Why is there no 1750 institution?

[ahyangyi]

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.

Some people hate nation specific stuff in late game though. For example, me.

I can't understand why Orthodox Ottoman HRE Emperor having Janissary revolts, or an England that gets exiled to a Caribbean island still getting industry revolution-related events is fun or historical accurate.
In general, I am fine with early game railroading. But I don't understand late game tag specific stuff when half the fun of late game is how you can screw history.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

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.

How much deviation is required for things to "make sense"? There's no Qing, we're just assuming Ming wouldn't adopt western practices after > 100 years of alternate history? No Mughals/Marathi/Great Britian in India has enormous implications, hard to predict exactly what that does.

No making up rules as we go. If we're going to alter the mechanic, it must interact properly with other things the game allows and do so consistently or it will be neither historical nor good for gameplay.

You can not allow for things like "100% war score", fake coalitions, 5000+ development stable empires, hard-set "national ideas", 15 year truces, liquid-gold manpower, and complete handwave of period logistics then turn around and say you want the game to "allow for things to turn out similarly to history".

No, in history people didn't lug 40000 regiments of cannons across the Sahara to trivially dumpster Mali while ignoring Malaria, Kilwa didn't easily "resist" Portugal after the latter declared and did nothing (???), and Sweden didn't jump into early period Italian wars because it felt threatened by the aggressive expansion of a nation in the HRE still much smaller than it.

If you accept these kinds of things as gameplay mechanics, you necessarily accept that you're not going to allow for things to turn out similarly to history. That was thrown out when war score and mana walked through the door. Asking that Asia lag in tech in this kind of environment specifically is nonsensical.

 

[Twoflower]

How much deviation is required for things to "make sense"? There's no Qing, we're just assuming Ming wouldn't adopt western practices after > 100 years of alternate history? No Mughals/Marathi/Great Britian in India has enormous implications, hard to predict exactly what that does.

No making up rules as we go. If we're going to alter the mechanic, it must interact properly with other things the game allows and do so consistently or it will be neither historical nor good for gameplay.

You can not allow for things like "100% war score", fake coalitions, 5000+ development stable empires, hard-set "national ideas", 15 year truces, liquid-gold manpower, and complete handwave of period logistics then turn around and say you want the game to "allow for things to turn out similarly to history".

No, in history people didn't lug 40000 regiments of cannons across the Sahara to trivially dumpster Mali while ignoring Malaria, Kilwa didn't easily "resist" Portugal after the latter declared and did nothing (???), and Sweden didn't jump into early period Italian wars because it felt threatened by the aggressive expansion of a nation in the HRE still much smaller than it.

If you accept these kinds of things as gameplay mechanics, you necessarily accept that you're not going to allow for things to turn out similarly to history. That was thrown out when war score and mana walked through the door. Asking that Asia lag in tech in this kind of environment specifically is nonsensical.

I was not specifically asking for Asia to lag behind. The main point is to have some tech imparity between the world regions in 1800.
If it makes sense for the Enlightenment and a hypothetical 1750 institution to spawn in Asia, that's ok. I would prefer for Europe to usually turn up ahead, because I believe there are several cultural, social, religious, geographical and political reasons why the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution happened in occidental Europe and not in China, Japan or Arabia, but I do not think there is any point in arguing with you about that. Which is why I suggested to agree to disagree
You (and the others who share your opinion) are not wrong. Neither am I. It is a matter of taste where there isn't really a common ground - I would like EU4 to be more like EU2, you wouldn't. Simple as that.

 

[Big Bad France]

I was not specifically asking for Asia to lag behind. The main point is to have some tech imparity between the world regions in 1800.
If it makes sense for the Enlightenment and a hypothetical 1750 institution to spawn in Asia, that's ok. I would prefer for Europe to usually turn up ahead, because I believe there are several cultural, social, religious, geographical and political reasons why the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution happened in occidental Europe and not in China, Japan or Arabia, but I do not think there is any point in arguing with you about that. Which is why I suggested to agree to disagree
You (and the others who share your opinion) are not wrong. Neither am I. It is a matter of taste where there isn't really a common ground - I would like EU4 to be more like EU2, you wouldn't. Simple as that.

It was mostly the colonization of the new world and the Columbian Exchange that resulted from it, imo.

 

[gia257]

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.

what if it only spawns on a captured capital, too civ like?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The main point is to have some tech imparity between the world regions in 1800.

What is that tech imparity abstracting? It's usually pretty trivial for superior NI sets to beat down other nations at large numerical disadvantages in the late game...of course in contrast to real history those numerical disadvantages aren't a thing.

Can't have EU2 like stuff happening alongside scenarios like France sending 120000 to India, which would allow France to beat down India just as soundly as GB did historically and is trivially doable in-game.

No matter what your rule preferences are they need to be coherent in the game's framework or the whole thing is an acausal mess.

I believe there are several cultural, social, religious, geographical and political reasons why the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution happened in occidental Europe and not in China, Japan or Arabia

That's not what is in dispute. What is in dispute is whether these things can realistically be assumed present in a world that is necessarily consistently different than our own based on the way it's modeled and events progress.

Basically, if we're going to concede reality in the name of gameplay, what makes finishing tech picture something worthy of a particular exception? I don't know enough about EU2's specifics to comment on its particulars, but hearsay leads me to believe it did not abstract consistently.

 

[Dominion]

Some people hate nation specific stuff in late game though. For example, me.

You only hate it because it's half-heartedly implemented. Most of these events only check if the nation tag exists and fire no matter what the actual situation situation is.

Like Venice forming Italy and getting Venetian revolts. Or any of your examples.

If we would improve on the quality of those events we wouldn't argue whether or not they are welcome.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You only hate it because it's half-heartedly implemented. Most of these events only check if the nation tag exists and fires no matter what the actual situation situation is.

Like Venice forming Italy and getting Venetian revolts. Or any of your examples.

If we would improve on the quality of those events we wouldn't argue whether or not they are welcome.

Pretty much this, with the caveat that their conditions are (usually) situation specific, not TAG specific.

 

[hashinshin]

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.

Hah...

and when Ming just becomes Europe by conquering it?

 

[holyvigil]

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.

1) We don't need more modifiers and bonues that make Europe even stronger. 2) The advantage of having a tech gap is that it is more close to historical occurrences and it makes it harder to play outside Europe which it should be hard in EU4.

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".

They don't need to as you said earlier it's an easy insta buy thing when the player is involved.

 

[Rubel]

It's getting better. But the focus has always been on the early game. Only recently did they start expanding into post-1650 territory.

Sounds like a great focus for a mod. I wonder if something like that already exists. "Life after 1650"

 

[Badesumofu]

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.

Hold on, you are the one claiming that someone else's playstyle is invalid/not a consideration, I've got no issue with people who aren't playing to conquer. Fairly disingenuous of you to go that route with your comment.

My original comment referred explicitly to my own experience of both my WC games and my more historical/RP games. A 1750 institution would be unwelcome in the former and irrelevant in the latter.