Tinto's Project Caesar hopes to prevent world conquest

[Marquoz]

Johan finally responded to one of many threads discussing WCs on the Tinto Talks forum. This is what he said:

The goal is for it to not be possible.

However, if there is one thing 25+ years of making GSG has taught me is the fact that players are damn good at finding ways we never thought of.

Personally, I think this is great news. I hope Tinto issues patches that plug any WC hole in their mechanics. I'm also happy because this means that some of EU4's most ridiculous achievements won't make it into EU5. Bad achievements have carried forward in the past--The Three Mountains was initially part of EU3, for example.

[QTV]

I have no problem with people being able to WC, but I would like to see is a game that isn't just a 0 sum game where owning everything is the best scenario no matter what.

[Marquoz]

EU4 can best be described as Blobbing Über Alles. Perhaps that won't be true of EU5--uh, excuse me, of Project Caesar.

[QTV]

Which is a shame. How can you prove you're the best country if you can't compare yourself to a perpetually bankrupt France? On a list of 1 you are both at the bottom and the top at the same time, seems like worse than average to me.

[rubish 1]

i liked world conquests

[Jean-Maurice Nya]

So if they do the job right, it'll be a real challenge to do so.
It means they'll probably make blobbing harder which will limit great powers threat too. With the starting date, it'll probably hard to see historical borders to appear.

[Kapika96]

Well that's off putting. Only done 1 WC in EU4 because of how tedious it is, but knowing it's possible is nice!

Plus it sounds like if they are possible in EU5, they'll just be made significantly more tedious and annoying than they already are.

[Aksolotli]

I think World Conquest should be like a final 1700's thing of Flavor. Like playing as France and you subjugate UK, Russia and Ottomen in like 50 years in hard wars where you have to push your Nation to the core limit instead of Starting in Oyo in Africa 1444 and just blobbing everything.
But i do still think if you play as Kilwa and have access to your 7 Gold Mines in Africa and able to punch a hole in to Europe and Ottomen.

[RCMidas]

Not having Governing Capacity and having things like States Limit and/or regular separatist revolts in territories whenever your ruler dies (historically, part of the whole problem with the Burgundian Inheritance was that several regions in the Low Countries promptly rebelled when the old duke died, and were never really reclaimed) would help enormously.

You'll either end up with your outermost territories being turned into half-loyal vassals to keep them from rebelling outright, or have to expend constant resources in keeping them under control.

Conditions such as: "Territory adjacent to state = >%rebellion chance"; and "Territory adjacent to territory = <%rebellion chance" and so forth could help.

[Octopuses]

This is great news. I want to feel like it's a big challenge and achievement just conquering India as Nepal or the Balkans as Ragusa for example. Maybe the whole Europe as France.

Obviously, it all depends on how fun the gameplay loop is.

[Keijo]

I think the problem is that if you limit conquest alot then the game needs to have more in the trade and diplomacy and playing tall department because it could end up being too stale.

If you would play eu4 as france and only be able to conquer all of Europe by 1820 obviously it wouln't really work, it would be too boring in eu4. Then theres the DLC policy aswell, they still have to do something crazy to make people put money in to the game.

[Mason]

Paradox has a long history of making world conquests harder and then making them easier than they've been for years.

[Rooter]

Originally posted by Mason:

Paradox has a long history of making world conquests harder and then making them easier than they've been for years.

Yep will be $30 dollars for the WC Dlc

[Sharpie The Dragon]

The only way to do this is to create unfun mechanics that are eventually changed later on because of community backlash. Anyone who remembers the overextension mechanic based on distance will know how bad of an idea this is.

Originally posted by QTV:

I have no problem with people being able to WC, but I would like to see is a game that isn't just a 0 sum game where owning everything is the best scenario no matter what.

That's kind of the point of a sandbox. People will make goals that suit what they want; And I guarantee you most map games equate to players that want to expand as much as possible. I get what you're saying, but there's no real point to developing a bunch of provinces for money when you can just wipe out the world.

[QTV]

Originally posted by Sharpie The Dergun:

The only way to do this is to create unfun mechanics that are eventually changed later on because of community backlash. Anyone who remembers the overextension mechanic based on distance will know how bad of an idea this is.

Originally posted by QTV:

I have no problem with people being able to WC, but I would like to see is a game that isn't just a 0 sum game where owning everything is the best scenario no matter what.

That's kind of the point of a sandbox. People will make goals that suit what they want; And I guarantee you most map games equate to players that want to expand as much as possible. I get what you're saying, but there's no real point to developing a bunch of provinces for money when you can just wipe out the world.

no, you don't get what I am saying. if I am building a trade empire, WC and stacking goods produced through the roof shouldn't be the best way to do that.

[Sharpie The Dragon]

Originally posted by QTV:

Originally posted by Sharpie The Dergun:

The only way to do this is to create unfun mechanics that are eventually changed later on because of community backlash. Anyone who remembers the overextension mechanic based on distance will know how bad of an idea this is.



That's kind of the point of a sandbox. People will make goals that suit what they want; And I guarantee you most map games equate to players that want to expand as much as possible. I get what you're saying, but there's no real point to developing a bunch of provinces for money when you can just wipe out the world.

no, you don't get what I am saying. if I am building a trade empire, WC and stacking goods produced through the roof shouldn't be the best way to do that.

You can already easily do what you’re saying through TCs. It’s just that WC always wins because it removes competitors.