Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations - Dev Diary 10: Balance Changes

So, you're being penalized for conquest and you're being penalized for diplo-annexing? And you HAVE to keep large armies at home doing nothing because otherwise rebels will overrun your country? Well, I guess that means goodbye to offensive warfare in EU4 from now on, or am I missing something here?

Phoenix VII said:

The Dutch Rebellion was more of an Independence War.

Click to expand...

An independance war from 3 province pitted against super-austria is something you'd never be able to win with the current gameplay ....

Darkath said:

If your military doctrine is based on giving pikes to peasants and sending them to their death on the battlefield, you shouldn't be suprised if they aren't much more effective than the actual peasants rebelling on your cropfields

Likewise if your military doctrine is based on heavy training, advanced formations and constant drilling of your troops, that doesn't mean that the peasant who just took up arms benefited of the same drilling.

Click to expand...

Why same unit types then? You seriously believe any peasant taken from a cropfield yesterday will make a good carolean soldier tomorrow?

Phoenix VII said:

Why should they? How does it make any sense that a group which has a following in 1-5 provinces can recruit more people than you can with the rest of your country? Maybe if the land you just conquered is wealthier by itself than what you had before taking over them, but otherwise no. Stronger rebellions are going to screw over the AI, increase time between conquests by who knows how many years (depending on exactly how much stronger they are), and make rebels all the more annoying. I don't see how stronger rebellions bring anything positive to gameplay.

Click to expand...

Because rebels are common people fighting for themselves against, usually, foreigners. Soldiers are very expensive dudes fighting for a ruler. In fact the armies where not that big in the renaissance because of the costs. If I remember well Castile send for the italian wars against France something like 6000 men. Was the same in the in the 80 years war. From a historical point of view is insane seen Spain sending doomstacks to the Netherlands. Maybe Spain was a bigger country than the united provinces. But that doesn't mean thousands of spaniards will gladly enter in the army and try to reach those cold lands in the north to fight a pointless war against heretics, but the "rebels" were fighting for freedom, so yeah, it actually make sense rebels having bigger numbers than the oppressors.

Wiz, did you guys rebalance the demand for goods too? I was just thinking that with the changes to the amount of goods produced certain goods that are usually produced in high tax provinces (like wine) will have a much larger supply and if the demand remained the same, the increased production will have no real effect.

Cpt. Fabri said:

Because rebels are common people fighting for themselves against, usually, foreigners. Soldiers are very expensive dudes fighting for a ruler. In fact the armies where not that big in the renaissance because of the costs. If I remember well Castile send for the italian wars against France something like 6000 men. Was the same in the in the 80 years war. From a historical point of view is insane seen Spain sending doomstacks to the Netherlands. Maybe Spain was a bigger country than the united provinces. But that doesn't mean thousands of spaniards will gladly enter in the army and try to reach those cold lands in the north to fight a pointless war against heretics, but the "rebels" were fighting for freedom, so yeah, it actually make sense rebels having bigger numbers than the oppressors.

Click to expand...

Historical point of view has no use here.

Conquered 20 base tax country can produce 60k armed and supplied men in the very start of the game, if rebellion chance is high enough. Your freshly developed colony can produce more rebels than the whole population of your colony, if rebellion chance is high enough. How it is sane?

Johan said:

You liked having events with either +2 stab or -1 prestige?

OR an eventchain that had a 3% chance to occur?

Click to expand...

The whole game is full of ridiculous events like that with no-brainer choices. The question is who is goofy enough to create such events in the first place.

Cpt. Fabri said:

Because rebels are common people fighting for themselves against, usually, foreigners. Soldiers are very expensive dudes fighting for a ruler. In fact the armies where not that big in the renaissance because of the costs. If I remember well Castile send for the italian wars against France something like 6000 men. Was the same in the in the 80 years war. From a historical point of view is insane seen Spain sending doomstacks to the Netherlands. Maybe Spain was a bigger country than the united provinces. But that doesn't mean thousands of spaniards will gladly enter in the army and try to reach those cold lands in the north to fight a pointless war against heretics, but the "rebels" were fighting for freedom, so yeah, it actually make sense rebels having bigger numbers than the oppressors.

Click to expand...

Actually, the Spaniards fielded 15,000 at the Battle of Garigliano (1503) while France had 23,000 in the same battle. And Spain's Army of Flanders numbered 20,000 in 1567. While logistics were a limiting factor for armies on campaign, France and Spain were capable of fielding large armies. And by 1589, the Dutch had a paid, professional army of their own under William Louis and Maurice. IMO, trying to compare the Dutch in the Eighty Years' War to rebellions is faulty...the Dutch held territory, had a civil government, and had an organized military. Rebellions in EU4 don't start holding land, don't have a civil government, and aren't professional troops. And EU4-type rebellions don't historically have a good track record.

Phoenix VII said:

Actually, the Spaniards fielded 15,000 at the Battle of Garigliano (1503) while France had 23,000 in the same battle. And Spain's Army of Flanders numbered 20,000 in 1567. While logistics were a limiting factor for armies on campaign, France and Spain were capable of fielding large armies. And by 1589, the Dutch had a paid, professional army of their own under William Louis and Maurice. IMO, trying to compare the Dutch in the Eighty Years' War to rebellions is faulty...the Dutch held territory, had a civil government, and had an organized military. Rebellions in EU4 don't start holding land, don't have a civil government, and aren't professional troops. And EU4-type rebellions don't historically have a good track record.

Click to expand...

But in game the dutch can't raise a 40 000 man strong army based on 4 provinces. If the rebellion was represented as a war between a newly created netherland, and a (often) gigormous austria, there would be no fight at all an no annoyance at all. The rebel country would immediately be crushed.

jrk264 said:

Free? I don't remember diplo annexation being free. In my experience the vassal takes up a diplomatic relations slot, returning cores cost diplomatic points, and actually integrating the country required tying up a diplomat for years, both for the annexation and to improve relations.

Click to expand...

I'm SURE Paradox has thought through all these issues carefully! Maybe they've adjusted it so returning cores isn't prohibitively expensive anymore? And vassals don't take a diplomatic relations slot? And diplomatic reputation will surely have some other use?

I mean, it's not like they have a reputation of unintended consequences with major changes to fundamental game mechanics.

Oh wait, never mind...

Lots of changes; definitely a fan of the unit pip change. I'm very interested to see how it will all play out. Looking forward to next week!

Darkath said:

But in game the dutch can't raise a 40 000 man strong army based on 4 provinces. If the rebellion was represented as a war between a newly created netherland, and a (often) gigormous austria, there would be no fight at all an no annoyance at all. The rebel country would immediately be crushed.

Click to expand...

I agree. But from what I remember Nationalist rebellions in the Dutch provinces already spawn approx. 15-20k per province, so I don't think they need a buff.

Phoenix VII said:

I agree. But from what I remember Nationalist rebellions in the Dutch provinces already spawn approx. 15-20k per province, so I don't think they need a buff.

Click to expand...

Since those are event-spawned rebellions they probably aren't affected by the changes.

Instead of rebels the country itself should revolt (or if the country is big - a part of it .. the parts with high revolt risk) with some soldiers. I think at some point this happens with the dutch as well ? So instead of Bulgarian rebels, Bulgaria itself (4 provinces?) should revolt against the turks.

The change to non-western culture units, their improvement through technology and effect of westernization, is something I have wanted to see since EUIII. Glad to see it making its way into the game!

Hmm, in terms of hordes, the Hordes are still rolled up like cheap cigars but it takes a little longer to reach that level, combined with the production good change, conquering the hordes is no longer as profitable as it was. Still, it is profitable enough to go stomping through the steppe.

misterbean said:

So, you're being penalized for conquest and you're being penalized for diplo-annexing? And you HAVE to keep large armies at home doing nothing because otherwise rebels will overrun your country? Well, I guess that means goodbye to offensive warfare in EU4 from now on, or am I missing something here?

Click to expand...

Nope, just making it possible to wreck your country if you expand brainlesly, and by that making more economical or balanced strategies worthwhile.

Andy_Dandy said:

Nope, just making it possible to wreck your country if you expand brainlesly, and by that making more economical or balanced strategies worthwhile.

Click to expand...

The problem is that - as much as I would love it - there are no "balanced strategies". Either you play conquering or you stare at the screen. And the devs keep rejecting every chance of changing this wargame into a grand strategy game, but still restricting warfare. If there's a cunning plan afoot, I can't see it.

And the current version of "is there a +1 statesman I can afford?" for small nations isn't even more luck based? Or are you going to try and claim that having a statesman has no real effect on diplo-annexation so it isn't the same thing?

Click to expand...

I found the overpowering impact of the statesmen compared to other non-MP advisor bonuses rather distasteful too. However, removing one piece of nonsense does not mean that it can/should be replaced with more luck-based nonsense, especially given the restrictive nature of rivalry selection making alliances more difficult to attain (such that the statesman is still going to be something people need for some starts ffs).

- AI can see through fog of war, but pretends it can't in most cases.

Click to expand...

Sorry but no way lol. I've used this cheat against the AI so many times, getting it to lift sieges by "threatening" it with a stack 3+ provinces into the fog that it can't possibly see. In a lot of cases the AI cheating in this way can be used against it, making it form up and take attrition while sieging slower and setting it up.

Hmm, in terms of hordes, the Hordes are still rolled up like cheap cigars but it takes a little longer to reach that level, combined with the production good change, conquering the hordes is no longer as profitable as it was. Still, it is profitable enough to go stomping through the steppe.

Click to expand...

Not exactly. Player hordes got massively buffed by accident. Their income is less, but don't forget that they can build other-tech troops in western cores. Historically, this never had any staying power, because from techs 12-20 cavalry was utter crap compared to infantry, with infantry slightly better than the steppe cavalry after tech 9.

Now, however, cavalry and infantry is closer in pips, so building "lowest pip unit" means that you can train troops on par with that of your opponents, consistently. The monarch point luck **** drain makes the horde ability to manipulate its rulers stronger too. It might be the strongest non-western group due to the ability to abuse home-field shock and the government.

WeissRaben said:

The problem is that - as much as I would love it - there are no "balanced strategies". Either you play conquering or you stare at the screen. And the devs keep rejecting every chance of changing this wargame into a grand strategy game, but still restricting warfare. If there's a cunning plan afoot, I can't see it.

Click to expand...

Well, I just don't agree with you that anything but warfare is just staring at the screen. I also do not agree with you this is or should be only a wargame (like for instance Total War-series mostly are). If this game had the rate of expansion as that game, and shared it's narrow diplomatic rules, I'd never play it.