problem is applicable to many other countries. Just to look at some obvious (and very significant) examples of countries with a heavy focus on one of the three primary areas, we can see that nations such as Portugal, Prussia, England, Venice, the Hansa, the Netherlands, and Genoa will tend to emphasize one point-type above the others. Russia and Sweden are probably in this category too, but I am not certain about them.

 

[Spacehamster]

What if idea groups costed...

...human souls!?

 

[Crymson]

With the current system, we end up with ridiculous national scenarios. Venice, Britain, and Portugal, nations historically known for their enormous aptitude in naval power and innovations, will become advanced in land military technology but lag behind in naval technology. France and Russia, known for their ability in land warfare, will have excellent navies and out-of-date armies. And on and so forth. This is a mockery of history and makes no sense whatsoever. This system is b.r.o.k.e.n.

 

[SirCrocodile]

But in many cases, that division of focus makes no sense. For instance, Portugal is heavily focused on trade, colonization, and the navy. All of those areas draw from the diplomatic point pool, which means that a logically (and historically) specialized Portugal will be behind in diplomatic technology. This same problem is applicable to many other countries. Just to look at some obvious (and very significant) examples of countries with a heavy focus on one of the three primary areas, we can see that nations such as Portugal, Prussia, England, Venice, the Hansa, the Netherlands, and Genoa will tend to emphasize one point-type above the others. Russia and Sweden are probably in this category too, but I am not certain about them.

You're forgetting that Portugal has a set of unique national ideas which should steer it in that direction. That's the whole point. It won't fall behind, because it has its own unique idea group which does not cost monarch points to progress.

Portugal’s traditional power gives it 30% extra trade range and a 5% boost to trade efficiency.
Afonsine Ordinances: +10% production efficiency
Legacy of the Navigator: +25% colonial range
Case de India: +10% Trade Power
The Bandeirantes: +1 Merchant
Royal Absolutism: 25% cheaper buildings.
Land before Faith: +15% colonial growth.
Open up the Guilds: +10% trade Income

When Portugal has unlocked all of its National Ideas, it gets a +20% bonus to overseas income

And that's why nations won't fall behind historically.

 

[unmerged(303856)]

You're forgetting that Portugal has a set of unique national ideas which should steer it in that direction. That's the whole point. It won't fall behind, because it has its own unique idea group which does not cost monarch points to progress.




And that's why nations won't fall behind historically.

Of course I haven't forgotten that. Have you forgotten how small a fraction of a nation's ideas are National Ideas? The timeline is also important here. National Ideas are unlocked at a very slow pace; this is a process that will take most of the game to complete. Even besides those facts, there is the matter of the varying power of these ideas. For example, the "Legacy of the Navigator" NI gives +25% to colonization range. I believe that one of the diplomatic techs available in the demo's timeframe provides +50% (correct me if I am wrong; I do not have access to the demo right now, so I can't confirm it). Even if I'm wrong, and that tech does not exceed the NI, this is just one instance of the overall problem. Looking at the military, the trouble is more apparent. Is there any NI (other than the Japanese Traditions and the Prussian Ambitions) that can equal the benefits provided by a unit type advantage tech levels can provide? Even the tactics bonus at (I think) military tech 8 surpasses most military ideas.

 

[1alexey]

I lost you after you said that tech is not a measure of being advanced. Tech is absolutely a measure of advancement. There's no disputing that. And once again, it simply makes no sense for focus into a certain area to produce a technological shortfall in that area. That is indisputable.

It is one of components for being advanced. In purely tech and science, Russia is second-most advanced country in the world. Yet, it`s economy, military and society are far less advanced, than Germany or Japan.

You can have the most awesome weapon, or ship design, of whatever, but if you don`t have the social structure to support the big-scale implementation of tech, you will be less advanced. Simple, really.

Of course I haven't forgotten that. Have you forgotten how small a fraction of a nation's ideas are National Ideas? The timeline is also important here. National Ideas are unlocked at a very slow pace; this is a process that will take most of the game to complete. Even besides those facts, there is the matter of the varying power of these ideas. For example, the "Legacy of the Navigator" NI gives +25% to colonization range. I believe that one of the diplomatic techs available in the demo's timeframe provides +50% (correct me if I am wrong; I do not have access to the demo right now, so I can't confirm it). Even if I'm wrong, and that tech does not exceed the NI, this is just one instance of the overall problem. Looking at the military, the trouble is more apparent. Is there any NI (other than the Japanese Traditions and the Prussian Ambitions) that can equal the benefits provided by a unit type advantage tech levels can provide? Even the tactics bonus at (I think) military tech 8 surpasses most military ideas.

Well, at least I, was able to get arround 10 NIs in the timeline of Demo. I would assume that with decent monarchs, starting in 1444, you would unlock all NIs by 1530 or so.

 

[pfcpointer]

Idea costs imperfect? Still some improvement logically over EU3

I agree that the costs of Ideas & Technology is perhaps comparing proverbial apples with oranges. But if this game abstraction has been implemented reasonably, & can be balanced if necessary, I'm happy with the notion of paying for these idea & tech choices from a single national barrel that I know contains a limited number of apples & oranges, just in unspecified & effectively interchangeable proportions to each other. It potentially provides just a little less micromanagement of resources, & therefore greater flexibility, for me to make a potentially significant judgement call. Rather than having to have separate Ideas points & Tech points.

Besides which, in EU3, selecting ANY type of additional National Idea was simply a free reward limited only by achieving a certain Government technology level. Why was selecting a free (low-level) Military or Trade idea any more acceptable to EU3 players, solely at the cost of achieving a certain GOVERNMENT Tech level? My Military tech advances could be rubbish, & my sliders well towards naval, but it didn't stop me often selecting Military Drill for my first idea (unless playing certain MODs).

As I understand it, in EU4 Admin Power (effectively here what was previously Government Tech Investment) merely releases an idea group (still of ANY type). If you then choose a Military Group, at least subsequent Military ideas are now linked to available Military rather than Admin Power. So yes it may be imperfectly balanced between ideas & tech possibly, but still some improvement logically over EU3.

Personally I would have gone further & limited Admin MPs to unlock only the Admin idea groups, while Diplomacy MPs would unlock only Diplomatic idea groups, & Military MPs unlock only Military Idea Groups. But then other costs using Power Points of a particular type might then need to be slightly re-balanced accordingly.