What if idea groups costed...

[unmerged(303856)]

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.

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.

I would certainly dispute the notion that Russia is the second-most advanced nation in the world, but this is not the place for such a discussion.

I understand your view that ideas and tech are both part of an overall level of advancement, but it is flawed logically, historically, and in gameplay.

Your assumption about the idea timeline is very inaccurate. The seventh idea group slot is unlocked at admin tech level 26, out of a total of 33. Do you think that people will typically complete about 3/4 of the techs in less than 1/3 of the game?

 

[SirCrocodile]

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.

Every country has its own set of national ideas, it will still provide a bonus on top of other ideas. It's set up so it's not overpowered, but still gives an advantage for following a certain path.

Say you want to focus on colonisation as Portugal, well, you get that +25% range roundabout the same time you have your third exploration idea (+50% range) . The bonuses provided by technologies are more gradual, whereas idea bonuses can add up pretty quickly.

 

[unmerged(303856)]

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.

You are responding to a suggestion that I don't think anyone actually made. Personally, I would be content to see an implementation of Yeekim's proposal, although others have gone much further with their own solutions.

The bulk of your post seems to be saying that the system is better than EU3's, and thus, not deserving of criticism. I don't think that I need to go into why this is wrong.

 

[alanschu]

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.

Do the respective countries underperform in those fields as a result?

 

[1alexey]

I understand your view that ideas and tech are both part of an overall level of advancement, but it is flawed logically, historically, and in gameplay.

:rofl:
Why can`t people just provide a good argument, about why social&goverment institutes are not nearly as important as technology, instead of repeating the same mantra like parrots.

And before you go into some strawman, EU actually demands a certan base "technology level" to get them.

Your assumption about the idea timeline is very inaccurate. The seventh idea group slot is unlocked at admin tech level 26, out of a total of 33. Do you think that people will typically complete about 3/4 of the techs in less than 1/3 of the game?

NIs are the seven National Ideas, that you get after you get 30 ideas from idea group. You get 3d Idea slot at tech level 11, and from there, it`s only a question of points.

So, my assumption is actually correct, it`s just that you misunderstood what i ment, and didn`t bother to read the quote to understand the context.

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.

Because, Ideas definitely don`t contribute to the naval, nor land power.
:rofl:
And frankly, Russia is not famous for military innovation of any kind. Nor was GB, untill 19century in terms of navy.

Also, how many times does one have to repeat the argument that you don`t have to invest into ideas if you fall behind in tech have to be reapeated before the "logic warriors" turn their logic on?

 

[Red_warning]

So many problems would be solved if unlocking an idea group gave +1 to that MP.

 

[unmerged(303856)]

Every country has its own set of national ideas, it will still provide a bonus on top of other ideas. It's set up so it's not overpowered, but still gives an advantage for following a certain path.

Say you want to focus on colonisation as Portugal, well, you get that +25% range roundabout the same time you have your third exploration idea (+50% range) . The bonuses provided by technologies are more gradual, whereas idea bonuses can add up pretty quickly.

In EU games, tech bonuses are anything but gradual. Technology is developed over time, but the bonuses are sudden. The difference of one military tech can allow for absurd levels of dominance in battles, and one diplomatic tech can provide an enormous boost to your colonization range. Given the comparable costs, I don't know how you came to the conclusion that techs are gradual and ideas quick.

It's important to remember that this Portugal discussion stems from it being used as an example of how the current system reduces player choice and the ability to focus your nation. National Ideas do not work well as a counterpoint to that. Even if you were right about national ideas compensating for low tech levels in a nation's area of specialization, do you think that it makes sense for Portugal to suffer in other aspects of diplomatic tech (such as trade ability and shipbuilding) due to their colonial focus?

 

[SirCrocodile]

In EU games, tech bonuses are anything but gradual. Technology is developed over time, but the bonuses are sudden. The difference of one military tech can allow for absurd levels of dominance in battles, and one diplomatic tech can provide an enormous boost to your colonization range. Given the comparable costs, I don't know how you came to the conclusion that techs are gradual and ideas quick.

It's important to remember that this Portugal discussion stems from it being used as an example of how the current system reduces player choice and the ability to focus your nation. National Ideas do not work well as a counterpoint to that. Even if you were right about national ideas compensating for low tech levels in a nation's area of specialization, do you think that it makes sense for Portugal to suffer in other aspects of diplomatic tech (such as trade ability and shipbuilding) due to their colonial focus?

Technology unlocks better units, systems of government, and ideas, yes, but at certain "spikes". You can go for several tech levels and have only incremental improvements relative to your investment. Whereas every new idea level - which is arguably cheaper and quicker to increase - provides a considerable bonus without a penalty for being ahead.

 

[1alexey]

In EU games, tech bonuses are anything but gradual. Technology is developed over time, but the bonuses are sudden. The difference of one military tech can allow for absurd levels of dominance in battles, and one diplomatic tech can provide an enormous boost to your colonization range. Given the comparable costs, I don't know how you came to the conclusion that techs are gradual and ideas quick.

There are, however, a lot of levels of military tech that not important, and only a few are really crucial.

 

[pfcpointer]

You are responding to a suggestion that I don't think anyone actually made. Personally, I would be content to see an implementation of Yeekim's proposal, although others have gone much further with their own solutions.

The bulk of your post seems to be saying that the system is better than EU3's, and thus, not deserving of criticism. I don't think that I need to go into why this is wrong.

No problem with criticising any aspect of EU4, but I still see this making a substantial improvement from EU3 concepts of Ideas & how they should result from or link to a countries power in that particular field. I'd love initial perfection, but I'll happily accept ANY initial improvement in linking ideas to a more relevent resource cost. Just as I will happily accept that linking of cost to idea may need to be ripped out & replaced later due to a better idea being advanced.

 

[unmerged(303856)]

1alexey, If you want to be an asshole about this, go right ahead, but there is no need for it. We can converse without using condescending smileys and/or a dickish tone. I am going to give conversation another try now.

:rofl:
Why can`t people just provide a good argument, about why social&goverment institutes are not nearly as important as technology, instead of repeating the same mantra like parrots.

And before you go into some strawman, EU actually demands a certan base "technology level" to get them.

How can you tell me to avoid a strawman argument directly after you used one? When did I ever say anything regarding the comparative worth of social/government institutions and technology?

NIs are the seven National Ideas, that you get after you get 30 ideas from idea group. You get 3d Idea slot at tech level 11, and from there, it`s only a question of points.

So, my assumption is actually correct, it`s just that you misunderstood what i ment, and didn`t bother to read the quote to understand the context.

I knew what you meant, and I responded to it. You were quite clear about it; there was no miscommunication. I remain fairly confident that your assumption is wrong, but I cannot confirm it. However, that just puts us on the same footing; after all, it is still no more than an assumption.

Because, Ideas definitely don`t contribute to the naval, nor land power.
:rofl:
And frankly, Russia is not famous for military innovation of any kind. Nor was GB, untill 19century in terms of navy.

I do not have the historical knowledge to get into a debate on this level of detail, but I will point out that you have picked two examples out of the lengthy list that I gave. Are you now telling me that among Portugal, Prussia, England, Venice, Genoa, the Hansa, the Netherlands, Russia, etc., there was not a single country that was an innovator in its field of focus?

 

[unmerged(303856)]

Do the respective countries underperform in those fields as a result?

This cannot be answered with absolute certainty yet, but there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that this is the case. First, logic dictates that a system of a finite currency used for two things is a zero-sum game. This means that spending on one area will, by necessity, detract from how much can be spent on the other. Second, Peter Ebbesen's AAR makes direct reference to this issue: "Fortunately, my diplomatic tech, while still far behind my neighbours' due to pouring two idea-groups worth of DMP into ideas..."

 

[tapewormlondon]

All the nay sayers are ignoring the posts that state, that effects cant be determined over 20 years. AND the ideas will give you majpr bonus' in ADM, Mil or DIP that counter act the tech shortfall....if not exceed it. After getting the idea you just increased in <insert speciality>, you then switch to tech concentration and voila, you are million times better than the guys that just teched rather than had ideas. I bet that is the case

It takes time, but thankfully in EU, tie is something you have loads of.

 

[unmerged(303856)]

Technology unlocks better units, systems of government, and ideas, yes, but at certain "spikes". You can go for several tech levels and have only incremental improvements relative to your investment. Whereas every new idea level - which is arguably cheaper and quicker to increase - provides a considerable bonus without a penalty for being ahead.

http://eu4wiki.com/Land_Units
The largest gaps between unit types are, according to my count, never more than three levels, and such gaps are very rare. The advantage provided by a superior unit type will overcome any one or two military ideas that I am aware of. This is without even looking at tactics, combat width, and morale bonuses provided by tech.

There are, however, a lot of levels of military tech that not important, and only a few are really crucial.

While I agree that military tech levels are not always important, the reduced number of levels in EU4 means that there are more important levels than there were in EU3. I recommend taking a look at those charts, even if they are a bit tricky to discern unit type gaps from.

 

[unmerged(303856)]

All the nay sayers are ignoring the posts that state, that effects cant be determined over 20 years. AND the ideas will give you majpr bonus' in ADM, Mil or DIP that counter act the tech shortfall....if not exceed it. After getting the idea you just increased in <insert speciality>, you then switch to tech concentration and voila, you are million times better than the guys that just teched rather than had ideas. I bet that is the case

It takes time, but thankfully in EU, tie is something you have loads of.

I don't think that I have ignored many posts. I am actually attempting to provide evidence to support what I am saying, such as quotes from somebody who has played the entire game and links to unit/tech tables, rather than concluding with "I bet that is the case." I apologize if that seems too harsh, but I have to keep repeating the same tired arguments because new people keep entering the thread and posting something along the lines of what you just said. How can you spend hundreds of points on an idea, then "switch to tech concentration" and spend hundreds of the same point type to become "million times better?" Again, I don't mean to be rude, but I would really like it if you could read the last page or so of the topic. I don't expect people to read the whole thing, but seeing some of what each side is saying can be helpful before entering the discussion.

 

[SirCrocodile]

http://eu4wiki.com/Land_Units
The largest gaps between unit types are, according to my count, never more than three levels, and such gaps are very rare. The advantage provided by a superior unit type will overcome any one or two military ideas that I am aware of. This is without even looking at tactics, combat width, and morale bonuses provided by tech.

Yet tech growth tends to be more expensive, you can never get very far ahead; whereas ideas increase more quickly and once you complete an idea group, you get a nice fat bonus on top of that. Technological advancement is still slower. 3 levels seems to be the most common gap, and that's still quite a lot compared to one national idea level making a noticeable difference.

 

[tapewormlondon]

I don't think that I have ignored many posts. I am actually attempting to provide evidence to support what I am saying, such as quotes from somebody who has played the entire game and links to unit/tech tables, rather than concluding with "I bet that is the case." I apologize if that seems too harsh, but I have to keep repeating the same tired arguments because new people keep entering the thread and posting something along the lines of what you just said. How can you spend hundreds of points on an idea, then "switch to tech concentration" and spend hundreds of the same point type to become "million times better?" Again, I don't mean to be rude, but I would really like it if you could read the last page or so of the topic. I don't expect people to read the whole thing, but seeing some of what each side is saying can be helpful before entering the discussion.

Point taken, I apologise. I read the thread alot earlier (so first 3 pages) came on and commented randomly TBH. Will read rest of thread and come back.

 

[Muanh]

People clearly don't understand how the game is meant to be played.

If you want to be a trade power with a strong fleet you should play as one. Hire a lvl 3 diplomatic advisor. Take the missions that give you diplomatic power. If you get an event that give you the option for diplomatic power take it. If the game gives you an event in which you have to choose between giving up diplomatic power or something else, choose something else.

People just want to spend some money wait a few years and get all the free techs en ideas in the area they want. This is not how the game is meant to be played, you'll have to make chooses and if you want max diplomatic power for tech and ideas you'll have to give up others stuff now and then.

 

[1alexey]

1alexey, If you want to be an asshole about this, go right ahead, but there is no need for it. We can converse without using condescending smileys and/or a dickish tone. I am going to give conversation another try now.

I just respond to you shameless way of wording, "flawed logically".

When did I ever say anything regarding the comparative worth of social/government institutions and technology?

Here:

I understand your view that ideas and tech are both part of an overall level of advancement, but it is flawed logically, historically, and in gameplay.

social/government institutions is what EU4 ideas are about.

I knew what you meant, and I responded to it. You were quite clear about it; there was no miscommunication. I remain fairly confident that your assumption is wrong, but I cannot confirm it. However, that just puts us on the same footing; after all, it is still no more than an assumption.

Did you even play the Demo?

I do not have the historical knowledge to get into a debate on this level of detail, but I will point out that you have picked two examples out of the lengthy list that I gave. Are you now telling me that among Portugal, Prussia, England, Venice, Genoa, the Hansa, the Netherlands, Russia, etc., there was not a single country that was an innovator in its field of focus?

There definitely were. However, neither was innovator all the time, nor was the technological superiority the only decisive factor in their strengt. Nor can you really put an exact tech level and idea level on a country in any given period, since there were big variations within the country.

What you try to tell us, which is incorect, that a country should be able to focus everything on particular field, which is not true, and that a country that is "focused" should always be ahead in tech, and not just dominate trugh the sheer infrastructure and readilly avialable resources.

Sure, the current arranging of ideas, i`m not fan of, since putting some naval ideas under military, and getting some more diplo ideas groups for land-focused countries would definitely fix most of what you complain about.

 

[unmerged(303856)]

Yet tech growth tends to be more expensive, you can never get very far ahead; whereas ideas increase more quickly and once you complete an idea group, you get a nice fat bonus on top of that. Technological advancement is still slower. 3 levels seems to be the most common gap, and that's still quite a lot compared to one national idea level making a noticeable difference.

Consider that those unit type advantages are stacking with tactics, morale, etc. bonuses. And that a unit type edge can easily overcome several military ideas. However, I fear that we are getting off-topic at this point.

Point taken, I apologise. I read the thread alot earlier (so first 3 pages) came on and commented randomly TBH. Will read rest of thread and come back.

You're fine; really, if someone wants to comment without reading any of a long thread, they are certainly entitled to. Reading the earlier parts is certainly good. I didn't mean to send you out of the discussion. My main thought was that reading the last page would give some context for the current debates, and prevent repetition (to an extent). I'd like to hear what you think once you've caught up.

People clearly don't understand how the game is meant to be played.

If you want to be a trade power with a strong fleet you should play as one. Hire a lvl 3 diplomatic advisor. Take the missions that give you diplomatic power. If you get an event that give you the option for diplomatic power take it. If the game gives you an event in which you have to choose between giving up diplomatic power or something else, choose something else.

People just want to spend some money wait a few years and get all the free techs en ideas in the area they want. This is not how the game is meant to be played, you'll have to make chooses and if you want max diplomatic power for tech and ideas you'll have to give up others stuff now and then.

You sound like you actually agree with me in principle, but haven't fully considered the implications of some of the game mechanics. One of my main contentions has been that players should be able to focus their nation on one of the broader areas (diplo, admin, and mil). I don't think anybody here is suggesting that they should be able to do anything that you just mentioned in your post. While I disagree with some of the posters on this topic, I don't know why you would characterize them as you have.