You Say You Want A Revolution

[Susan1972]

Again, I would really like to hear from a Dev as to what the late-game Counter Revolution malus is supposed to test about the player. Either you have to fight an impossible-to-win war against up to 20:1 odds against you or play Separatist Whack-A-Mole for the last 1/3 of the game.

There needs to be a time limit or some other way to lose the CR debuff. So Devs, what's your logic for kneecapping the player so close to the finish line?

 

[st360]

What where you doing for the last 300 years to be 1/20th the size of the revolutionary target? Yes, the game isn't balanced around 10 province nations being just as comfortable as their 200 province enemies, that's the point.

What about Byzantium? Why do I have to fight an impossible-to-win war against up to 20:1 odds? Why cant the Ottomans just occupy me and then after a time limit my nation gets restored?

 

[Chairswing]

it's great in mp where most rules ban fake wars with the revolution target to avoid the malus, so it gives an incentive for players to declare on the revolution target

 

[Zander]

What about Byzantium? Why do I have to fight an impossible-to-win war against up to 20:1 odds? Why cant the Ottomans just occupy me and then after a time limit my nation gets restored?

I mean, regardless of the actual odds involved, the Revolution mechanic IS so bad that I'm surprised you're passionately defending it. The fact that huge numbers of nations tend to end up as Revolutionary barring vigorous player action feels really weird.

I'm happy to have the possibility of a late-game boss akin to Revolutionary France, but the Revolution spreading to tons of other nations like some Cold War-era domino theory isn't good for gameplay or realism.

 

[Susan1972]

What where you doing for the last 300 years to be 1/20th the size of the revolutionary target? Yes, the game isn't balanced around 10 province nations being just as comfortable as their 200 province enemies, that's the point.

What about Byzantium? Why do I have to fight an impossible-to-win war against up to 20:1 odds? Why cant the Ottomans just occupy me and then after a time limit my nation gets restored?

It's more the underlying principle of sticking the player in a situation that they have no agency to address more than the particular numbers.

It doesn't have to be cheap or easy. Maybe having to save up a total of 3k mp to buy it off or having a ruler abdicate or some other drastic move. Some alternative to having to fight a massive war with your nation teetering on the brink of a dozen uprisings is not unreasonable, IMHO.

 

[Susan1972]

If nothing else, I'd be interested in learning the developer's logic of sticking the player with some serious debuffs to unrest, legitimacy and prestige - on top of the Discontent debuff which almost may as well be a permanent one since everyone who can spam it on you will.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

it's great in mp where most rules ban fake wars with the revolution target to avoid the malus, so it gives an incentive for players to declare on the revolution target

I'm not sure a conditional requiring an arbitrary house rule is a good endorsement of the setup. Especially when the alternative of going revolutionary is also there.

 

[st360]

It's more the underlying principle of sticking the player in a situation that they have no agency to address more than the particular numbers.

It doesn't have to be cheap or easy. Maybe having to save up a total of 3k mp to buy it off or having a ruler abdicate or some other drastic move. Some alternative to having to fight a massive war with your nation teetering on the brink of a dozen uprisings is not unreasonable, IMHO.

Like releasing a client state and keeping it as a buffer? You could do that.

 

[st360]

the Revolution spreading to tons of other nations like some Cold War-era domino theory isn't good for gameplay or realism.

Honestly asking: since basically all of Europe was once under Napoleons influence, isn't that what actually happened in history?

 

[Susan1972]

Like releasing a client state and keeping it as a buffer? You could do that.

That's an option, but, again, it's about the overall system.

PDX could at least fix it so that if, for example, Great Britain goes revolutionary, they get 150% liberty desire in their dependencies or lose their alliances with monarchist nations and can't make new ones. Or maybe an option to form a monarchist coalition (and don't get me started on diplomacy mechanics in general) or anything proactive. There's no time for the lateral thinking that usually carries one through a campaign.

 

[Blindbohemian]

Or maybe an option to form a monarchist coalition (and don't get me started on diplomacy mechanics in general) or anything proactive. There's no time for the lateral thinking that usually carries one through a campaign.

Something like the League Wars is what I anticipated when I heard the Revolution was being looked at.

 

[Susan1972]

Something like the League Wars is what I anticipated when I heard the Revolution was being looked at.

That would have been interesting.

As it is now, it's like playing a game of chess and, on the verge of checkmate, your opponent randomly decides that you can't make another move until you solve the twin prime conjecture. It doesn't add to the game or test any relevant skills, it's just arbitrary frustration.

Is there at least a dev diary which explains their thinking on this?

 

[Sharples88]

Something like the League Wars is what I anticipated when I heard the Revolution was being looked at.

If the game can be optimized to handle such a thing (which I highly doubt it ever will). It already struggles with late game lag, I can't see it boding well for a massive late-game league war; Where army sizes grow exponentially.

And that's the problem with late game. Mechanics can only get you so far before the game goes to a crawl.