It seems very ahistorical the degree to which tech costs are even across the globe near the end of the game, not to mention just being an odd departure from the default of having a new one spawn every 50 years.
Why is there no 1750 institution?
- Thread starter BeyondExpectation
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I also have had this thought. An 'industrial revolution' institution favouring the British Isles as a spawn ground would be an obvious option.
It's not as if nations across the world began seriously to catch up with the West in technology in the runup to the 19th century.
It's not as if nations across the world began seriously to catch up with the West in technology in the runup to the 19th century.
How many games are played much beyond 1750 anyway? I think it's a fairly small percentage. The few times I play this late it's because I'm hunting an achievement which has taken me a long time, and the times I do I don't think I would appreciate having a monarch point/money sink after 1750.
In my case, and in the case of all of my friends who play this, almost every game. None of us are achievement hunters or serial world-conquesters. There are 70 years of play after 1750 and that clash of big mature empires can be some of the most exciting bits of the game.
But other than that, unless you can produce some some actual stats from somewhere, I'm betting you've no more idea that I have about what 'most' players do.
Total War
1750
Who: Great Power at war with other Great Power. High Absolutism.
Effect: +20% Force limit +20% Manpower
Why: The big achievment of the period was Napoleonic Wars with army mobilization as anytime before.Main purpose is to have big wars.
Balance of Power
1800
Who: Great Power with alliance with 2 or more other GP.
Effect: +1 Diplomat +1 Relations
1750
Who: Great Power at war with other Great Power. High Absolutism.
Effect: +20% Force limit +20% Manpower
Why: The big achievment of the period was Napoleonic Wars with army mobilization as anytime before.Main purpose is to have big wars.
Balance of Power
1800
Who: Great Power with alliance with 2 or more other GP.
Effect: +1 Diplomat +1 Relations
Last edited:
I always figured it was a matter of MP balancing to ensure a fair endgame. Especially since most SP games end before 1750 unless you're going for OF or WC in which case the tech equality doesn't matter much anyways.
I agree with this; something should be done. I'm open to the idea of a 1750 institution, but I also think the Enlightenment could be stretched out to last longer, spread slower, and provide more of a tech malus.
I agree with this also. Claiming most people don't play after 1750 is irrelevant. Since when does Paradox cater to people who don't play the last 20% of their games?
I would just point out that it isn't the only such departure. Tech 23 stops being ahead of time in 1687 and tech 24 in 1700 and from then on, the ahead of time length increases from 13 to 15 years. tech 25 in 1715, tech 26 in 1730 etc.
I actually like that there's a big institution gap. It's a bit of a break from all the worrying about their spawning.
Since release?
There are barely any flavor events after 1600 even. One of the main reasons Institutions and ages are even designed that way is to motivate people to play beyond League wars.
Both were a pretty good move, but also the only two things for people playing the lategame.
I'd say even add in one to 1800 whose primary purpose is to provide bonuses rather than tech. Maybe Napoleonic Warfare or something along those lines, to sizeably increase manpower, manpower regen, and force limit. Would allow for some fun big wars even without crazy huge empires.
There should be the industrial revolution which started around 1750 and ended around 1840.
Just flat out not true. Not taking into account the many nation specific flavour events, the Revolution and the accompanying modifier and government forms, which are the best in the game, are exclusive to 1700 and beyond. Administrative efficiency also only begins in the early 17th century.
That's not to say I don't want more mechanics for the late-game, because I absolutely do.
Not a terrible idea, although 1800 might be a bit late. And GB, the main antagonist, or protagonist, depending on your point of view, used money to pay for other people's armies to combat Napoleon, rather than their own manpower so to speak. Instead of straight bonuses to army strength, you could be given a choice of army, economy, and maybe stability, similar to the Rev Republic factions.
Last edited:
If you want an industrial revolution, I would say that sticking it in the UK is a bit boring. How about allowing it to spawn in regions of high average development (say, 25+ to match the Industrial Revolution Achievement?) with rivers and hilly terrain.
I want more things for lategame too, but saying there's more during lategame than early is
There is nothing popping up lategame aside from pulsed events which go from start to finish.
France has a few things, so does Austria. I faintly remember England getting some stuff too, but if the revolution, its modifiers and the government form is a point in favor of lategame flavor I can throw every single change of government right from the start, all the different government types that are available from start to finish and all modifiers you get from things like religious leagues against that.
Outside of Europe you pretty much stop getting anything after 1650.
I'm not complaining about it. It's a logical step. They saw that the number of players drops exponentially after 1650 (Johan) and acted accordingly.
As I said, I too wish for more content added to the lategame, but as of now there is barely anything compared to what you get before 1650.
It's getting better. But the focus has always been on the early game. Only recently did they start expanding into post-1650 territory.
Lategame balancing is still horrible though, but I guess there's no real fix for that.
Last edited:
This idea sounds interesting as a concept at least.
Something like in Victoria 2 where 3/4 of the game is empires building and developing and colonizing. The remaining few decades at the end of the game is where the dust settles and final showdown begins, with massive empires duking it out in enormous world war (or two if diplomacy went wrong) involving industry, resources and manpower from most of the earth. More and more powerful casus bellis appear, coupled with deadlier military techs, violent revolutions and so on. With history-based mod, even the prelude to WW2 can be visibly created.
They could make the last 50-70 years of EU4 where nationalism slowly rises and republicanism appears (rather than beginning it from 1700), and peasant revolts are gradually replaced with more organized uprisings. Then they could make the 1700-1760 the age of colonial warfare.
The last age would end in 1821 with revolutions, independence and nationalism in Americas, rise of modern nation states and empires, and a few massive wars where clear victor emerges and practically "wins" (kind of like how Napoleonic Wars and Anglo-Maratha Wars decisively sealed the fate of Europe and India, and pivoted Britain from a European backwater with colonies into a global hegemon) or such. With extremely powerful casus bellis available to rulers.
it would possibly make the score system even more meaningful.
Something like in Victoria 2 where 3/4 of the game is empires building and developing and colonizing. The remaining few decades at the end of the game is where the dust settles and final showdown begins, with massive empires duking it out in enormous world war (or two if diplomacy went wrong) involving industry, resources and manpower from most of the earth. More and more powerful casus bellis appear, coupled with deadlier military techs, violent revolutions and so on. With history-based mod, even the prelude to WW2 can be visibly created.
They could make the last 50-70 years of EU4 where nationalism slowly rises and republicanism appears (rather than beginning it from 1700), and peasant revolts are gradually replaced with more organized uprisings. Then they could make the 1700-1760 the age of colonial warfare.
The last age would end in 1821 with revolutions, independence and nationalism in Americas, rise of modern nation states and empires, and a few massive wars where clear victor emerges and practically "wins" (kind of like how Napoleonic Wars and Anglo-Maratha Wars decisively sealed the fate of Europe and India, and pivoted Britain from a European backwater with colonies into a global hegemon) or such. With extremely powerful casus bellis available to rulers.
it would possibly make the score system even more meaningful.
The whole institution thing needs a makeover. Having the entire map have nearly the same technology all the time is ridiculous and stupid. What's the point of tech than? Takes A big chunk out of the immersion for me. No more invading India has GB with superior firearma 1700. Nope you just have a ridculous huge blob that chokes up half the playable map instead. Fun
Britain would have had a much harder time conquering India if it was united. The entire map has blobs blob and OPMs swallowed up, why should India be any different?
Its just an example you get the point. and please don't use the historical argument it falls apart too easily.
1750-1840 Industrial Revolution
1848+ Nationalism
Unfortunately the game ends in 1821.
1848+ Nationalism
Unfortunately the game ends in 1821.
I think it should spawn in the most developed nation that has a colony in Central or South America.