The Enlightenment

[Montem]

Hello Paradoxians!

Many complaints regarding EUIV often apply to the Late Game, and it holding a lack of depth and dynamicness that the early game has.

One of the issues in my eyes is the lack of the Enlightenment, a new set of ideas that spread across Western countries in the 1700s.

The Enlightenment is a complex and important issue which lead to massive advancements in Technology but also philosophy, communication, religion, and politics, in a way that cannot be managed simply through technology. So below is a proposal for a system to help model the Enlightnment, and any ideas or suggestions for the concept would be appreciated.

This starts with after the Peace of Westphalia taking place in the empire (The end of the wars of religion) there is an increasing change per a country's tech level (ONLY if they are Western) for an event called "The Enlightenment" to pop up. This creates a new tab at the bottom like the papacy or HRE tab, which you can open to see a list of different philosophers and their ideas, and which country they reside in. These philosophers appear across the western world, and can also appear in Colonial Nations, an important point which I will get to in a little. Some of these are randomly generated with of course Easter eggs of various actual historical figures.

Countries can choose to banish or welcome various characters, each who have varying bonuses and negative effects (increased national revolt risk but increased provincial autonomy burn-off rate, etc...). The trick is, that as these characters come together in a country, they trigger additional effects after a random period of time, hence the importance for not all characters to be actual historical figures, as the combination events should be randomized between the characters so that neither players nor AI can decide to deny 1 specific person.

Combinations can do things like give the opportunity to switch to a republic or different monarchy type without penalty, but can also cause things like a colonial rebellion, or even a revolutionary state.

This would help to make the late game more dynamic, as countries could receive unique diplomatic actions on the Enlightenment panel, such as requesting a country to execute a certain character (which of course causes a great unrest penalty to both countries), requesting a country to send you one of their figures, or even other unique diplomatic options enabled by various figures (encouraging someone to join a coalition, or leave an empire, which all of course would have to be carefully balanced).

Thoughts/suggestions/comments/questions are appreciated. Thanks for reading.

 

[vyshan]

so nothing like the enlightment in the 300+ years that eu4 repersents could happen outside of europe?

 

[moscal]

IMO if Paradox make "Enlightenment system" we will have a simple system "Enlightenment = power" "non-Enlightenment = looser" and greates buffed for Europa.

This system neded more non-mainstream historical philosophy (eg. carlist historiography), but this isn't for Paradox team and EU-users.

 

[Montem]

so nothing like the enlightment in the 300+ years that eu4 repersents could happen outside of europe?

Well, in my post the idea was for it to occur in Westernized nations. (So the Ottomans if they choose to, Russia, Ming if they make it, etc...) so that countries who are in theory according the game on par with the forward thinking of Western Europe in the OTL are aligned. Additionally having a a feudal monarchy government could negate the ability for that country to accept the Enlightenment.

The idea behind the Enlightenment would be, yes to give Western countries more bonuses, but internally, but also create more international political connections and intranational instability.

IMO if Paradox make "Enlightenment system" we will have a simple system "Enlightenment = power" "non-Enlightenment = looser" and greates buffed for Europa.

This system neded more non-mainstream historical philosophy (eg. carlist historiography), but this isn't for Paradox team and EU-users.

I was thinking Enlightenment = Bonuses + Instability and Not-Enlightenment = More Stability

 

[moscal]

If you have military power that instability is nothing. In late game military power isn't problem. The French king fell because he wanted to fool the aristocratic system, but mistaken. And Not-Enlightenment not give stability - look at Polish-Lithuanian republican kingdom and Tsardom of Russia. Conflict inter "Enlightenment people" brought the country to civil war (left part "Targowica" vs all "Patriots Camp"); Enlightenment Russia is the most stabilitz country in Europa.

For something like this game would need a pop-system with Victoria (1&2). This is game to simulation "Enlightenment problem" - not EU4.

 

[Montem]

If you have military power that instability is nothing. In late game military power isn't problem. The French king fell because he wanted to fool the aristocratic system, but mistaken. And Not-Enlightenment not give stability - look at Polish-Lithuanian republican kingdom and Tsardom of Russia. Conflict inter "Enlightenment people" brought the country to civil war (left part "Targowica" vs all "Patriots Camp"); Enlightenment Russia is the most stabilitz country in Europa.

For something like this game would need a pop-system with Victoria (1&2). This is game to simulation "Enlightenment problem" - not EU4.

While I'm not disagreeing, there is then the reality that Europa takes place during the Enlightenment. Is it ideal? No. But there needs to be a solution to the lack of simulation in this area. Remember that the PLC and Russia also almost always Westernize, and Tsarist Russia is Feudal. I, unfortuantely, have no studied this period as in-depth as I would have liked to and am just trying to present a solution the the problems of 1700s Europa, clearly there is a reason I'm not a History major or a Dev. And from where I saw the French Revolution it occured because of repeated abuse of the Bourgeoisie, not the Nobility.

 

[net.split]

Ehh... the real "late game problem" is that by 1650-1700 you should already be at the runaway state where very little in the game can reasonably challenge you. You should be by far the strongest regional power, as well as one of the strongest world powers, and the rest of the game is little more than "see how much more you can gobble up before you run out of time."

Adding more strategic mechanics in that period (post-1700) just doesn't do much unless you pick a later game start. And according to data from Paradox, basically no one does that.

EU4 would need mechanisms in place to outright prevent nations from growing effectively beyond a certain size, and that'll never happen (because there's not enough to do outside of conquering). Alternatively, it would need late-game mechanics that seriously throw the world order into turmoil, but this could be frustrating for players to deal with instead of fun.

 

[magnusvejby]

+1