Historical features EU4 does well that EU5 should keep

[Comrade Maethor]

EU4 is not the most historically accurate game on the market. Despite this, it is still a rough simulation of the Early Modern Period, a time in Europe that I have studied enthusiastically in my undergrad. So I'm going to go through my favorite aspects of the EU4 simulation that, in my opinion, will be important for creating a historically accurate EU5.

End of the Holy Roman Empire

EU4 does well in representing the failure of the HRE in creating a universal European monarchy. I specifically enjoy how the reformation destroys the empire's functionality. I've seen people complain about the heretic prince IA debuff remaining after signing a religious peace, which, from a gameplay perspective, is confusing, but from a historical perspective, it makes a lot of sense, as the Peace of Westphalia destroyed the sovereignty that the Emperor had over the HRE. In terms of imperial reforms, I enjoy the recognition of the movement, as there was a powerful imperial reform movement in real life, but EU4 models it as a success, when in reality, imperial reform was an abject failure. I specifically dislike the representation of the gemeiner pfenning (common penny). This was a real thing, it was supposed to streamline the imperial taxation system, but it was impossible to maintain and fell apart very quickly. EU4 assumes that the common penny was a great success. I also don't like how the League war is so generalized, but in a game with so much random chaos, I don't know how else the devs could have programmed it.

Mercantilism

The Early Modern Period is the age of mercantilism, an economic theory that put protectionism above everything else. Trade was a matter of war just as much as it was a matter of economics. Because of the theory's importance, it makes sense why EU4 makes mercantilism an objectively good thing to have (except if you consider its impact on colonial relations). I will say, however, that there ought to be a better model for free trade. In EU4, I think free trade is represented by having low mercantilism but high trade efficiency, which offsets the lack of provincial trade power. There should be a more dynamic free trade system to model the slow shift from mercantilism to free trade, but seeing as this is largely a 19th century development, I can understand the focus on mercantilism.

Transition to the nation-state

Gameplay in EU4 is very different from Crusader Kings III. In CK3, you play as an individual who is a part of a dynasty, mainly because you are playing in an age of feudalism. The dynasty is the primary political unit for people at this time. As we move into the 15th and 16th centuries, however, the idea of the sovereign nation-state begins to take form. In EU4, you play as an entire country, and it does not matter if the ruling dynasty changes, you only lose if you get fully annexed. Overall, EU4 simulates the consolidation of the nation-state relatively well. The game wants you to seize land from the estates, increase taxation, and pursue your goals according to raison d'etat, the reason of the state, not of the dynasty.

Evolution of modern combat

In the beginning of EU4, morale is the most important number for your armies. From a simulation standpoint, this represents the relatively small scale of medieval battles and how they are primarily won when the opposing side retreats, not entirely eliminated. As the game progresses, your armies will do more and more damage. Fire becomes an important stat as your infantry gets better guns and your artillery becomes more efficient. Your armies do more damage, and by the 1600s, discipline becomes the most important buff, as it amplifies the damage of all of your troops. Paradox designed this intentionally because we see this shift in the military advisors you can recruit. Military reformers, the advisor that gives you a morale buff, wear plate armor in the portrait and give you a buff important for medieval combat. The idea that he is a military reformer makes even more sense, as the Early Modern Period was a competition between early professional armies. Then, there is the commandant, who gives you a discipline buff, and is wearing 18th century attire in the portrait.

Of course, this is only scratching the surface. The EU4 simulation is far from perfect, but as an attempt at showing the development of nation-states in the Early Modern Period, it's not terrible. The devs have made it clear that they care about making a simulation in EU5, not a board game, so it is critical for them to get this period right. Me personally, I have studied this period and it sucks. It is not easy to understand and also very easy to oversimplify. EU4 mistakenly understates the importance of taxation, as it is dwarfed by the amount of money you can make through trade and production. This neglects the fact that taxes are a state's life-force, and inefficient taxation was one of the primary causes of the French Revolution.

[LSD]

EU3 did a better job of representing mercantalism, and that was literally just a slider.
EU4 represents it as a number that gives you straight buffs.

[ChaffyExpert]

For the HRE reform bit, i think it's portrayed as a success in that for the purpose of alt history, and gamplay, they want it to be *possible* to reform the HRE successfully, and i can't see any other way of doing it that would still have good gameplay.

The current system i think works well, the HRE is failing, and you have to try and fix it before it completely fails and collapses.

[RCMidas]

Just a reminder, mercantilism is the idea that you should buy local and sell foreign as much as possible, which is objectively better for the common person than free trade, which is good for making a very small group of elite traders extremely wealthy. Also, the most resilient economies in the modern age are those that make strategic use of mercantilist policies whilst still competing in a global market - see China, Japan.

[Comrade Maethor]

Ursprungligen skrivet av ChaffyExpert:

For the HRE reform bit, i think it's portrayed as a success in that for the purpose of alt history, and gamplay, they want it to be *possible* to reform the HRE successfully, and i can't see any other way of doing it that would still have good gameplay.

The current system i think works well, the HRE is failing, and you have to try and fix it before it completely fails and collapses.

Precisely, for gameplay reasons I totally get why HRE reforms have to be positive. Then again, PDX has the opportunity to invent a whole new HRE system that is more in-depth and has more nuance than just number go up

[Comrade Maethor]

Ursprungligen skrivet av RCMidas:

which is objectively better for the common person than free trade, which is good for making a very small group of elite traders extremely wealthy.

Hot take. I don't particularly look at everyday life in this period as something to envy

[RCMidas]

Ursprungligen skrivet av Comrade Maethor:

Ursprungligen skrivet av RCMidas:

which is objectively better for the common person than free trade, which is good for making a very small group of elite traders extremely wealthy.

Hot take. I don't particularly look at everyday life in this period as something to envy

NOTHING was good for the everyman in this period. But the value of free trade systems are built upon the industrial hegemony of mercantilist nations - it's all very well to say "Let the market determine the most valuable commodity" when you have spent the last three hundred years suppressing local markets to establish your commodities as the highest quality that can be mass produced.

I work in retail. I sell water that is drawn from springs in another country three hundred miles away. Two of the most popular brands of bottled water "compete" with each other, but both brands are owned by the same parent company. I live on an island surrounded by ocean with an ever-increasing population. There are no desalination plants in the entire country. Every year the reservoirs run lower and lower. The country IMPORTS foreign water rather than invest in securing its own.

Free market baby! Whooo, capitalism! Yeah!

I graduated university nearly 15 years ago (boy, that hurts to say). My studies included economics and politics as reference markers for independent data analysis. I was not what anyone would call a model student. Nevertheless, whenever I apply my taught methodology to current reports, whichever starting principles I begin with I only ever reach the same conclusion. It is incredibly depressing.

I'm hoping to emigrate later this year. Dual nationality has its perks and I damn well have had enough of this place.

[grognardgary]

Ursprungligen skrivet av RCMidas:

Just a reminder, mercantilism is the idea that you should buy local and sell foreign as much as possible, which is objectively better for the common person than free trade, which is good for making a very small group of elite traders extremely wealthy. Also, the most resilient economies in the modern age are those that make strategic use of mercantilist policies whilst still competing in a global market - see China, Japan.

That works okay as long as your opposition sits on their hands and doesn't start passing embargoing you which at some point they'll have to if they want a functioning economy of their own. Mercantilism was the idea of creating crap loads of colonial holdings from which you siphon raw materials and then sell the finished goods you produce back to them which by the way was the whole point of Mussolini's adventures in Africa. Along with trying to reform the African portion of the Roman empire. The one thing the Great Depression should have taught everyone is that colonialism and it's other wing mercantilism are ultimately dead ends. Unfortunately power brokers of what ever stripe are awfully slow learners.

[RCMidas]

I recall Asimov bringing up the issue of embargoes and "functioning economy". Once you've gotten used to foreign luxuries as a standard, turning that around is incredibly difficult - and socially painful. Your industrial base needs to be built from the ground-up, or worse yet, reverse-calibrated to its pre-import states. Your citizenry doesn't care about the long-term that will benefit them, because people en masse don't have that kind of mental capacity. Your nation will experience brain drain. Governmental corruption begins to rise. Depending on what form your government takes and how long you are undergoing the economic rework, a variety of coups become evermore likely. In order to source the materials and expertise you need to turn your economy around, especially if you are a smaller nation, you will probably need outside help.

Oh it can be done. Look at China. Look at Japan. Look at the post-Soviet states. They all transitioned out of mercantilist policies to some degree or another. Pure mercantilism does not work in the current world, but for all the gloomy prophesying of economists - who I may remind everyone are regularly shown to be more surprised than the rest of us when something very ****ing obvious goes wrong - a healthy dose of it is doing wonders to insulate the populations from the downfalls of pure free trade.

Also worth noting that in-game, mercantilism is only helpful inasmuch as it makes you better able to compete in economically contested regions. It does not increase your production or taxable anything, it is functionally useless if you have full control over a trade node, and the only reason it boosts Burgher Loyalty is because this is the time period in which doing what they what in terms of economic policy encourages their...well...loyalty. Even increased Embargo Efficiency, making it harder for other nations to get what goods they do import, does nothing to stop YOU from suffering a -5% Trade Efficiency malus (except vs rivals for game reasons I guess). Also colonial nations, as you rightly point out, are annoyed by increased mercantilism because they feel exploited by the policy.

Free trade is ideal in the modern world because of the (relative, RELATIVE, I say again) lack of militant expansionism we are currently experiencing. One of the lowest in human history, frankly, no matter how awful things broadly seem on the world stage. In this era of colonial imperialism and resource exploitation, mercantilism is a boon, a tool to be used to empower yourself at the expense of others.

[Comrade Maethor]

Ursprungligen skrivet av RCMidas:

Ursprungligen skrivet av Comrade Maethor:

Hot take. I don't particularly look at everyday life in this period as something to envy

NOTHING was good for the everyman in this period. But the value of free trade systems are built upon the industrial hegemony of mercantilist nations - it's all very well to say "Let the market determine the most valuable commodity" when you have spent the last three hundred years suppressing local markets to establish your commodities as the highest quality that can be mass produced.

I work in retail. I sell water that is drawn from springs in another country three hundred miles away. Two of the most popular brands of bottled water "compete" with each other, but both brands are owned by the same parent company. I live on an island surrounded by ocean with an ever-increasing population. There are no desalination plants in the entire country. Every year the reservoirs run lower and lower. The country IMPORTS foreign water rather than invest in securing its own.

Free market baby! Whooo, capitalism! Yeah!

I graduated university nearly 15 years ago (boy, that hurts to say). My studies included economics and politics as reference markers for independent data analysis. I was not what anyone would call a model student. Nevertheless, whenever I apply my taught methodology to current reports, whichever starting principles I begin with I only ever reach the same conclusion. It is incredibly depressing.

I'm hoping to emigrate later this year. Dual nationality has its perks and I damn well have had enough of this place.

I'll be the first guy to say that 21st century capitalism is flawed beyond belief. I would be anti-globalist if it wasn't for the fact that I understand that my current lifestyle is afforded by globalism. My phone, this computer, the food that I eat, the clothes I wear, etc, all products of globalization. Did you know that 80% of the world's cacao supply is farmed in West African countries by small family farms that often use child labor/slavery, and are not fairly compensated by merchants? As a wise man once said, "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism". We live in a world of rampant exploitation and inequality.

At the same time, places like where I live in the US are experiencing the highest standards of living in human history. I also much prefer democratic governance over feudalism, flaws and all. I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that we live in a transitory period, kind of like the game we are talking about. Feudalism held within it the weapons with which it could be destroyed, and so does capitalism. I don't know what will replace capitalism, maybe socialism, maybe not, but all I know is that we are in the beginning of the end.