Hegemonies are completely impractical

[Comrade Maethor]

I like the idea of Hegemonies, it gives some legitimate meaning to the Great Powers. It also makes sense, it should be noted if a country has unadulterated supremacy in economy, navy, or army. But they requirements for becoming a Hegemon are completely ridiculous.

In order to become an economic hegemon, you need to have a monthly income of 1000 ducats. Sure, if you have that amount of money flowing in, you are indeed the economic hegemon, but does it even matter anymore? If you are making 1000 ducats each month in income, you have already won the damn game! You have nearly infinite money! Does it matter that you are a hegemon? At that point, it's just a title, you don't need any of the associated buffs because you already control the world's economy!

In order to become the naval hegemon, you need to have at least 250 heavy ships. This is just insanity. At what point in EUIV does having 250 heavy ships benefit anyone. I mean, if you want to actually afford the upkeep of such a navy you basically need to be the economic hegemon as well! This is just stupid, how does that many heavy ships help anyone! I would never see a situation in a game where that many heavy ships would be helpful, sure, I would have complete control of the seas, but what about LIGHT SHIPS? My naval force limit would have to be absolutely insane to balance 250 heavy ships and the amount of light ships I would need to maintain the trade empire I need to maintain the 250 heavy ships! And we're not even including troop transports or Galleys that I may need because in order to do this I need to basically control most of the world!

And then the army hegemon, at least 1000k fielded manpower. I mean jesus christ. Again, if I have an army of 1000k men, I don't give a flying fck about being a hegemon, I most likely have infinite manpower and an army that can't be beat! Seriously, if I have an army that size, I've already won the damn game, it doesn't matter if I'm hegemon or not! An army of 100k men is more than enough to control most of the world, but we're talking about 1,000,000 men in your army. THE UNITED STATES IN 2020 HAS 1.2 MILLION PERSONNEL!!!!! I AM EXPECTED TO REACH THAT NUMBER BY THE 1800s!!!

These numbers are absolutely impractical in any game of EUIV. Sure, if you have reached these numbers you are indeed a hegemon, but at that point it doesn't even matter. Who cares that you make 1000 ducats a month, have 250 heavy ships, or have an army of 1 million men, you already won the game, the benefits it gives you don't even affect you! These hegemonies should be far more competitive. They should still reflect global dominance, but they need to be far more practical. Maybe, instead of just meeting one requirement, it's something a bit more involved. For the economic hegemon, you need a high income, maybe 600-700 ducats per month, and at least 80% control in five or more trade zones. For the naval hegemon, you need to have a navy above 300 force limit AND the highest diplo technology. For the army hegemon, you need to have an army above 350 force limit AND the highest military tech. Even for the latter two it makes way more sense than it does now. I can have 250 Carracks, while another country has 150 threedeckers, but I am naval hegemon????

[Mr.M]

"Maybe 600-700 per month"

Thats still too much lol

And with the new manpower manufactories it should be possible to reach 1kk manpower somewhere between 1600-1700 as several nations - not like its practical tho... lol

[Kapika96]

The naval hegemon one is easy. Did it recently playing as England/Great Britain. Certainly hadn't won the game by that point, there was still a very strong Spain, HRE and even Ming was still around and massively powerful.

And I didn't have a single light ship. Because I never do. They're a waste of fleet cap. Had a huge trade empire with nearly full control of the English channel and the ivory coast without a single light ship.

[Comrade Maethor]

Originally posted by Kapika96:

The naval hegemon one is easy. Did it recently playing as England/Great Britain. Certainly hadn't won the game by that point, there was still a very strong Spain, HRE and even Ming was still around and massively powerful.

And I didn't have a single light ship. Because I never do. They're a waste of fleet cap. Had a huge trade empire with nearly full control of the English channel and the ivory coast without a single light ship.

Yeah but that's not always gonna be a good idea. I pulled all my light ships off their missions and I lost around 40 ducats of income. Granted, I'm making 500 a month before expenses, so it doesn't really matter, but if you're trying to compete with another country or just playing the early game in general you need light ships to give you that extra boost. Heavy ships are expensive and take forever to build, and for countries unlike GB who don't have buffs for them, they aren't the best option.

[Razor Feather]

Being a “Win more” feature is the explicit purpose of the hegemonies. Their goal is to make it easier for someone in single player to wrap up their world conquest or whatever it is they’re doing, and maybe to give someone in MP a big enough power surge to make things happen if the game’s gotten stalled out.

This is especially true of the military hegemon, which gives a bunch of mass conquest oriented buffs so you can blitz down everyone left. If you look at the bonuses it gives you, its not about winning wars you couldn’t otherwise. Its about winning them faster, harder, and more often. They are the kind of military bonuses you really want when winning battles is already a given.

Economic on the other hand lets you use your huge income to start flinging mercs at all your problems with that huge manpower buff, letting you be far more reckless and aggresive with them than what normally makes sense, and do things like assault forts constantly. It also helps you hold huge amounts of territory, which is always nice but can be a real time/effort saver if you no longer want to worry about fiddling with states and stuff because they no longer impact your economy that much.

Naval on the other hand is the “I don’t want to habe to worry about rebellious cns or enemies invading my new world holdings” button.

The “original” design of the hegemonies that got changed literally the day they announced them had the requirments a lot lower, and the bonuses a lot stronger in situations where you weren’t already super dominant. This was seen as incredibly stupid, since the lower requirements could be cheesed, and then the bonuses used to go from a small lead to utterly unstoppable. So, instead we have this setup, a bunch of bonuses meant mostly to help someone who is already huge to wrap up a game that’s already won, rather than one that helps you get there.

[Comrade Maethor]

Originally posted by Razor Feather:

Being a “Win more” feature is the explicit purpose of the hegemonies. Their goal is to make it easier for someone in single player to wrap up their world conquest or whatever it is they’re doing, and maybe to give someone in MP a big enough power surge to make things happen if the game’s gotten stalled out.

This is especially true of the military hegemon, which gives a bunch of mass conquest oriented buffs so you can blitz down everyone left. If you look at the bonuses it gives you, its not about winning wars you couldn’t otherwise. Its about winning them faster, harder, and more often. They are the kind of military bonuses you really want when winning battles is already a given.

Economic on the other hand lets you use your huge income to start flinging mercs at all your problems with that huge manpower buff, letting you be far more reckless and aggresive with them than what normally makes sense, and do things like assault forts constantly. It also helps you hold huge amounts of territory, which is always nice but can be a real time/effort saver if you no longer want to worry about fiddling with states and stuff because they no longer impact your economy that much.

Naval on the other hand is the “I don’t want to habe to worry about rebellious cns or enemies invading my new world holdings” button.

The “original” design of the hegemonies that got changed literally the day they announced them had the requirments a lot lower, and the bonuses a lot stronger in situations where you weren’t already super dominant. This was seen as incredibly stupid, since the lower requirements could be cheesed, and then the bonuses used to go from a small lead to utterly unstoppable. So, instead we have this setup, a bunch of bonuses meant mostly to help someone who is already huge to wrap up a game that’s already won, rather than one that helps you get there.

Fair points, I must say. I still think hegemonies should be more competitive and less absolute. I understand what the devs wanted to do with them, and it makes sense, I mean, if you achieve hegemony you are without question a hegemony with the requirements you met. I just think it's redundant in its current form. Then again, you have to understand that I'm not a person that regularly plays the game 1444-1821 all the time, I'm still not that good. So when I see a mechanic like hegemonies, I just think to myself "why would I need any of those buffs when I already have an unbreakable economy/navy/army?" I still think they should represent absolute power in one sector of the game, but not exclusively in the late game when you have already guaranteed success.

[76561198977187510]

I'm guessing you don't play long MP sessions? Hegemonies are actually quite a fun aspect

[BadAssMilkDaddy]

Originally posted by Kapika96:

The naval hegemon one is easy. Did it recently playing as England/Great Britain. Certainly hadn't won the game by that point, there was still a very strong Spain, HRE and even Ming was still around and massively powerful.

And I didn't have a single light ship. Because I never do. They're a waste of fleet cap. Had a huge trade empire with nearly full control of the English channel and the ivory coast without a single light ship.

I agree that the naval hegemon can be achieved before you've "won" the game. But OP is 100% correct about the other two. They should rebalance hegemons (or rework preferably) to be more impactful. If they really want to make the late-game more interesting, giving the player arbitrary goals to hit is not the way to do it.

[Comrade Maethor]

Originally posted by Vituperator:

I'm guessing you don't play long MP sessions? Hegemonies are actually quite a fun aspect

lol no, I wouldn't last a year

[bydlaq]

I facepalmed so hard when first time i seen req. for hegemonis.
Clearly MP thing for those 4 devs and 7 people that plays it. Useless in SP.

[Mr.M]

Originally posted by bydlaq:

I facepalmed so hard when first time i seen req. for hegemonis.
Clearly MP thing for those 4 devs and 7 people that plays it. Useless in SP.

...theres more than enough people that play MP but it seems to me like its pretty useless for them.

With 500 monthly income you are already insanely strong but you need twice the amound for economical hegemony - pretty bs.

Similar thing for 1kk army - tho thats at least somewhat possible to get early and to rush by having +-200 provinces with conscription centers and Quantity; You then need to pay around 200 per month for the troops tho - and that if its infantry only... :p

250 Heavys is the only feasible one, even without naval idea groups rather easy to get and then you can also just mothball some of them to save money; a maximum of 100 per month for this hegemony.



...really just feels like a big buff for WC-blobbing as it was already mentioned here. They buffed the hell out of blobbing...

[Don]

Actually you can't say 1k income is a lot, it depends at what year you reached it. Its not hard to have 1k income in 1650 and its considered a low income after 1750 for big colonial nations. I think it should be a dynamic value instead of static.

I suggest something like this: take sum of values from all trade nodes in the world and name it X, if a nation has 25% of X and it has highest income it is the economic hegemon. (not sure about exact percent)
About navy and military, if no other nation has half or more of your armies/ships you are hegemon.

With fixed values like 1k income and 250 heavies, It's not possible to have hegemons early game and late game multiple nations can have it while they may be equals and none of them truly have a hegemony. (specially in multiplayer)

There are also a lot of bugs about hegemony mechanic, like subs are counted as income, white peacing any nation makes you lose hegemony which is really annoying and the buffs you get from economic hegemony is far better than the other two, in fact only economic hegemony is worth the trouble.

[KingCobra]

army hegemon just for wc. u could take it around 1650. province warscore and siege ability good boost

[Mr.M]

Originally posted by Don:

Actually you can't say 1k income is a lot

...yeah. Sure.

[Rodi]

Hegemonies are mostly for mp, where things like 1000 regies, 1000k ducats etc. Are basicly guaranteed to occur if the game runs past 1600

[ChaffyExpert]

Actually 250 heavy ships isn't an incredible amount. high dev coastal provinces and shipyards will make it relatively easy.

I mean it is alot, but certainly not to the point of needing to own the world like the other two.

Also just having 250 heavy ships can be broken by a smaller navy with great naval ideas like GB.