EU4 - Bonus Development Diary - 5th of May 2017

[Republic of Mercury]

This sentence doesn't make grammatical sense. I'm guessing it should mean; speaking of colonies and liberty desire: Colonial Nations will no longer have higher liberty desire from relative power to their overlord, but instead have a bit more liberty desire from getting tarrifed higher.

alternatively: "Speaking of colonies and liberty desire. Colonial Nations will no longer gain liberty desire from relative power, but instead a bit more from how highly tariffed they are."

 

[Xinkc]

I like this, but doesn't this make life as a merchant Republic even more difficult? Would be nice if MRs could have larger marches as their province limit is already severely limiting their strength and thus need strong vassals to offset that weakness.

Something like a "they can purchase our souls" type of modifier to replace the development one?

 

[Metz]

Hints on map changes? So far France, Britain, and the Low Countries aren't the focus.

 

[Metz]

What would new groups be about? Any ideas?

They should add in all the espionage features based on diplomacy tech. Then use that spare idea group to have one that focuses on mercenaries and privateers. Then you take out the mercenary ideas from the administration group and put them in the mercenary group. This will allow new ideas about development to be put into the administration idea group. Development should be done automatically at a slow rate and ideas that could help are the time it takes to develop and the cost of doing it manually. Magistrates should also be added and be deployed in provinces you want to improve.

 

[Mingmung]

Yesssssss, map changessss.

And while there's something going to happen with partriarchies and Muscovite/Russian social classes, it doesn't necesarrily mean that the map-changes will be about the same region or that the expansion will be focused on something Russian.

 

[Metz]

@Johan

@podcat

Please add a simple option to prevent colonial nations from expanding into neighboring colonial regions (could be a tick box). If we do grant them provinces in colonial regions that aren't theirs, let those new provinces belong to the overlord if less than the 5 needed. If more than the 5 needed, it becomes a new colonial nation in that region. I hate seeing the Caribbean CN expand into South America via Trinidad and Tobago or the Canadian CN expand down into the American CN. I even once had the Caribbean CN eat natives in the east coast and then had a Caribbean CN exclave in the middle of my American CN.

This would make the colonizing aspect a bit more pleasing and reasonable as well as help maintain aesthetic borders.

 

[maledwarfwarior]

As per the discussion previously, I think new idea groups are an excellent idea. Many new kinds of modifiers have been added, and being able to have some of them as any nation (even in small quantities) would be wonderful.

I would personally like an admin group focused on peace-time. Admin & economic seems focused on loans & mercs, religious focuses on crusades & conversion, humanist is mostly useful for the post-conquest consolidation, even innovative has half of it's ideas dedicated to pro-war ideas. Increasing monentary income and offering new ways to spend it while at peace, like how espianoge offered new spy actions, would be a welcome change and encourage gameplay styles that aren't map-painting 101.

For diplomacy ideas a idea group focused on manufacturing might be cool. Things like more goods produced, a flat modifier to goods produced, increased bonuses from trade/strategic goods, development cost, and construction cost. We currently have ideas that help with getting the most trade power & efficiency, but nothing dedicated to making the most goods to trade and I think that's a good gap to fill.

For military I think we need a choice of three mutually exclusive idea groups, one for each land unit type.

Besides making them cheaper & more powerful, cavalry could lower or potentially even remove the insufficient support penalty. Increasing unit speed and reinforcement costs would encourage a "proto-blitzkrieg" style of gameplay that hits fast, hits hard, but requires a lot of money to make work.

Infantry could focus on the idea of "hold the line" reducing damage taken (like irish ideas), more discipline, more morale, making them very hard to break but not giving many offensive advantages. Combing this with defensive forces the enemy into long grueling battles that may see multiple attrition ticks before a victor is declared.

Artillery could combine a emphasis on sieges, defensive and offensive, with artillery damage buffs. The slow but devastating artillery could, with proper usage, win wars against numerically superior opponents.

 

[Martin_Mortyry]

Anyway, why would you need portrait? Flavor is flavor, so why would you need something so small as portrait?

Because there's always a protrait! With what will PDX advertise their expansion? I personally wouldn't mind lack of one; still, I have to admit that I'd feel that something's not right.

Lithuania patch would be cool, because, at some point before start date, Lithuania could become future "Russia". But, hey, they failed it deciding to stay catholic.

Lithuania would still make sense in the timeframe: they owned a huge portion of what used to be Ruthenia, and at one point they were close to conquering the Great Horde. These patches are region, not country focused anyways, so there's no problem at all.

 

[Van der Gent]

That's complete nonsense! Can you imagine aristocrats that decrease their autonomy and concomitantly increase the absolute power of the monarch?

Read this:

Historically this is very reasonable since strong feudal Lords were the forces that mostly upheld and enforced law and order outside of cities. (Sometimes very arbitrarily, but still) It created an efficient (for that time) structure that suppressed the rights and freedoms of most people and created structured and organised system of obligations. It was easier for the crown (government) to control a few noble estates rather than several hundreds individual holdings. Feudalism increases "autonomy" for nobles a little bit but greatly decrease it for the larger mass.

With us knowing only of modern nation states it can be hard to grasp how society worked just 2-300 years ago, but nobility and the church were the cornerstone foundations that society rested upon. Even in areas where the majority of lands were held by free peasants it was the church and nobility that directly or indirectly took care of administration. Even if the bailiff was appointed by the crown he was a feudal noble lord.

The same goes for absolutism, you can give the monarch more power, but someone must enforce it. Doesn't necessarily mean nobles get less power over their estates, but could just be the loss of political power. Without loyal nobles a king can't enforce his rule.

 

[CharlesII]

Resilient Ideas:


Can't think of a Diplo idea group right now, but these seem decent to me. I was also thinking about a possible Theocratic idea group to replace Aristocratic for Theocracies and the Pope, but I can't come up with anything that wouldn't work better as an Admin group than a Mil group. Anyone else come up with something?

Perhaps a Crusader Ideas or something? And hordes need Nomadic Ideas

 

[Van der Gent]

Lithuania patch would be cool, because, at some point before start date, Lithuania could become future "Russia". But, hey, they failed it deciding to stay catholic.

It was either to convert from pagan romuva to orthodoxy or catholicism, not remaining catholic. Had they gone with Orthodoxy they would have become a Russian fief and shortly there after most likely been gobbled up by Poland and/or the Baltic crusader states.

 

[lolada]

Yup @Johan, feel free to change more things. Even if not perfectly balanced it makes the game interesting. Shift, buff, idea groups a bit more. Give more power to cav - army composition is the same for ages. Can we get some tactics behind choosing unit types? Make navy more important, overbuff it if necesarry (buffed blockedes are a good start).

Ideas like Najd +5 missionary power was cool to have. Sad we lost that. It gives something unique to them and to the game.

 

[TheDungen]

Press Sailors
First of all, we're adding a new subject interaction to those of you that owns Mare Nostrum, called Press Sailors. This can be done on colonial nations, and will give you 20% of their sailors immediately, if they have less than 50% liberty desire. Of course, This will increase that by 15%.

"Stop trying to make sailors happen.It's not going to happen."

Speaking of colonies and liberty desire. Colonial Nations will no longer the liberty desire from relative power, but instead a bit more from highly tariffed they are.

Congratulations now no colonial nation will ever break free of their overlord. Will you at least add it to defines so we can mod it to work like it used to? (Or as I like to call is work, period) I mean who ever increases tariffs on colonial nations?

We have also added some aspects to blockades in 1.22. Now blockades will increase devastation, just like sieges does, and blockades block devastation recovery in the same way.

So now blockading sucks slightly less, it's still pretty much pointless. Which goes back to the basic point that every thing in mare nostrum either made the game worse or were pointless. The long awaited naval DLC and it totally bothered everything it tried to do. Pretty much the only Paradox DLC I really really dislike.
Mare nostrum the gift that just keeps on giving you things you didn't want. I guess I should be gad they're at least aware that they screwed up and are trying to improve things, even when I disagree with the direction they are taking things in those fixes

As some of you have noticed, Marches tend to be heavily restricted in multiplayer campaigns, while being somewhat limited in singeplayer. For this, we've changed their limits from a flat 200 development cap to that they must have less than 25% development compared to their overlord. Send Offices have the same limitation as the march bonus now.

Sounds good.

- The Aristocratic Idea Local Nobility now gives global autonomy and yearly absolutism.

Than you should change the name, because local nobility is a feudal thing and feudalism is pretty much the total opposite of absolutism.

 

[Susanna]

Do we have a general idea when 1.22 is headed our way?

 

[AlleyTheToaster]

Aristocratic iseas good now? That yearly absolutism is goooooood.

 

[TheDungen]

Will colonial nations still get liberty desire from their own development? The blockade changes seem nice, I might consider using one of the trade-related CB's just to park a fleet off the coast of someone I dislike, just to see how much damage it does. And the Buddhism-buff is much appreciated.
It's not; they posted the full details of the ideas in another thread the other day.

I figured it wasn't, that said it's what would have made sense, a powerful aristocracy and local nobility would have decreased absolutism and increased local autonomy.

That's complete nonsense! Can you imagine aristocrats that decrease their autonomy and concomitantly increase the absolute power of the monarch?

Yeah it seems that Paradox have some odd ideas about who absolutism is absolute at the expense of. Republics lowering absolutism and aristocracy increasing it. Absolutims mean that the monarch relied more on bureaucrats and other public servants drawn from the people, it was a step on the road to the nation state. The kings relied on the people to deny the nobility the power they had once had.

So when you "relative power," do you mean based on the size of military forces or development? I.e. is this going to make CN liberty desire naturally even higher? (In 1.21, I've already found that I dare not do more than one tariff increase because of the greatly increased liberty desire from development.)

Well I think the idea that the colonial nations would not at some point want their independence fairly odd. When they start outnumbering the populations in their homeland it's logical they'd either dominate them or break free. Anything else is pure fantasy.
I fear this will mean that colonial nations will no longer break free. Here I was hoping for events in the age of revolutions where colonial nations got a massively bumped LD.

Yes, we really need more sailors. Anyone ever run out of them?

Well there was this one time I forgot my navy at sea for a decade, then I almost ran out. Honestly, all sailors do is force you to micro more.

Next patch - Russia patch? Yes? Yes?! YES?!

No.

They were pointless before - I like them now.

They're still pointless unless you're an OPM, and screwing over OMPs more in the naval game is the last thing the game needs. It's snowbally enough as it is. Not that it matters in the naval game because the entire naval game is pretty pointless.

Read this:

Yeah except that's not what either of those terms mean.

Aristocratic iseas good now? That yearly absolutism is goooooood.

It's also totally wrong for a set which is about empowering the nobility. Absolutism was about removing the power of the nobility.

 

[Metroidkirby]

for a set which is about empowering the nobility

And why wouldn't it be about managing the nobility? There is never only one way to view things

 

[Van der Gent]

Yeah except that's not what either of those terms mean.

Well then, it would be helpful for both me and everyone else, if you would mention what terms you are refering to and in what way I'm misinterpreting them and what you suppose they mean.

Btw, just pressing the disagree button and saying I'm wrong and nothing more is just douchey and doesn't in any way contribute to a constructive discussion. It's helpful to all if you explain what you mean. Even if we still disagree afterwards (which I actually don't know if we do), it still allows for others to better form an opinion.

 

[TheDungen]

And why wouldn't it be about managing the nobility? There is never only one way to view things

Because that's not what aristocracy means.

Well then, it would be helpful for both me and everyone else, if you would mention what terms you are refering to and in what way I'm misinterpreting them and what you suppose they mean.

Btw, just pressing the disagree button and saying I'm wrong and nothing more is just douchey and doesn't in any way contribute to a constructive discussion. It's helpful to all if you explain what you mean. Even if we still disagree afterwards (which I actually don't know if we do), it still allows for others to better form an opinion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_monarchy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism
And autonomy means the autonomy of the people in charge of the province, that is never the people in this era democracy as we think of it simply does not exist. Even constitutional and revolutionary republics are ones like the US, what amnesty international calls flawed democracies.

 

[AlleyTheToaster]

It's also totally wrong for a set which is about empowering the nobility. Absolutism was about removing the power of the nobility.

ikr, maybe they need to change the flavor text. But bonuses are kinda good.