What if idea groups costed...

[1alexey]

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.

Discipline is something you do not get from tech. +10% or +15% dicsipline is huge, and countries with special discipline bonuses(Prussia, Japan) literally wreak people at the same level of tech due to high discipline. You also don`t really get good manpower bonuses, nor do you get any bonuses to leaders stats, army or navy traditions, that are essential to having good leaders.

 

[Muanh]

The point I'm trying to make is, if you want power points for a specific area, you should use the in game decisions and mechanics provided to get them. There are enough missions which give you power points, take them over other missions. There are enough events which either give you points or take them away. If you are a nation not focusing on nave/trade/colonization you can use your power points to pay of these events. On the other hand if you are a nation focusing on these things you clearly can't.

I'm just saying you can have both strong technology and ideas in the same group, you'll just have to sacrifice other things to get them.

 

[WeissRaben]

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.

Word. Also, most of the waxing points of those countries were under brilliant rulers - first among them Prussia, which in game term had a golden age of 35 years under Frederick III/I (6/4/4), then 27 under Frederick Wilhelm (4/4/5), ending with 46 years of Frederick II (6/6/6). 98 years of AT LEAST MIL 4, and almost half of these at 6. Out of these spikes, nations excelled with their accumulated knowledge and traditions (ideas and NIs); and when the field changed rapidly without a monarch able enough to lead the way, the nation did suffer and fall backward (still Prussia after Frederick II and with the less-than-genius, 1/4/2 Frederick Wilhelm II).

 

[1alexey]

Word. Also, most of the waxing points of those countries were under brilliant rulers - first among them Prussia, which in game term had a golden age of 35 years under Frederick III/I (6/4/4), then 27 under Frederick Wilhelm (4/4/5), ending with 46 years of Frederick II (6/6/6). 98 years of AT LEAST MIL 4, and almost half of these at 6. Out of these spikes, nations excelled with their accumulated knowledge and traditions (ideas and NIs); and when the field changed rapidly without a monarch able enough to lead the way, the nation did suffer and fall backward (still Prussia after Frederick II and with the less-than-genius, 1/4/2 Frederick Wilhelm II).

England under Elisabeth, Russia under Peter I and Catherine II, ex. Rulers did have huge impact.

 

[unmerged(303856)]

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

Why would I be ashamed of that wording? I feel that your argument is based on faulty logic. That should not come as a surprise to you; we would not be debating if it were not the case.

Here:

social/government institutions is what EU4 ideas are about.

The quote you provided was not a comparative assessment, which was your claim. In fact, it was me agreeing with you about something.

I never said that was not true. There seems to be no shortage of things that we actually disagree about, so I don't know why you feel the need to invent more.

Did you even play the Demo?

Yes.

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.

I literally did not say a single thing that you just claimed I did. I did point out that those countries were innovators; I never said that they were always ahead in their respective fields. Likewise, I never said that technological superiority was their only advantage. At the risk of becoming repetitive, I also never said that we can put an exact tech level and idea level on a country in any given period. Who are you arguing with here? It clearly isn't me.

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.

You really have no idea how much effort I am putting into keeping this civil. You are not responding to anything that I have actually said. Please, use someone else as your strawman. I have no interest in the role.

I will give you some credit though: this is the closest you have come in this post to actually addressing things that I said. Your one misstep was adding the word "everything", and the entire second half of the sentence.

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.

No, it wouldn't. My concern is the inability of the player to focus their nation on a particular field. As I have mentioned previously, I would favor a relatively conservative adjustment, such as Yeekim's proposal (although I did suggest some slight alterations for it), rather than an overhaul approach.

 

[unmerged(303856)]

Discipline is something you do not get from tech. +10% or +15% dicsipline is huge, and countries with special discipline bonuses(Prussia, Japan) literally wreak people at the same level of tech due to high discipline. You also don`t really get good manpower bonuses, nor do you get any bonuses to leaders stats, army or navy traditions, that are essential to having good leaders.

Discipline bonuses are absolutely devastating, but there is only one idea in the game that provides a discipline boost.

The point I'm trying to make is, if you want power points for a specific area, you should use the in game decisions and mechanics provided to get them. There are enough missions which give you power points, take them over other missions. There are enough events which either give you points or take them away. If you are a nation not focusing on nave/trade/colonization you can use your power points to pay of these events. On the other hand if you are a nation focusing on these things you clearly can't.

I'm just saying you can have both strong technology and ideas in the same group, you'll just have to sacrifice other things to get them.

Because of the game's newness, we don't currently have the level of mathematical analysis that would be necessary to definitively argue for or against your claims. However, do you really feel that random events are giving you significant levels of monarch points? I have yet to receive any major point rewards in this manner. Likewise, missions are not going to be a reliable or significant source of points. Decisions are actually an expense more often than not, so I don't know why you mentioned them.

Word. Also, most of the waxing points of those countries were under brilliant rulers - first among them Prussia, which in game term had a golden age of 35 years under Frederick III/I (6/4/4), then 27 under Frederick Wilhelm (4/4/5), ending with 46 years of Frederick II (6/6/6). 98 years of AT LEAST MIL 4, and almost half of these at 6. Out of these spikes, nations excelled with their accumulated knowledge and traditions (ideas and NIs); and when the field changed rapidly without a monarch able enough to lead the way, the nation did suffer and fall backward (still Prussia after Frederick II and with the less-than-genius, 1/4/2 Frederick Wilhelm II).

England under Elisabeth, Russia under Peter I and Catherine II, ex. Rulers did have huge impact.

I agree with you two on this point, but it does not always hold true. There are plenty of examples of countries faring well while afflicted with a subpar monarch, or with a perfectly average one. But overall, I agree with you on the importance of monarchs in this era. However, the role of the monarch is already very well-represented in EU4, with monarchs providing a huge portion of your points. What is lacking is representation of how certain countries had a consistent focus throughout much of the era. In some cases, this level of specialization is extremely unlikely to be possible to replicate.

WeissRaben (and others), what do you think about the simple suggestion to enable hiring multiple advisors of one point-type? If you feel that it would be unbalancing, I did propose possible alterations, such as increasing the cost for each advisor of the same point-type and disallowing multiple advisors of the same class (such as masters of mint).

 

[WeissRaben]

WeissRaben (and others), what do you think about the simple suggestion to enable hiring multiple advisors of one point-type? If you feel that it would be unbalancing, I did propose possible alterations, such as increasing the cost for each advisor of the same point-type and disallowing multiple advisors of the same class (such as masters of mint).

It would work. I don't even think you'd need to touch up costs that much, because you'd already being losing the most valuable coin in the game - points.

 

[Muanh]

I have seen missions giving up to 200 power points, I would say this is significant. On the event part, I feel like I have seen more events that drain power points than give them yes, but most tent to give you a choice. Just never spend the points you really need on these events.

However you are right, we don't have enough understanding of the game yet to know if it will be enough. I'm just saying there are mechanics in place to give you power points and drain power points. The player will have to make a decision on how bad he wants extra power points or how bad he doesn't want to lose the once he got.

For example you are playing England and really want to invest in admin power for the economic idea for example. You could conquer Ireland and core everything or you could vassal them and diplo annex them which give you a free core. This will take time and diplomats for a long time but will save you about 480 admin power + all the power points they already spend on the buildings there.

 

[1alexey]

I literally did not say a single thing that you just claimed I did. I did point out that those countries were innovators; I never said that they were always ahead in their respective fields. Likewise, I never said that technological superiority was their only advantage. At the risk of becoming repetitive, I also never said that we can put an exact tech level and idea level on a country in any given period. Who are you arguing with here? It clearly isn't me.

Because that is what you seem to imply, you did pick up an argument point that I had with someone else, so i would expect you to argue that point since you agree with it, why else would you pick it up

*
You really have no idea how much effort I am putting into keeping this civil. You are not responding to anything that I have actually said. Please, use someone else as your strawman. I have no interest in the role.

I will give you some credit though: this is the closest you have come in this post to actually addressing things that I said. Your one misstep was adding the word "everything", and the entire second half of the sentence.

No, it wouldn't. My concern is the inability of the player to focus their nation on a particular field. As I have mentioned previously, I would favor a relatively conservative adjustment, such as Yeekim's proposal (although I did suggest some slight alterations for it), rather than an overhaul approach.

hmy:
However, judjing by the last sentence, i did adress your problem in entirety. I will only add that for people like you, that want a strong focus, there is a goverment type called republic, where you get to choose ruler, and hence the focus. Monarchy is not suposed to work like that in game.

Discipline bonuses are absolutely devastating, but there is only one idea in the game that provides a discipline boost.

Actually 2, Offencive get 10%, and quality get`s you 15%.

I agree with you two on this point, but it does not always hold true. There are plenty of examples of countries faring well while afflicted with a subpar monarch, or with a perfectly average one.

Well, you do have advisers, that provide quite a lot if you can afford Lvl 3 one.

But overall, I agree with you on the importance of monarchs in this era. However, the role of the monarch is already very well-represented in EU4, with monarchs providing a huge portion of your points. What is lacking is representation of how certain countries had a consistent focus throughout much of the era. In some cases, this level of specialization is extremely unlikely to be possible to replicate.

But consistent focus is not equal to lead. Nor can you say that countries like were that focused on aa single thing. If not for the military power, Venice, and Portugal would`ve been conquered by neighbours, "land powers" such as France or Russia had sizable navies and decent stake at trade and colonising, Prussia, apart from having high quality army did a lot to have the economy to sustain it, and diplomacy to expand. England actually was quite good in terms of army, due to need to fight 100years war, keep Scotland at bay, and later on to intervene in a lot of European wars, Colonial wars, and ofcourse peaking at Waterloo, where Brits showed their army fully capable of fighting French. Considering tech is suposed to be almost half of your average monarch point income, i see no problem in current system, you can just skip on advisers in category you do not need and hire higher level in category you need most.

WeissRaben (and others), what do you think about the simple suggestion to enable hiring multiple advisors of one point-type? If you feel that it would be unbalancing, I did propose possible alterations, such as increasing the cost for each advisor of the same point-type and disallowing multiple advisors of the same class (such as masters of mint).

No point. For focus, become Republic, and prioritise high level advisors in field you want to focus.

 

[unmerged(303856)]

It would work. I don't even think you'd need to touch up costs that much, because you'd already being losing the most valuable coin in the game - points.

Did we just come to an agreement? I thought this was the internet; that's not supposed to happen!

I have seen missions giving up to 200 power points, I would say this is significant. On the event part, I feel like I have seen more events that drain power points than give them yes, but most tent to give you a choice. Just never spend the points you really need on these events.

However you are right, we don't have enough understanding of the game yet to know if it will be enough. I'm just saying there are mechanics in place to give you power points and drain power points. The player will have to make a decision on how bad he wants extra power points or how bad he doesn't want to lose the once he got.

For example you are playing England and really want to invest in admin power for the economic idea for example. You could conquer Ireland and core everything or you could vassal them and diplo annex them which give you a free core. This will take time and diplomats for a long time but will save you about 480 admin power + all the power points they already spend on the buildings there.

Yeah, missions and events can certainly be helpful, but I doubt that they provide anything that you can build a strategy on.

Because that is what you seem to imply, you did pick up an argument point that I had with someone else, so i would expect you to argue that point since you agree with it, why else would you pick it up

I didn't imply it; you inferred it. You started arguing with me, not the other way around. Any implications that you saw were imagined. In fact, I have stated many times now that I disagree with the solution proposed by the OP.

hmy:
However, judjing by the last sentence, i did adress your problem in entirety. I will only add that for people like you, that want a strong focus, there is a goverment type called republic, where you get to choose ruler, and hence the focus. Monarchy is not suposed to work like that in game.

I know that, but there are many specialized countries that are not republics. This is not a real solution to the problem. And again, I do not want to determine my monarch's stats. How is that difficult to understand?

Actually 2, Offencive get 10%, and quality get`s you 15%.

You are right about this one.

Well, you do have advisers, that provide quite a lot if you can afford Lvl 3 one.

And can Prussia afford a level three advisor? How about early-game Portugal, with all of its colonial maintenance costs? However, advisors are important to this discussion, as the solution that I am advocating right now is based on them.

But consistent focus is not equal to lead. Nor can you say that countries like were that focused on aa single thing. If not for the military power, Venice, and Portugal would`ve been conquered by neighbours, "land powers" such as France or Russia had sizable navies and decent stake at trade and colonising, Prussia, apart from having high quality army did a lot to have the economy to sustain it, and diplomacy to expand. England actually was quite good in terms of army, due to need to fight 100years war, keep Scotland at bay, and later on to intervene in a lot of European wars, Colonial wars, and ofcourse peaking at Waterloo, where Brits showed their army fully capable of fighting French. Considering tech is suposed to be almost half of your average monarch point income, i see no problem in current system, you can just skip on advisers in category you do not need and hire higher level in category you need most.

I never said that countries were focused on a single thing. I won't be too hard on you this time though, as it is an improvement over your previous replies. This time, rather than make things up seemingly at random, you have actually addressed what I said- taken to its greatest extreme perhaps, but there is some basis of truth here. In response, I will point out that most countries will be unable to afford the high-level advisors.

No point. For focus, become Republic, and prioritise high level advisors in field you want to focus.

This is a textbook case of a halfassed solution.

 

[1alexey]

I didn't imply it; you inferred it. You started arguing with me, not the other way around. Any implications that you saw were imagined. In fact, I have stated many times now that I disagree with the solution proposed by the OP.

You started arguing with me, when i was arguing with someone else.

*
I know that, but there are many specialized countries that are not republics. This is not a real solution to the problem. And again, I do not want to determine my monarch's stats. How is that difficult to understand?

Define "specialised" then, since i think i did adress the issue of countries having to have a decent level of military, economy and diplomacy in order to sustain their existance and not be conquered.

* And can Prussia afford a level three advisor? How about early-game Portugal, with all of its colonial maintenance costs? However, advisors are important to this discussion, as the solution that I am advocating right now is based on them.

Frederic II Prussia? Absolutely. I would say even earlier, depending on things. France can definitly afford one after 1550 or so.
But level 2 are very affordable after you reach 10ish provinces.

I never said that countries were focused on a single thing. I won't be too hard on you this time though, as it is an improvement over your previous replies. This time, rather than make things up seemingly at random, you have actually addressed what I said- taken to its greatest extreme perhaps, but there is some basis of truth here. In response, I will point out that most countries will be unable to afford the high-level advisors.

Depending on what is "most". In reality, 20ish province sized country with build up tax infrastructure can afford Level 3 advisor, maybe not early game, but by 1600 definitely.

And minors need way less points to spend on infra, cores, wars, so they tend to fare better than majors on that front in the first place.

 

[unmerged(303856)]

You started arguing with me, when i was arguing with someone else.

Define "specialised" then, since i think i did adress the issue of countries having to have a decent level of military, economy and diplomacy in order to sustain their existance and not be conquered.

Frederic II Prussia? Absolutely. I would say even earlier, depending on things. France can definitly afford one after 1550 or so.
But level 2 are very affordable after you reach 10ish provinces.

Depending on what is "most". In reality, 20ish province sized country with build up tax infrastructure can afford Level 3 advisor, maybe not early game, but by 1600 definitely.

And minors need way less points to spend on infra, cores, wars, so they tend to fare better than majors on that front in the first place.

I am not going to define a word that we all know the meaning of. The problem is that you see me use that word, and somehow interpret it as its most extreme possible meaning. Specialize does not mean doing something to the exclusion of all else.

As for the rest of your post, you seem to be forgetting/ignoring the fact that advisor costs increase over time. And I never said that France cannot afford excellent advisors, as it is one of the wealthiest countries in the game. Your claim that a "20ish province sized country with build up tax infrastructure can afford Level 3 advisor, maybe not early game, but by 1600 definitely" is based on... what? Your own assumptions?

Your last sentence makes no sense. I feel like there is some context missing here.

 

[1alexey]

I am not going to define a word that we all know the meaning of. The problem is that you see me use that word, and somehow interpret it as its most extreme possible meaning. Specialize does not mean doing something to the exclusion of all else.

You have to define a measure of speicalisation of a country is EU4 mechanics, and how that translates to historical countries. How can you say a coutry is "specialised" without that. Otherwise what is your point of distinguishing specialised countries, and complaining about countries being unable to specialise historically, if there is no measure.

For example, is France specialised, and if yes, in what?

As for the rest of your post, you seem to be forgetting/ignoring the fact that advisor costs increase over time. And I never said that France cannot afford excellent advisors, as it is one of the wealthiest countries in the game. Your claim that a "20ish province sized country with build up tax infrastructure can afford Level 3 advisor, maybe not early game, but by 1600 definitely" is based on... what? Your own assumptions?

You will see.

Your last sentence makes no sense. I feel like there is some context missing here.

The context is that the base +3 power is more powerfull than

 

[Crymson]

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.

This is a compensatory measure that does nothing to reduce the patently nonsensical nature of the system. Portugal will still be behind in such very basic areas as ship design.

 

[Crymson]

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

We'll see. The point is that it makes a mockery of reality and of history, and that has no place in a game that is meant to be historically realistic. The Venetian fleet did not sail off to Salamis with outdated galleys but good theories and practices. They sailed off to Salamis with good galleys and good theories and practices.

 

[alanschu]

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..."

His use of the word "Fortunately," however, leads me to think that it wasn't really an issue (at least compared to the opportunity cost of the idea-groups).

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.

They stack with nation ideas too. I wouldn't be surprised if a mix of ideas and techs ends up being the way to go, as frankly the ideas end up being a lot like techs anyways.

 

[Yeekim]

Your thread appears to have been deleted or merged.

No, it got moved into mods suforum, since I named it "a mod request". Hopefully, when we can all register our games, we can access it again. :happy:

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.

Thing is, you can't give anything up. There are currently very few possibilities to prioritize one area of MP over another. Hence the suggestion to ditch the arbitrary limit on advisors and let us have up to three generating similar MP-s. That would actually be "giving up" other MP's and it would be a meaningful choice.

 

[unmerged(303856)]

You have to define a measure of speicalisation of a country is EU4 mechanics, and how that translates to historical countries. How can you say a coutry is "specialised" without that. Otherwise what is your point of distinguishing specialised countries, and complaining about countries being unable to specialise historically, if there is no measure.

You are being unreasonable. We have already come to a consensus on several countries being specialized, so there is no need to come up with a measure. I don't even know what that would be.

For example, is France specialised, and if yes, in what?

France would probably emphasize military ideas more than most, but it will also be going for several diplomatic groups. I don't think it would be specialized in the same way that Prussia and Portugal are, among others. This is somewhat subjective though.

You will see.
The context is that the base +3 power is more powerfull than

I'm sorry to be difficult, but I really don't understand this still. Maybe if you rewrote it next time, I could get it.

His use of the word "Fortunately," however, leads me to think that it wasn't really an issue (at least compared to the opportunity cost of the idea-groups).

I will have to get back to you later on this point. I closed the part of the AAR that included that quote, and it is taking me far too long to find it again. If memory serves, your interpretation is a bit off, but I will reply later with the full quote. However, even if the diplomatic situation is as you say, he explicitly stated that the military situation was exactly what I have suggested.

They stack with nation ideas too. I wouldn't be surprised if a mix of ideas and techs ends up being the way to go, as frankly the ideas end up being a lot like techs anyways.

That is the way to go, but my contention is that there should be some capacity of the player to specialize or focus their nation. Not fully, but there needs to be some degree of this.

No, it got moved into mods suforum, since I named it "a mod request". Hopefully, when we can all register our games, we can access it again. :happy:


Thing is, you can't give anything up. There are currently very few possibilities to prioritize one area of MP over another. Hence the suggestion to ditch the arbitrary limit on advisors and let us have up to three generating similar MP-s. That would actually be "giving up" other MP's and it would be a meaningful choice.

What do you think of the suggestions I made for your idea?

 

[Crymson]

For anyone who claims that one shouldn't be able to decide a nation's focus, look at Venice. Or England. Or France. Or Prussia. And so on. The first two focused tremendously on their navies and on their trade networks, and the latter two focused hugely on land warfare. The idea that nations back then did not have their particular focuses is bogus. Utterly so.

It is rather obvious, of course, that the respective focuses of those nations did not end up with England and Venice having out-of-date ships, or with France and Prussia having outdated units and weaponry.