As a change made in isolation, that seems fine to me. So that probably shouldn’t be a decision in the first place. I agree that hiding monarch ratings, for example, would frustrate players who wanted to make a decision about whether to keep an heir. Some kind of hands-off “history simulator” would interest only a small minority of the current EU4 player base.īut… when discussing this particular mechanic, I do think it’s reasonable to suggest that the player has so many other buttons to press and decisions to make that optimizing their monarch doesn’t have to be one of them. That’s a very valid point when thinking about the overall game design. It’s a chess mentality that I don’t think serves historical authenticity very well, but makes EUIV more fun to play. I wish it wasn’t the case, but gamers, particularly strategy ones, hate making decisions without being out to gameplay out all the ramifications multiple steps down the road. To the larger point, the average video gamer’s desire to optimize and min/max makes those sorts of artifices a requirement.
Just think about how armies are dealt with in EUIV and look at the historical comparison, it makes zero sense to have a direct recruitment system for every nation around the world. It’s certainly an artifice of EUIV being a video game, but the same could be said about every system in the game (none of which are very good approximation of the world in the time period the game is set). If you didn’t know the stats of an heir from age zero, why would anyone take the steps to disinherit them? It would also raise all sorts of other questions around a lack of information as your current ruler gets older. So I think this is done because of how frustrated most players get when they are forced to make decisions without the information needed to understand the ramifications of that decisions. Legitimacy is central to monarchical government, but in game, the effects and costs of low legitimacy are too easy to counter IMO. Part of the problem is information being artificially precise. The kind of coups by court or aristocratic forces you’re referring to tended to result from political differences or ambitions, not attempts to select an objectively “best” king, and didn’t in general leave an original monarch in place with authority intact. It clearly represents disinheritance, or the recognition of a new heir. The game mechanic that we use to remove heirs is the one that leaves the current monarch in power. And its complete artificiality leads to artificial player behaviour. Well, my two points.įirstly, the idea that an objectively correct measure of a monarch’s abilities is knowable from age zero? It’s absurd. Plenty of courts decided that they don’t like the next king (or a faction that supports him) enough to organize a coup or succession crisis or to solve things quietly. Same goes for the Trade league, just invite all the trading cities.You’re not playing as a monarch, you’re playing as a nation. Trade cities seem to have no flaws, just do it for the sake of it. I'm guessing provinces with best trade goods, so Hangzhou seems like an idea, as it produces silk, but other than that? Laizhou produces fish, Beijing grain (and also has a monument), Ningbo naval supplies. But, it seems like vassal swarm is also an idea given how many releasable tags Ming has, as they transfer the trade power anyway, but provide manpower too.
Yet, I'm guessing my governing cap will allow me to state at least part of it.
Which means, all of China and East Indies. But what do I do now?Īs far as I understand, all land that's not on my subcontinent can be added to a Trade Company. But now that I'm playing as Japan, I've decided it's high time I learned all those mechanics. I never played as a real merchant republic such as Venice or Genoa, as they lacked estates which I still find fun to interact with.
0 kommentar(er)
