Ironically the lategame institutions are much more likely to spawn in the ROTW than the ealier ones. Even though Europe didnt get a siginificant technological advantage over Asian and African nations untill the second part of the 18th century.
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.
India tends to be at least 2 levels behind if not 6, non multiplayer ofc, on multi theyd dev to rush it
I intended 'favours spawning in Britain' to mean 'favours the kind of things which the UK traditionally has some of'. I think it should probably require rivers and/or hills (as you say), large overseas possessions (or high trade income?), presence of stock exchanges and manufactories, and a developed capital (not necessarily development in the spawn province).
I really like this idea. It adds something to the feel of European nations one by one realising that now that wars like the Napoleonic wars are possible, the world has changed, and gearing up to deal with the new status quo. I really like the Napleonic wars and the game isn't even that badly set up to simulate them. This is the kind of dynamically-applied flavour that would fit in lovely.
I agree that there should be an institution. Having a ahistorical balanced game has not been pdox's goal nor should it be. The game should be a historical with possibilities for randomness simulator and the ROTW should not be on par with tech with Europe everytime; nor should Ming be ahead of everyone in tech during the years 1750-1820 everytime. If you want balance go play Civilization.
Last edited:
Please, quote me where I said that. I'll quote you again if you like:
There are more nations with flavour events in the last part of the game than just those three. Are you being deliberately facetious?
Yes the flavour is heavily centred on Europe. That's the region we have the best records of, arguably the most interesting stuff happened, and where apart from the Printing Press arguably, all the Institutions historically began. And where the most players play.
The only thing that is comparable to the Revolution is the TYW, and I think that could get a few tweaks too.
And a point for the start of the game is not a point against the end of the game.
Again, not true; 18th century Revolution has been in the game for years.
Agreed tech levels are ahistorical, but the comments by Johan in a big thread after Institutions came out makes me disillusioned about any significant change coming.
Industrial Revolution need to be something else than Manufacturies, having 2 institucion giving a bit of production doesnt change much.
From that reason something with Warfare will add most.
Being "Great Britan favoured" is not fun, since in sand box game the most developed country could be Rheinland, or Japan or Anatolia...
From that reason something with Warfare will add most.
Being "Great Britan favoured" is not fun, since in sand box game the most developed country could be Rheinland, or Japan or Anatolia...
The only time I even play to 1750 is when going for WC. If I'm going for WC I don't want to be dealing with another Institution in 1750 when I own the majority of the globe already.
If anything the game needs more 1750 content, not less. Right now the revolution happens, people ooo and aaa and then you restart the game. And that's if it even goes to the 1700s. Hotjoin not working forever has caused player counts to always dwindle because there's no point in releasing countries (especially with state limits being so low, it'd actually make sense to release friendly nations.)
When ever I play EUIV I play till the end. Unlike CK2 where I have tended to stop partially because it has started to become a chore EUIV continues to be interesting well into the end game. Of course if you are one of those players that can do a world conquest then it gets really boring but I am just ok with regards to the game not incredible,
It would be interesting to have a final institution in 1780 that gives 500% manpower and -50% multiplicative unit cost so you can have massive Napoleonic wars.
Fortunately, world conquest or comfort in doing a world conquest is not a relevant design consideration.
Of course, many games are no played until 1820. That is not an argument against improving the game experience or game balance for the lategame (in fact, the lategame currently being too bland rather is an argument for improving it).
Paradox said that they are currently happy with how institutions work out. Fair enough. That doesn't mean that
1. the spread of the Enlightenment couldn't be improved
2. there could be another institution in 1750 which prevents everybody from being on equal tech level in 1800, which feels off.
As for 1, it should be somewhat more likely to fire in an innovative occidental country. Railroading is bad, and of course a game played from 1444 to 1700 is bound to have deviated quite a bit from history, but the Enlightenment is something which is so closely tied to the development of occidental (i.e. christo-jewish) thinking and philosophy that it feels weird for it to fire more often in East Asia than it does in Western Europe.
It might surprise you, but there is a significant amount of players that do not play the game to paint the map in their colour. EU is not supposed to be a game about world conquest.
I, for one, have been playing the EU franchise since EU1, and have never even attempted a world conquest, yet I have played several games until the end date.
I'd rather grab a compromise here and introduce another age instead of another institution since an age gives you more to go after other than "gib moneyz".
I don't see the advantage of introducing a ticking tech malus at that point of the game if I'm just going to instabuy it anyways and they aren't very interactive in the first place.
Institutions are a solution to the issue of finding an abstraction representing different levels of tech at the start of the game. Everything else, like whether it spawns in Italy or Germany, is a gimmick.
I don't see the advantage of introducing a ticking tech malus at that point of the game if I'm just going to instabuy it anyways and they aren't very interactive in the first place.
Institutions are a solution to the issue of finding an abstraction representing different levels of tech at the start of the game. Everything else, like whether it spawns in Italy or Germany, is a gimmick.
The thing is that tech distribution especially in the late game feels off. At a point where historically Europe obtained its huge advantage to the ROTW, the ROTW instead always catches up, and there is hardly any difference between Europe, India, China and Japan in 1820. An "abstraction to represent different levels of tech" is much more needed in 1800 than in 1444, because while in 1444 Europe arguably was less advanced than China, it was quite the other way round in 1800.
Yes, it is a game, but a game where historical outcomes should not be impossible. Right now, it is hardly possible to end up with the huge tech gap between Western Europe and East Asia that existed in 1800.
I think that's just a case of gameplay trumping history.
I don't want every tag outside of Europe having to use gamey tactics or just being dead in MP because "immersion".
I don't want every tag outside of Europe having to use gamey tactics or just being dead in MP because "immersion".
You are certainly not "dead" in MP because of a tech disadvantage. EU is not Civilization, and neither are all tags supposed to be balanced nor are they supposed to be equally able to win a MP game.
With more of a late game lag in technology for East Asia, in fact, there might not be a need to prohibit Ming in most competitive MP games.
The game is supposed to be able to simulate broad tendencies of history. If it ends up with all countries being technologically more or less on par in 1800, it fails to do that.
But we can only agree to disagree here, I'm afraid
You are certainly not "dead" in MP because of a tech disadvantage. EU is not Civilization, and neither are all tags supposed to be balanced nor are they supposed to be equally able to win a MP game.
With more of a late game lag in technology for East Asia, in fact, there might not be a need to prohibit Ming in most competitive MP games.
The game is supposed to be able to simulate broad tendencies of history. If it ends up with all countries being technologically more or less on par in 1800, it fails to do that.
But we can only agree to disagree here, I'm afraid
Nah, we'll just disagree outright.
Any competent, self-consistent model for tech when you're still allowing a tag 8 times the size of starting Ming to span 3 continents will not reasonably use history as a framework. It can't. Whatever happened in such a world is so far gone from our causal reality from our own that rational logic would not project our history onto it.
What if Europe is 80% Islamic in 1700? Should "enlightenment" still be spawning there, with the one nation in the Middle East falling behind? No, because that Middle Eastern nation is also Europe.
You need any proposed mechanic to have causal ties to what happens in the game, not to history. The mechanic itself can reflect causal relations that happened in history, but attempting to recreate historical situations without requisite historical causality is ahistorical and to say otherwise is objectively wrong.
You are (I assume willingly) missing the point. The point being that if things somewhat roughly follow history, i.e. if Europe is mostly Christian, if the Great Powers are 4-5 big European countries (among which some are Catholic, some are protestant, one is perhaps orthodox, and among which some have a few colonies) the Ottomans and the Emperor of China, there is basically no technology gap between anyone in 1800.
Not all games deviate so much from history that the historical pattern of technology spread doesn't make sense. If they do, fine, then perhaps Congo should be world tech leader in 1800.
I was not saying that historical situations should be recreated - I was saying that the game should actually allow for things to turn out similarly to history. It does not do that.