Europa Universalis IV announced

[Syt]

The stupid thing is that both Stellaris and EU IV have that mechanic already--stability/crime and local autonomy, respectively. Doomstack revolts should be limited to existential or near-enough threats, while everything else should just be punishing you with low/no production from the uncontrolled area.

I assume "have the player fight revolters" is one way of making peacetime a bit more interesting, in their eyes. I agree it should be limited to serious cases, like civil wars or other significant cases (like a country trying to break free).

[Habbaku]

Yes, that's almost certainly the reason why. It's far more "interactive" and gives the player something to do beyond painting the map. Which is stupid, of course--there should be plenty of challenges to overcome in peacetime that get alternately either exacerbated or subsumed when the country is at war.

But this goes back to one of the core issues that was mentioned earlier, with Paradox getting away from more historically fueled gameplay and towards sandbox. War is far, far too cheap except in the early stages of EU IV, for instance, and there's very little reason not to go to war compared to the historical counterparts.

[Tamas]

Yes, I think one reason for their big success is simply that the real-time format is sort of addictive. You always have something to click, something to wait for, and it seems like Imperator 1.0 especially had this "clicker game" aspect dialled to 11.

[Razgovory]

I don't have any problem with the way Paradox does things.

[Josephus]

This was posted in the HOI thread, but in case any EU players don't follow that thread

https://acoup.blog/2021/04/30/collections-teaching-paradox-europa-univeralis-iv-part-i-state-of-play/

[Syt]

This was posted in the HOI thread, but in case any EU players don't follow that thread

https://acoup.blog/2021/04/30/collections-teaching-paradox-europa-univeralis-iv-part-i-state-of-play/

I think it's a good essay and look forward to the next instalments. I slightly disagree with his point that you play as a state - I think in EU4 it feels like you're playing a state and its entire society with how much influence you have over your country (e.g. ideas).

He raises a good point about culture conversion which I thought was a silly mechanic in EU4.

Overally I thought it's a good commentary on how the game's abstractions and gameplay mechanics compare to historical limitations. I see the majority of his points not as criticism but rather as a way to point out how a game and reality measure up against each other, and he seems quite conscious that the focus is (or should be) more on fun mechanics than faithfully replicating historical constraints.

I liked his discussion of ideas. With the advancement in games (tech or culture) I often wonder if the game doesn't switch causality around, i.e. having certain bonuses led to a nation adopting an idea or policy and not the other way around (I find it hard to phrase what I mean ).

[Josephus]

Yeah his main point, as a teacher, is that the game-- because it's played as a state-- does not take in account the game's decisions on the individuals. He repeats a point that cultural conversion is akin to ethnic cleansing, which the game doesn't really model other than a bump in rebellion chance.

[The Brain]

Yeah his main point, as a teacher, is that the game-- because it's played as a state-- does not take in account the game's decisions on the individuals. He repeats a point that cultural conversion is akin to ethnic cleansing, which the game doesn't really model other than a bump in rebellion chance.

I haven't played EU in a long time. Does cultural conversion remove population?

[DGuller]

Yeah, cultural conversion always struck me as ethnic cleansing (which doesn't have to involve killing).  I'm surprised that Paradox would put it in as a mechanic given how careful they are with such stuff, but then again, it's not like you can bring it up on the forum to make them aware of it without getting color-fonted.

[The Brain]

Yeah, cultural conversion always struck me as ethnic cleansing (which doesn't have to involve killing).  I'm surprised that Paradox would put it in as a mechanic given how careful they are with such stuff, but then again, it's not like you can bring it up on the forum to make them aware of it without getting color-fonted.

No, but if it's not killing then you have to move the population of the offending ethnicity.

[DGuller]

Yeah, cultural conversion always struck me as ethnic cleansing (which doesn't have to involve killing).  I'm surprised that Paradox would put it in as a mechanic given how careful they are with such stuff, but then again, it's not like you can bring it up on the forum to make them aware of it without getting color-fonted.

No, but if it's not killing then you have to move the population of the offending ethnicity.

You can re-educate them. 

[The Brain]

Yeah, cultural conversion always struck me as ethnic cleansing (which doesn't have to involve killing).  I'm surprised that Paradox would put it in as a mechanic given how careful they are with such stuff, but then again, it's not like you can bring it up on the forum to make them aware of it without getting color-fonted.

No, but if it's not killing then you have to move the population of the offending ethnicity.

You can re-educate them. 

That sounds like cultural conversion (ie not ethnic cleansing). When Sweden conquered Scania in the 17th century there was a determined and organized effort to convert them culturally to Swedish language and loyalty, but there was no attempt to change the ethnic makeup of the province.

If banning pupils' native language in schools and demand they speak Swedish for instance (practiced by Sweden into the 20th century in the North) were ethnic cleansing then we would need a new term for actual ethnic cleansing. I don't think we do.

[garbon]

Yeah, cultural conversion always struck me as ethnic cleansing (which doesn't have to involve killing).  I'm surprised that Paradox would put it in as a mechanic given how careful they are with such stuff, but then again, it's not like you can bring it up on the forum to make them aware of it without getting color-fonted.

Is it surprising? Think about how natives are treated with option to remove them.

[Josquius]

If we are being accurate there should be more colonies that are nothing but a net drain and merely give you trade advantages in the area.
Of course the map painters would be up in arms.
More land automatically means more power


Culture conversion as ethnic cleansing... Yup. It is that. But then actual top down efforts at doing this were pretty rare and generally half hearted.
There should be more culture conversion in game but it should work along the lines of less developed provinces slowly shifting to the culture of local major cities.
EU's lack of Victoria style pops hurts enormously here.

[Syt]

Tbh I always liked Victoria's more hands off approach of running a country where you try to create incentives for your people to develop how you'd like them to, and more often than not they don't. I know, of course, that most players want as much control over their controlled entity as possible, so I doubt we will see anything like that again.

I liked the point the author made about the state's visibility (or, in the real world, lack thereof). I had to think of Victoria II where you would set taxes at 100% in early game, because your tax collection is so inefficient at this point that you only get a small fraction of that in reality.