EU4 - Development Diary - 10th of January 2017

[Canute VII]

Hey @Johan I Have a little suggestion:

1st: Make Eras not just be triggered by an event but by actions in game and let nations lag behind (like triggered modifiers).
Example: Reformation be triggered by the Trent Council and you advance to this era if you embrace the reformation or the counter . (maybe then i'll try to pick this then).

2nd make a "0 Era" for RoTW and other places like Eastern Europe with generic objetives and rewards. (just like feudalism is the basic instituition)
(Austria doesn't fit in Exploration era neither Russia in Reformation).

3rd Make possible to you interfere in how the world evolves.
ex: take away that event that gives the Catholicism to become the true religion in the HRE by "free" when time passes (let them fight), giving the player chance to fight many times to end this Era in a "Religious Peace" only (plz take that requirement to be protestant and make it "be the same religion of the HRE").

Ideas:
Exploration: Take Exploration Idea.
Reformation: Be Protestant or Embrace the Counter Refom. EDIT: It ends (and can't be get again) if the religious war ends in white peace.
Absolutism: Become an Absolute Monarchy
Revolution: Be an Monarchy and not an Constitutional one.

Well, yeah, if we must have Ages, then why not make them Tag-specific? Spain could have it's exploration age and brandenburg its reformation age (at the same time, I mean). While I'm at it: why not make Ages and Institution exactly the SAME thing?

If I'm Castille, hey, I will get colonialism institution first for sure: wow, now I'm in the age of colonialism (i.e. exploration)! 50 years later: oh, wait, that printing press (i.e. reformation) institution is coming around - hm, should I really embrace it, for I will loose my splendor and the nice abilities I've unlocked? Maybe not so fast....!

So this would actually give reason, NOT to embrace institutions as quickly and still buff those that come first or are the most determined, which ever.

(I'm just brain-storming, obviously)

 

[TheDarkMaster]

Welp, this age system is absolutely horrible for new world nations. In the first age, there are 3 of the 7 objectives you can really achieve. In this one, none of them are really do-able.

Heck, in non-Europe nations you're instantly blocked from getting the protestant/reformed conversion one and may not be able to force convert other nations, depending on where you are and what religion you follow (ex: Copts won't find many nearby Christians to force convert, Hindus only option is to target Sikhs after they spawn and manage to convert a nation).

Seriously, why can't we have different goals for different religions, governments, or tech groups so that Western Europe isn't the only place that can achieve almost everything?

EDIT: It seems that we will be getting alternative goals, however that news was done very low key and was easy to miss.

Link: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...f-discovery-update-19th-december-2016.989849/

Near as I can tell, we haven't been told what those alternative goals will be yet.

 

[atomnoy]

in comparison to age of colonialism all bonuses are ignorable. İn age of colonialism portugal gets settler bonusbut spain gets shock damage protection. Ottos gets 33 Siege, plc + 1 legitimacy. Mughals gets useless Bonus and İ have played 1000+ hours and ı have never seen mughals formed. But ı will buy this dlc anyway bcuz ottos gonna be stronger and ı am turkish player. Open golden age 1480 and By 1530 ı can conquer all of poland persia whole northern africa and iberia. Theoretically ı can claim from beijing to paris with age Bonus. Age of reformation nice but not enough.

 

[Camtheman]

Gee paradox sure creates a lot of work for us modders to remove all the garbage mechanics they carelessly heap on every version... ugh.

Aren't these already in instutitions? One could apply the bonuses to institutions and have the very same effects. What a racket.

We've got institutions++ now lol...

 

[grommile]

Seriously, why can't we have different goals for different religions, governments, or tech groups so that Western Europe isn't the only place that can achieve almost everything?

We will be getting that to some extent; there's a non-Dev Diary thread saying so and providing an example.

 

[PedroLuiz]

Welp, this age system is absolutely horrible for new world nations. In the first age, there are 3 of the 7 objectives you can really achieve. In this one, none of them are really do-able.

Heck, in non-Europe nations you're instantly blocked from getting the protestant/reformed conversion one and may not be able to force convert other nations, depending on where you are and what religion you follow (ex: Copts won't find many nearby Christians to force convert, Hindus only option is to target Sikhs after they spawn and manage to convert a nation).

Seriously, why can't we have different goals for different religions, governments, or tech groups so that Western Europe isn't the only place that can achieve almost everything?

There are RoTW objectives only

 

[PedroLuiz]

Well, yeah, if we must have Ages, then why not make them Tag-specific? Spain could have it's exploration age and brandenburg its reformation age (at the same time, I mean). While I'm at it: why not make Ages and Institution exactly the SAME thing?

If I'm Castille, hey, I will get colonialism institution first for sure: wow, now I'm in the age of colonialism (i.e. exploration)! 50 years later: oh, wait, that printing press (i.e. reformation) institution is coming around - hm, should I really embrace it, for I will loose my splendor and the nice abilities I've unlocked? Maybe not so fast....!

So this would actually give reason, NOT to embrace institutions as quickly and still buff those that come first or are the most determined, which ever.

(I'm just brain-storming, obviously)

I Would Prefer Instituitions inside Eras, i like this way to divide the world
Also, makes no sense to one of the most advanced troops in Europe disapears, like "Oh we have printers now, we must disband the tercios and starting using normal troops"

 

[PedroLuiz]

The problem with having triggered ages is that you could potentially force an age to end to remove an advantage from a opponent. Or try to keep people from doing the triggers for the next one to keep your own advantage.

This is Exactly WHY i want this way of changing, Empires doing anything to keep their decandents Empires in their golden age is one of the biggest issues that lack in games

 

[TheDarkMaster]

We will be getting that to some extent; there's a non-Dev Diary thread saying so and providing an example.

Thanks, I hadn't seen that so it was nice to find out that they're going to include that. It was easy to miss though.

Link: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...f-discovery-update-19th-december-2016.989849/

 

[atomnoy]

I just realized that in Age of reformation makes denmark most overpovered nation in The world. They can be protestant, force convert someone and they can take religious ideas for sure. İnfluence and administrative ideas are pretty good for any Expansion. Denmark starts with two Personal unions and can feed them easily, can conquer british isles and conquer russia for forming russia. İts unique position makes them easiest nation for forming Russia. Now russia gets %30 from age Bonus, 20 from oprichina, 25 from full religious and 20 from policy equal to; 30+20+25+20= 95 . -%95 culture conversion cost is now achievable change culture 22 Development province Kazan for 11 diplomatic points.

 

[PedroLuiz]

Well, yeah, if we must have Ages, then why not make them Tag-specific? Spain could have it's exploration age and brandenburg its reformation age (at the same time, I mean). While I'm at it: why not make Ages and Institution exactly the SAME thing?

Cause it would be hard and complicated (also nonsense).
EDIT: I refertomakeanyone having it own custom era

 

[TanksAhoy]

It's been ages since I've posted on this forum but I felt the need to add a +1 to the disappointment here. This looks like the first EUIV DLC I wouldn't even buy on sale. The Ages mechanic seems like a lazily thought out bit of feature bloat. It feels like instead of me basing my strategy on situations arising in the game, I will be basing it on one of these objectives because it's on my Ages shopping list.

As for splendour, I don't see why this game needs even more abstract currencies (on top of monarch, power projection etc) to spend on bonuses. I know the game just boils down to numbers but it really takes away from the immersion in the game. Oh and 'click to start golden age'.. yikes..

 

[Roxas15]

Yikes. I guess I'm in the really tiny minority of players that like what I've been reading/seeing.

Complaints about the game being Eurocentric are ridiculous though. It's very name is Europa Universalis. Not Americas Universalis or Asia Universalis. Dynamic gameplay is great, something that every game should try to embrace somewhere, but I still expect some things to be leaning more eurocentric.

No. Eu4 is not as eurocentric as the previous games. you can play every nation on world and they add features for all continents. the name eu4 is picked bec of the previous title names not bec its all about europe. same as ck2 is not all about crusades, that feature became even secondary.

 

[Nutcracker]

Not much in that age for the Orthodox man.

 

[LS22]

Hate the Ages mechanic. It just forces you to play to the same goals in the game, making it very railroaded, and all games look like the same. I don't care what else you put in the game besides this mechanic.

 

[RagingJaws]

No. Eu4 is not as eurocentric as the previous games. you can play every nation on world and they add features for all continents. the name eu4 is picked bec of the previous title names not bec its all about europe. same as ck2 is not all about crusades, that feature became even secondary.

Clearly I should have used a different term, as eurocentric triggers all of you, even if I'm going out of my way on multiple occasions to mean there shouldn't be parity without effort on the part of nations controlled by the player. That or the flu is muddling with my reasoning.

Regarding CKII, there isn't parity between the religions, which is 1/2 of the real driving force and separating factor between kingdoms and empires. Catholics crusade better than any other (disregarding very early Hindu's), reformed Pagans don't holy war all that well, and Jihads are somewhere in the middle. There isn't real complaining about that, despite the fact that Crusades (or their counterparts) are an ever present driving force of change and challenge to a player. Hardly a secondary feature. It's a complimentary feature, meshing well with other things in the game.

Which is what I think Ages will be. Another feature, just like the mission system, that can allow for planned goals/guides a player (or ignored, if the player so chooses), that highlights a select few nations with extra benefits and gives others something as well. That people keep thinking they HAVE to chase each Ages expectation to have a good game is just stupid. You don't HAVE to do that. The game isn't going to end suddenly. You're only railroaded in your mind. You can completely ignore the Ages mechanic.

But, I've noticed that EU4 players (or at least the most common posters I've read) seem almost manic in their desperation to get every conceivable bonus or advantage for their played nation and throw a fit if it's easier for European starts. It's a little bizarre, like playing sub optimally is somehow a really terrible thing.

 

[Republic of Mercury]

I just realized that in Age of reformation makes denmark most overpovered nation in The world. They can be protestant, force convert someone and they can take religious ideas for sure. İnfluence and administrative ideas are pretty good for any Expansion. Denmark starts with two Personal unions and can feed them easily, can conquer british isles and conquer russia for forming russia. İts unique position makes them easiest nation for forming Russia. Now russia gets %30 from age Bonus, 20 from oprichina, 25 from full religious and 20 from policy equal to; 30+20+25+20= 95 . -%95 culture conversion cost is now achievable change culture 22 Development province Kazan for 11 diplomatic points.

You could still do that starting as Muscowy. Not sure if 100 years of cheap culture conversion is that great though.

 

[TheDungen]

This is Exactly WHY i want this way of changing, Empires doing anything to keep their decandents Empires in their golden age is one of the biggest issues that lack in games

It forces you to play the games rules rather than play the game. Interact with the specifics of those rules instead of acting in a rational way. Of course the same can be said for the timed ones.

 

[FireKahuna]

It would be nice if 1.20 added Game Rules to EU4, one of the best additions to CK2. Sometimes I want campaigns with the Mongols and the Black Death arriving at their historical dates , sometimes I don't, so how about more customisation for EU4?
I personally prefer using historical nations but the nation designer was a great addition, and I gather very popular, and having a choice between historical/railroaded or ahistorical/dynamic ages would be much appreciated.
Game Rules:
Ages: Historical, Dynamic, Off.
Institutions: Historical, Restricted, Dynamic.
And many more options...

Since the Age of Reformation begins in 1530, will it have any affect on reform desire? since a few patches no matter what I choose with the events the reformation almost always begins before 1500, it felt more dynamic in the past, I think I managed to get it in 1521 with an earlier patch. Currently, in my games, it's consistently too early for my liking, same with the league wars. Again, more customisable range and options would be nice so I can adjust it for my various campaigns.

Sometimes I may want more historical Ages campaigns, sometimes I may not...

This. This 1000%. Game Rules for CK2 solved so many of my problems with the game, creating a much more enjoyable playthrough.

All this debate about railroading, history and dynamism would be solved with a Game Rules feature that let you choose how things spread. Move existing 'Lucky nations' rules and such into the system. Move the development values into the system. Then add more.

Want a game where the New World starts with advanced empires and feudalism? Game Rule: New World: Powerful. Want a non westernized China, or to convert a save to Vic 2 with historical institutions/westernization? Game Rule: Institutions: Historical. Want a game where Ming likely wont implode and starts mass blobbing? Game Rule: Manchu Invasion: Dynamic.

Let us choose, and you please multiple groups at once.

 

[durbal]

Game rules just distorts balance and removes it from the concern of developers. It's a fun idea for Mario Party, not for grand strategy games.

CK2 had it added because PDX refused to remove terrible mechanics that they put into the Conclave patch and just entirely gave up on any kind of rework or balance to core mechanics. I hope EU4 doesn't have the same fate.

Once developers can just add whatever nonsense they want into the game without concern over existing mechanics it dies. (See CK2 and the next DLC with features like a Diablo stash and sorceror spells.) Sadly, the Ages mechanic feels eerily close.