Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Heir to the Throne - Dev Diary 4

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Europa Universalis III 46143 EU3 - After Action Reports (AAR)
Status
Not open for further replies.
Show only dev responses
Dafool said:
I really don't think the type of emigration you guys are discussing is really that useful to model during the game's time frame. While there were movements of people and culture, they weren't as massive or explicit as they are today. While I'm sure some people did move en masse to other areas, it wasn't easy or generally that beneficial given the huge costs and the time needed for transportation. Short of being some form of indentured servant or colonist, there wasn't much chance the average serf or peasant is going to be paying his way 100 miles in any direction. Even then, if they don't have a promising chance of profit, they might not even bother. The idea of "seeding" you culture into enemy territory seems like it would better be left to cores and diplomatic events than having a do it yourself option. It's much like nationalism. It existed, but wasn't really prominent or hugely relevant within the majority of the game's time frame.
Click to expand...

I would tend to disagree with that. During bad times, during plagues... I imagine alot of people loaded up the wagon and went somewhere else.

Borders of differing nationalities always had friction and intermingling. As humans, it's unavoidable.

Nations with large trade cities had all manner of ideas foreign to them happening around them every day.

Conquering nations spread fear and a different way of thinking/doing in every place they went. Considering the vast empires and travel of the armies of the day, thinking ordinary people couldn't walk that far seems kindof odd.

I'd agree it may be more localized then vs now... And I'd say that heavy trading nations would exhibit the trend alot more than a holed up theocracy... But I wouldn't say that it didn't happen.

Perhaps the historically accurate folk around here could provide a few examples and enlighten us, the poor demographic informationally challenged...:D

T
 
Last edited:
Exactly! The baby will crie so much that the enemy soldiers will become distracted!
 
Doomdark said:
Todays diary is about that agglomeration of states which Voltaire thought was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. As a Swede I am of course bound to concur. Cum Deo et victribus armis! Even so, the HRE wielded a lot of power, and in another world, full of little eagles, crowns and, indeed, Krauts, it might eventually have coalesced into a proper nation. And that's what we're all about here at Paradox; alternate history! Well, that and authority, but more on that later.

In Heir to the Throne, we are adding more features to the HRE than it had members. Well, maybe not, but still quite a few. First off, a new concept called Imperial Authority. Imperial Authority represents the amount of control the Emperor exerts over the princes of the empire. It can be gained or lost in many ways, for example by answering the call of members under attack by foreign powers, or by liberating an annexed HRE member. The main reason for having Imperial Authority is to execute the special decisions that will allow skilled Holy Roman Emperors to tighten the reins on the member princes and eventually unite the disparate fiefdoms under one banner.

We are also adding at least two new diplomatic actions: "Bestow Imperial Grace" and "Enforce Religious Unity". The first works like "Send Gift", except it costs Imperial Authority rather than gold and gives a greater boost to relations. The second is a demand for conversion. If the errant princeling accepts, the religion changes and the Emperor gains more authority. If he refuses, the Emperor gains a special Casus Belli. (Speaking of which, in line with the new CB system, princes of the HRE are now allowed to fight each other without incurring the wrath of the Emperor, provided they have a valid Casus Belli.)

Finally, we have the "Imperial Ban" Casus Belli, which the emperor can employ against any non-member country with provinces that are part of the Empire. This only becomes available after a certain reform decision has been taken at the cost of Imperial Authority. (You will have noticed I've mentioned authority a lot. That's because at Paradox, we like authority; especially Johan.)

Now, while the above system is essentially done, the HRE window is unfortunately not, so I cannot provide you with a screenshot of the altered interface. Instead, I will let you feast your eyes on another new feature, cruelly allowing your imaginations to run wild until the next diary entry.

Adieu.
Click to expand...

THIS is the best thing Paradox implemented in EU3 ever. :eek: I`m a huge fan of playing HRE nations, mostly towards Germany/Netherlands, and this will add A LOT of fun ...
 
antracer said:
I would tend to disagree with that. During bad times, during plagues... I imagine alot of people loaded up the wagon and went somewhere else.

Borders of differing nationalities always had friction and intermingling. As humans, it's unavoidable.

Nations with large trade cities had all manner of ideas foreign to them happening around them every day.

Conquering nations spread fear and a different way of thinking/doing in every place they went. Considering the vast empires and travel of the armies of the day, thinking ordinary people couldn't walk that far seems kindof odd.

I'd agree it may be more localized then vs now... And I'd say that heavy trading nations would exhibit the trend alot more than a holed up theocracy... But I wouldn't say that it didn't happen.

Perhaps the historically accurate folk around here could provide a few examples and enlighten us, the poor demographic informationally challenged...:D

T
Click to expand...

I'm aware of what you are talking about, with merchants class foreigners and some of it, but as I was saying, they didn't move in and take over. Sure there were Germans on the Volga, but I think it would be difficult to call the Volga area German by any means. I'm sure Bismark would have had a hard time making claims that the minority of Germans there constituted it as German in culture and ethnicity. Anyways, I think my point went slightly unnoticed. It did happen. What I'm saying is that it would be hard to model this in game without a very complicated POP system like Vicky. Your points are very valid and I'm not going to disagree, I'm just saying the idea proposed off of these points isn't as sound. That's all.
 
antracer said:
I would tend to disagree with that. During bad times, during plagues... I imagine alot of people loaded up the wagon and went somewhere else.

Borders of differing nationalities always had friction and intermingling. As humans, it's unavoidable.

Nations with large trade cities had all manner of ideas foreign to them happening around them every day.

Conquering nations spread fear and a different way of thinking/doing in every place they went. Considering the vast empires and travel of the armies of the day, thinking ordinary people couldn't walk that far seems kindof odd.

I'd agree it may be more localized then vs now... And I'd say that heavy trading nations would exhibit the trend alot more than a holed up theocracy... But I wouldn't say that it didn't happen.

Perhaps the historically accurate folk around here could provide a few examples and enlighten us, the poor demographic informationally challenged...:D
Click to expand...
As a matter of fact it was more widespread than today, that's why we are discussing it's relevance for the game.

Examples of massive movements of peoples:
1) the countless migrations of peoples escaping the black plague
2) the countless expulsions of Jews from virtually every single city, state and country in Europe, repeatedly times, which in part leads to a current day example in 5)
3) the migrations and expulsions due to religious turmoil.
4) the "encouragement" or plain and simply forcing of certain undesirables to go settle in the colonies and empty lands in Europe.
5) The Balkans shows the extent of seeding your population into enemy territory to later take control, what happened recently with Kosovo is proof of that. The very existence of Israel is also a proof of that. (all right, these are current time examples, but you get the point)
6) The Ottomans incursion into the Balkans and Europe during the time is a good example that eventually lead to the current day example in 5)

There are plenty more examples, I'm just tired to write :p
 
Grubnessul said:
Europe and the USA are the richest areas in the world and the population is actually shrinking....

Poor people have more children because of the lower survival rate and to sustain them when they're too old to work. Moreover, it is very very expansive to raise kids in a more wealthy environment as education takes much longer (and is more expansive) e.g. a 6 year old kid can do stupid work in a factory, but is useless as lawyer/engineer etc.
Click to expand...

That's because there are different factors that determine how many children a couple is willing to have.

I believe you are refering to education, not economy. People with more access to education tend to have less children. But within the same education level, people with more money have more children.
 
That'd mean Bill Gates would have spawned an entire legion? Joking aside, I don't really see the logical connection between being more wealthy and having more kids. On the contrary wealthy people have less incentive for more kids.
 
Grubnessul said:
I don't really see the logical connection between being more wealthy and having more kids.
Click to expand...
Remember we're talking about 1399-1821 here, not modern times. So:

1. Without much in the way of contraception, people are going to have big families whatever happens. But if you're poor, half your kids will die before the age of 5. If you're rich, they'll mostly survive to adulthood.

2. Poor people suffer from malnutriton and starvation, which can lower their fertility and mean fewer children. Rich people don't.

3. When times are hard, people tend to get married later. In prosperous times, they marry younger, because they can save up enough money/get a good enough job to support a family earlier. The younger you get married, the more children you'll have.

So it happens naturally in pre-industrial societies: rich people have larger families, and prosperity means a higher birthrate.
 
But, once again, if you are poor, you'll want more children to be your workers, while in the aristocratic circles, it can be more troublesome to have more children, as the inheritance is split thinner the more children there are. The more the merrier, as they say in the lower classes. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back