EU4 - Development Diary - 12th of May 2016

[Emperior Mao]

Chinese tech should have 90% starting tech cost, + percentage missing legitimacy as additional tech cost, + 5% increases for every 10 years start from 1450 until fully westernized, capped at 60%. The numbers should be tested, but I think this can be a really good idea.

 

[CaptComrade]

Something other to do than paint a map would be nice

 

[GMOEU]

Well, historically speaking, not all that much was done regarding economic development during the period.


The existence of mods which solve a problem does not invalidate criticism of that problem in the base game.

Just for the record - wasn't trying to invalidate your comment. Just letting you know such a mod exists.

 

[DanubianCossak]

Something other to do than paint a map would be nice

Such as?

 

[Clonefusion]

Such as?

Building buildings on it, reforming laws of it, encouraging production on it, encouraging trade on it, educate the population on it, train the population on it, extending mines, building dikes or bridges on it.

 

[SPAMbuca]

Some more influence on your dynasty for monarchies would be nice. Don't randomly hand us heirs with random statistics and ages. Maybe a family tree in which you can select your heir at the cost of legitimacy if you do not pick the eldest surviving son? A lot of them can still die off like in real history, inflicting more modifiers on legitimacy. Picking a regent would be nice too, or would that cross too much into CKII?

 

[DanubianCossak]

Building buildings on it, reforming laws of it, encouraging production on it, encouraging trade on it, educate the population on it, train the population on it, extending mines, building dikes or bridges on it.

Building buildings, encouraging production and trade, extending mines - all of this gives you more money. Since wealth no longer has any impact on EU4 technology rate, making more money does nothing other than giving you better capability of waging war. So what you really want to do here is provide a reason to get more money that doesnt end up essentially being "ability to maintain bigger army/navy".

Educating the population - what are benefits of it, what does the population mean? You could be on to something here.

Training the population - no idea what this could do. Explain plox.

Reforming the laws - interesting, could you elaborate more, what lows, reforming them how? What are the benefits, what are the downsides?

Building dikes and bridges - isnt this essentially whats abstracted into development, why these two particular projects, what makes them special and what would they do?

 

[Clonefusion]

Building buildings, encouraging production and trade, extending mines - all of this gives you more money. Since wealth no longer has any impact on EU4 technology rate, making more money does nothing other than giving you better capability of waging war. So what you really want to do here is provide a reason to get more money that doesnt end up essentially being "ability to maintain bigger army/navy".

In my opinion money should be made much more scarce and well then over the game player would need to make choices what buildings to build with buildings also costing mainteanance, but if u build them up in right combination u reap huge benefits with short term options for players to gain money and long term options via buildings.

Educating the population - what are benefits of it, what does the population mean? You could be on to something here.

This would increase production efficiency and lower unrest mainly I think, but also lead to events reducing building cost later in game.

Training the population - no idea what this could do. Explain plox.

A slow process in which u would be able to transform away from a mercenary to a trained standing army which would then get more discipline, morale and even better generals at cost of training them with cost getting higher the better armies get and well in combination of education of your population this training could be made cheaper then again. Training could also go wrong with overfocus in wrong direction for your tech group as well only going into infantry focus can harm cavalry combat, but this would make more sense if infantry and cavalry would be split in more specific groups.
Then a player could also decide on a early game focus or a early adoption of musketeers with its costs but also benefits.

Reforming the laws - interesting, could you elaborate more, what lows, reforming them how? What are the benefits, what are the downsides?

Stuff like abolishing serfdom, religious freedom, taxation of heathens, I am no expert on this sadly, but something farther would be laws around trade of foreign nations if trade would be expanded inside game.

Building dikes and bridges - isnt this essentially whats abstracted into development, why these two particular projects, what makes them special and what would they do?

There is 2 options in my opinion :
1. Development is split into a more static development and a fluctuating one.
Static development the player would improve and it would show infrastructure, it would change negatively during war and only improve without player rather rarely.
Fluctuating development would show population and depend on terrain and static development. Fluctuating development as percentage of static development would determine tax, prod income, manpower u would get from a prov. Fluctuating development would slowly reach static development after static development is improved, get hit harder in wars and also be hit hard by diseases, fluctuating development would be stuck on static development in most cases.
2.
Development is seen as population.
Special infrastructure can be built to decrese development cost.

 

[Cactuswest]

Is there any hope to have a better font in the near future for EU4?
The game would be much,much more enjoyable. This goes for CK2 as well.
Please?

 

[bitmapmedivh]

Instead of each tech group having same tech tree but with maluses, give each tech group their own tech tree .

I've been thinking a bit about this, and the way I see it there a few problems with Technology as it stands: first of all it is way too rigid and deterministic, with very little "cross-pollination" between the tech groups. Secondly, there is no clear indication of what it's meant to model, as for example warfare and administration is the same in 1444 as in 1821 in-game. So what to do about it? You can't really make an ultra-detailed system to replace it, as it would risk becoming unwieldly and out-of-whack with the rest of the game.

My suggestion would be to instead of the three big research blocks - administration, diplomacy and warfare - divide it each group into a "Social" and a "Technological" part both focused on inventions, so to speak, with different focuses for each tech group and the ability to "steal" or buy inventions from other tech groups you've discovered. Take warfare for example: new units, gunpowder troops and forts would be "Technological" inventions, while "Social" would be increases to Military Tactics and Supply Limit. Here's the thing, though: Each tech group would have their own strengths. So for example, the Central African tech group might have Tactics that give them bonuses and make them suffer less attrition in Tropical climates. Steppe Nomads would have bonuses to Cavalry, Shock and Skirmish, and bonuses to fighting on steppes and plains.
But, if any tech groups wants Technological or Social Inventions that aren't in their tech group they'll have have a few options: they can use spy networks and try to steal new technologies at random. Or they can buy specific (out-dated) Technological inventions for gold. Or they can research it as usual, but at an greatly increased cost. This means a nation can have different types of Military Tactics, for instance, from various tech groups, like level 7 Western, 2 North American and 1 Western Africa, thus giving advanced Western Tactics and minor bonuses to in NA and the Gold Coast. And Native Americans would have to invest in a few specific Old World inventions, like gunpowder and horse riding to get access to those things. Thus, if European nations wants to expand in Central Africa, they'll have to get a hold of some Central African tech to more efficiently compete there. Or the Chinese can buy the European Cannons tech.
Bottom line is, a system without "filler" tech levels, but where each use of MP gives something tangible, and that is less rigid about what techs can be aqcuired by each tech group is needed.

Some more influence on your dynasty for monarchies would be nice. Don't randomly hand us heirs with random statistics and ages. Maybe a family tree in which you can select your heir at the cost of legitimacy if you do not pick the eldest surviving son? A lot of them can still die off like in real history, inflicting more modifiers on legitimacy. Picking a regent would be nice too, or would that cross too much into CKII?

This is something that should be expanded upon, preferably as patch material in an East Asia DLC. First off, some type of simple dynasty interface, with the Monarch, the Consort, Royal Children and Secondary Royal Family Members. Who the Consort is can be decided by way of Royal Marriage. This gives a greater boost of relations with the nation from where the Consort hails than "regular" RM's. Royal Children are the primary heirs and are generated by way of MTTH, meaning the number of potential heirs can wary over time. Secondary Royal Family Members represent the old spares and anonymous uncles of the monarch. Upon a monarch's death, this number is deleted and all the younger siblings of the new monarch are made Secondaries instead. This is to represent their decline into irrelevance when it comes to the throne, and to keep the system reasonably simple and not turn into CK2. It is from the ranks of Royal Children and Secondary Members that you get candidates for Royal Marriages. Thus you can't have more Royal Marriages than you have heirs and spares. All these potential candidates for the throne comes with different legitimacy values. So the 1st in line has the best, with the Secondaries having the worst. This legitimacy is always relative to the monarch himself. So if the monarch only has 60 Legitimacy, a Secondary Member might only have 20. Yet they are all potential claimants and candidates for Pretender Rebellions. It is also from this list that a Regency is created.

For non-Christian nations, this system is a little different: They are unable to have Royal Marriages or PU's. Instead, they get harems. Instead of Royal Marriages, these nations can send concubines to each other. These give a small relations boost, much smaller than for RM's, as long as the monarch lives. The chance to generate a new heir is increased for each new concubine. But, each heir has the same amount of legitimacy as the monarch, greatly increasing the chance for Pretender Rebellions. Thus, Harem nations are less likely to suffer regencies or a lack of heirs, but at the cost of an increased likelihood of Pretender Rebellions. There is also a chance that a concubine might become the monarch's favorite and get an increasing amount of influence over the politics of the realm. If she's able, then good! But if she's not.

 

[Alarak]

sounds like most of you guys want eu5 not an add-on. A complete renewal of tech-trees changes the game very fundamentally, especially if you add area boni etc.

I think locally changing estate options or add stuff like the trade republic factions is a good way to start. Mandate of heaven lost could f.e. be a doom-like interaction going up with rebellions and going down over time (maybe bound to prestige and stability) with some fluff events talking about natural disasters or a just king adding or removing points.

If we get a revamp of tech, I'd like a change to diplo tech. I might be wrong about this (haven't played around a lot with the new spy techs), but diplo tech is still mainly interesting for keeping corruption low and for the rare cases that you actually need naval-supremacy vs a naval superpower (GB, Venice, Ottomans and pretty much nobody else). Well and lvl 22 because imperialism.
Imho diplomatic tech should give you benefits for diplomatic actions, like getting an alliance easier if you have a better diplo tech or improve relation/spy nw speed.

Still really don't like how corruption does nothing but take choices away btw.

 

[john129pats]

I'd like to see an overhaul of the mercenary system. The type of unit that a province creates should be based on current cores and culture. If you have east Asian holdings as a European nation and try to recruit mercenaries in the area, the troops you get should be relative to what the previous nation was able to raise.

You could even expand other aspects of the game to accommodate for this change. Let's say you grab some provinces from Crimea, and then 10 years later you go to war, your foreign mercenaries could suffer morale penalties if they were recruited in provinces with Crimean cores and culture.

 

[Linkigi]

Non-eurocentric tech progression? Please oh pleeeeease do it!

 

[Lord Rezo]

Erm... hello, i know perhaps someone has suggested it around... but does anyone remember that island in the east of Asia called Japan? They've phoned, they say they were far better on EU2 than currently :/...

 

[Lee Saxon]

Frankly my biggest question is when you're going to start offering roll-up packages for all these expansions.

Keeping the game updated with new expansions all the time is great. Charging for those expansions is perfectly reasonable. But charging for them forever is not. EUIV with all expansions currently costs $160. That is just not realistic.

I think the $40 base game ought to always include any expansions more than 18 months old.

 

[Johan]

Frankly my biggest question is when you're going to start offering roll-up packages for all these expansions.

Keeping the game updated with new expansions all the time is great. Charging for those expansions is perfectly reasonable. But charging for them forever is not. EUIV with all expansions currently costs $160. That is just not realistic.
.

Why not?

 

[Vroobel]

Why not?

Why not make packages or why not realistic?

 

[Arthrodira]

I know this is an old thread now, but something has been bugging me. One comment mentioned Alevism should be added as a Turkish branch of Islam (it should); another thread discussed encouraging the formation of the Mughals (again a great idea). Together these reminded me of the Sikhs - a religion that as currently implemented emerges and disappears, never leaving any mark on the world.

The problem is religion. Religion is not something a ruler can simply impose on their subjects. Yes you should be able to encourage conversion, but this is something inherent to the people, not the state. People do not change their entire belief-system as they are switched from subjects of one empire to another on the scale of decades. It took centuries to make the Middle East Muslim, it should take centuries to make it Christian or vice versa. It should be possible to spread your religion, but not necessarily easy. Also provinces need to have religious minorities. Presently, game doesn't really acknowledge that Judaism exists, for example.

In game mechanics terms:

1) Implement religious authority (similar to CK2). This affects how willing people are to convert. Conversion time should be primarily be based on the population (abstracted as development) and the relative difference in authority. If the subjects' foreign religion has significantly more authority than the overlord, they will never convert. If the subjects religion and the overlords are similar, it will be a slow and very painful process. If they have no authority it will happen quickly. Authority will be based on size of the population practicing it (development), number and strength of independent nations championing it, and possession of holy sites. This is designed so that for example, Mexico will more easily convert after it loses its holy cities and the Nahuatl nations are conquered, but Tunisia remains Muslim even after the Spanish conquer it because the Muslims will still control Mecca and Jerusalem, and have a champion in the Ottomans.

2) Implement religious minorities (modifier). I would prefer to see a pie chart of religions for each province, but recognize that this could be too computationally taxing. So how about a simple modifier at the provincial level. Provinces will start the game with these modifiers (based on historical minorities: Jewish, Yazidi, Zoroastrian, Jain, etc.), but also accrue them after every conversion. If I as the Ottomans conquer Constantinople and convert it, that means the ruling class or majority is converted, but I instantly get the "Orthodox minority" modifier. These modifiers persists for the entire game unless an event removes it (scale of centuries - there are still practicing Mayans in Catholic Mexico today). They grant a bonus to conversion if the province is conquered by a state of that religion, and can determine the religion of released nations. They increase unrest (rather than imposing a minimum autonomy floor this incentivizes you to give minorities more autonomy, without requiring it). But also can have unique modifiers, positive or negative. Perhaps a Jewish minority provides a boost to base-tax, a Sikh minority provides military tradition, a Jain minority could decrease rather than increase unrest, a Taoist minority (a religion badly needed in game) could improve leader lifespan. These will have associated events where minorities and majorities clash. Whenever present, there is a possibility of conversion: perhaps a new Chinese ruler decides to favor the Taoist or Buddhist minority over the Confucian majority, for example. Importantly, these religions can re-exert themselves as a local majority if their religion has significantly more authority.

3) Modify penalties for religious disunity. Obviously if an empire is stuck with sizable provinces of another religion that cannot be converted, the current penalties will cripple them. Remove entirely the corruption link (for logical sense, why should other faiths be corrupt?). Contrary to many here I think corruption is balanced fine as is, so something else will need to increase it (how about manpower deficits?). It should be possible to play the game without ever converting some of your provinces, for example. Rather than crippling unrest, a different majority religion should impose an autonomy floor. Some unrest, yes, but not so much that you NEED to convert Africa so your European empire is manageable.

4) Conversion time influenced by heretic vs. heathen. Just as it says. It should be much more difficult to convert heathens than heretics.

The whole point is to make religion less of a map painting exercise (you already have conquest for that), and more of a dynamic, passive trend. You can influence it (with missionaries as you do now). But ultimately you cannot force it. The people decide, not their king.

 

[Akka le Vil]

Now I can't speak for everyone, but as far as peace time activities go. I don't want simply more stuff to keep track of, I want optional things to improve my country. It just seems to silly to be sitting there with a 1000+ treasury, and nothing to spend it on, and no way to go into debt unless I were to drive way past my force limit.
I honestly think optional projects for provinces or your country would be a nice peace time mechanic.

Well, there need to be more things that requires money instead of mana, that's for sure.

 

[Akka le Vil]

There are of course concerns and challenges with expanding to an already complex game, and what can be added without making the game unplayable.

At the risk of starting the hire of all the grognards, I'd say we're already weeeeell past this point.
I've started to get back in EU4 today, coming from near-Vanilla (yeah I didn't get the patches up to now), and it's just an absolute mess of features bloat and contrived mechanisms everywhere which all seems to have as only intent to prevent the player from doing anything.

The game doesn't need to continue to stockpile new features on top of newer features. It BADLY needs to have some global overhaul where existing features are consolidated and made to work together and streamlined into a coherent global vision, instead of just overwhelming the player with a death of a thousand cuts.

Now, downvote away.