Will these provinces act similar to land connections? For example: If I'm Castile, and I take Egypt, but Cairo has a land connection with Cairo, will Cairo receive full base tax?
Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations - Dev Diary 10: Balance Changes
- Thread starter Wizzington
- Start date
-
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.
Agreed. I'm a conqueror, and that's what I want to do in my game. I get great satisfaction when I'm able to fight off enemies, whittle them down, and take over chunks of the map. As long as 1.6 allows me to still do this, then the mechanics are just that... mechanics.
Saving DIP? Don't make a joke here. A Two provinces vassal will typically cost you 150 DIP in 10 months with the new mechanics. Event without any bonus, you can annex that nation in 143 months with the old system. So you pay 133 DIP for that extra Diplomatic slot. Which one is cheaper?
Last edited:
MIL points are already the least utilized of the three MPs, now that we have to choose between spending ADM or DIP to expand, I feel like they're going to be ridiculously plentiful by comparison.
they want you to harsh treatment everything like the ai now. they said that in the stream, and its implied with the rebel buff
I'd say it is rebalancing. Rich areas like Europe will become much richer and poor areas will become much poorer.
... which they already were, since Europe is much more province-dense than the other continents.
Right...it costs DIP...and whether you're an OPM or a globe spanning blob, it will cost both 150 DPM to diploannex a 10BT vassal.
Did you not read what I quoted or the first sentence of my response?
I'm with you. Adding more MP costing things without really changing the RNG basis of MP generation or adding additional MP generation (we'll see how power projection plays out) is a design weakness.
Saying this disproportionately ruins "small nations" is totally missing the point.
The question is how much they were. As the game does not aim to accurately model the real word, the difference should be taken from gameplay perspective.
I was wrong though, it is nerf indeed and Europe got richer only relatively. Used this data: http://www.eu4wiki.com/List_of_Provinces.
Overall, by the new rules the world's total goods will be ~1023, if the wiki has accurate list of provinces and if they did not change number of provinces/their base taxes.
By the old rules it would be total goods of 1492.
For the continents (old/new/difference):
Don't forget that it will affect manpowe accrodingly. And currently base Manpowers already are:
While I am aware that Americas and Oceania were mostly sparsely populated areas, I don't think that Africa and Asia should be that behind of Europe. Or at all.
Last edited:
That's not true; monarch point income is more noisy for small nations than large ones on average, as a greater % of their monarch points is sourced by ruler alone. By taking a model that was not luck dependent at all (vassal annex) and tying to one where the point distribution is not uniform (DIP expenditure), the game switches from a uniform tradeoff vs coring to one that is similarly luck dependent. As large nations have less noise, it *is* a relative nerf to small ones.
If this makes castillian hokkaido and siberia no longer a thing then hoofrickingray
I said it before. Tons of cities in Europe, a few province in Asia. Therefore, the population and taxes of Europe more than Asia in the game
o
I said it before. Tons of cities in Europe, a few province in Asia. Therefore, the population and taxes of Europe more than Asia in the game
Okay, I am not sure if you opposing me or not, so I just will delete my message.
Anyway, both from gameplay-wise and population estimations of this age, I don't think that Africa and Asia should suck so much. These are already poor no man's lands, why making them such far worse? At least about manpower these should be on-par, and Asia even better than Europe.
Last edited:
I know they've already said 'yes', but I wish it were 'no'. I think that Spain would find it much easier to rule parts of Northern Africa than Scandinavia, and that should be reflected by the conquered provinces having lower tax, manpower, etc.
Most changes look good.
I am concerned about lake of variety in the early game
But overall I look forward to the 30th when the game is released.
I am concerned about lake of variety in the early game
But overall I look forward to the 30th when the game is released.
Solution
1.Using mod that add a lot provinces in Asia/other places.
2.Waiting for the next, next and next....... East Asia DLC. Maybe PDS/PDX will remake the world map to give Asia more provinces
Last edited:
Solution
1.Using mod that add a lot provinces in Asia/other places.
2.Waiting for the next next and next....... East Asia DLC. Maybe PDS/PDX remakes the world map to give Asia more provinces
Well this particular one can be addressed just by increasing base manpower.
Basically, what I see from here is that it is such balanced solely as nerfing colonizers and expanders.
Last edited:
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?
Personally I'm with Sopbucket. The only real issue with the changes is the lack of ways to burn mil points.