Heir to the Throne - Dev Diary 6

[OliverFA]

If we remove the 'wasteland' tag from a province does it turn it into a colonizable zone? Are they split up at the same province density as the rest of the map or are they huge?

It might be really cool if the wasteland tag could be removed IN GAME by event or something to represent advancing technology.

I guess you could even give the 'wasteland' tag a numerical rating from 1-100 and have it automatically become available at certain tech levels. I.E.:
At land tech level 25 you can access wasteland provinces rated below 30 at land tech 40 you could access below 60 etc.

Colonization could be slowed a bit that way by making non-coastal provinces all start with a low wasteland value which eventually gets removed by rising tech levels.

Great idea! Maybe is not too late to implement it, or at least leave the door open to enable modders to do it.

[OliverFA]

Sheesh! They're already planning more EU3 expansions!

And I am planning to buy them!

[antracer]

Finally seeing the diplomatic/non war side of the game being brought up to a level of sophistication that merits play by itself...
That makes for much happiness, even being the war monger I be.

And indeed, London should be a port.

Very much looking forwards to this.

T

PS: Thank You Dag Stålhandske for the explanations... They were very helpful.

[t0m]

and indeed, london should be a port.

yes!

[Elthian]

Yea london should be a port. It was one of the largest wharfs of the world IIRC. The dutch beat the english in a war once by sailing up the thames and destroying their London wharfs. It must have been important if they lost a war because of it.

[Cityinthesea]

Looks great, but tbh i fear this whole legitimacy thing isnt what i was waiting for exactly. I thought the system should be more based on actual family trees. This looks more like its based on stability/inner politics. Hope i am wrong.
I wanna fight and inheritance war because my ruler traces back his roots to a grand grand cousin of the died ruler of the other country.

go play CK then

[Lys91]

As far as Poitou, according to link below, it was ruled as a French vassel until 1403:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count_of_Poitiers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John,_Duke_of_Berry

I can't find proof right now about Maine. I will search more later.

Ok I see it, it was ruled by one of the Prince.

I think to down france it will be better to do some event that model the period, but maybe the new distany system and some work on interaction with vassal can do the job.

[Shackel]

Sounds like it's going to be much easier to mod with this one. If someone wants to play without impassibles, then all they'll need is to edit a few lines(for each prov.)

[FrenzyOne]

Quote:
Originally Posted by English Patriot
Surely legitimacy should increase with each new King (of the same dynasty).

It´s more about who´s married to who and who gets a child with whom. Most of a countries noble would have some kind of lineage connecting them with a King/Queen in history. It doesn´t even come downs to whether your married to a foreign dynasty or not, because most dynasties in Europe had claims on eachother. It was a total mess of sorting out who had the strongest claims. I´m also very interested if you can actually manipulate the inheritances and succession wars more?

+1 On port in london.

[Dafool]

+1 to a port for London as well.

I was pretty close to my guess for magistrates. I'm really hoping these provincial decisions will make my realm more dynamic. Right now after I conquer a province, that's it. That or I just wait for a core and then the culture converting event. If it truly makes managing the nation more interesting and it allows for more options on a small scale level, I will be quite pleased.

The removal of PTI doesn't blow my mind though. It's mostly aesthetic, so not much to say there.

Like a few others, I'm still curious about how intricate this dynasty system is going to be. I'm not hoping for CK by any means, but I do enjoy the idea of trying to set up PUs and similar situations as long term goals without having to just use "claim throne + war" to achieve it.

[6354201]

Game developers don't really care if things make sense.

I hope you're being facetious

All the changes that are being introduced look great so far, I can't wait for the game to be released.

[Capt. Kiwi]

Me likes.

A query to those who want London to be a port, will it upset game balance much if you can invade directly? I haven't played enough to know myself, having only played a couple of partial games while I wait for 3.2 or HttT. But I know that in other Paradox releases, eg Victoria, it would make life ridiculously easy for a human player. So what would be the effect in EU3? If that isn't a problem, it would be a nice touch.

[Herr Doctor]

Ah, this legitimacy future is absolutely great. I have to say that I am starting to like HTTT more and more... Well done. Hope that this could simulate historical role of dynasties and monarchy quite well.

[Duke of Bavaria]

go play CK then

I actually do, but if a good dynasty system is incorpareted into EU III it has the potential to knock CK off the Throne as my favourite game. Man this game has gone a long way, vanilla EU III was such a sandbox hell and now with the new expansion and a port to MM it should be the best game EVER. Just give the dynasties some love and real feel.

[James The 1st]

+1 for London port.

[Maldenic]

As to all the former Merchant Republics, as various people have said, they seem to have become monarchies.

Is this just temporary, while you decide what kind of republics to turn them into? Or are they actually monarchies now?

[Lambert Simnel]

Excellent point, London was one of England's main comercial ports (if not THE main port) for a long time and long before Gloucester, Liverpool or Bristol developed. As BritNavFan says, London's docks were only recently made obsolete (last 50-60 years?) and were certainly in serious use throughout the EU3 period.

Also, it isn't practical to cross from Kent to East Anglia East of London (at least not until the Dartford Tunnel was opened in 1963), so those two provinces shouldn't be connected.

[SapientHomo]

Also, it isn't practical to cross from Kent to East Anglia East of London (at least not until the Dartford Tunnel was opened in 1963), so those two provinces shouldn't be connected.

Considering some straights wider than the Thames are given adjacencies it IS practical.

[FrenzyOne]

Me likes.

A query to those who want London to be a port, will it upset game balance much if you can invade directly? I haven't played enough to know myself, having only played a couple of partial games while I wait for 3.2 or HttT. But I know that in other Paradox releases, eg Victoria, it would make life ridiculously easy for a human player. So what would be the effect in EU3? If that isn't a problem, it would be a nice touch.

The only problem with beating england is beating their navy. If you can´t do that you can´t land troops anywhere in england and if you can you own them already so it wouldn´t alter game balance to their disadvantage by having coastal capital.

[Andrelvis]

Regarding the Amazon river, the problem is that there wasn't gold there, as there isn't today, so regardless the fact that eu3 is a what-if game, if you add gold where there wasn't you are not changing the course of history, you are playing on another medieval Earth.

It was one of the axis of Portuguese settlement in the Americas, it's got to be colonizable. Any decent political map of the world of the times will show Portuguese possessions mainly in the coast of Brazil and throughout the Amazon river.