EU4 - Development Diary - 15th of January 2019

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

Please read again my post. I said Every AI which has 792 money they try to charter company in Africa in India etc. Exploration or expansion ideas irrelevant for this post. Papal State didn't research exploration or expansion. And he has a charter company in africa. Then other AI's followed him. Papa got lost Rome. And it's new capital in Kongo. It makes a lot of sense to you I understand but for me it's a wonderful(!) thing.

Hey dude what is your problem? Are you high or something? Fellow up here is talking about how charter company is exceeding its limit and should be fixed. But you started to explain the colonization strategy Thanks for clarification but that's not the point.

My point was that the solution to stop non colonizers to buy trade charters is not to make buying trade charters restricted to great powers like he suggested but to lock it behind certain idea groups, like exploration.

Then i went on to rant about something which as been on my mind for a long time but never got the context or motivation to actually speak about, and that was the moment i felt like exposing my idea.

Granted it was of poor judgement to make both of these suggestions in the same comment without even relating them, since indeed the second part is unrelated to his comment .

Uuh yeah sorry if that was unclear when I say mirror I was thinking "it's like exploration, but in this context rather than this one". I don't think it's a good idea, idea groups are supposed to be collaborative. (besides, someone said quantity vs quality… well you can take both)

Well exploration needs diplomatic mana and gives you explorers+conquistadors as well as a chance to spawn colonialism, I think it's not bad at all. The thing is, if you pick exploration when playing as… idk, Papal state, you're playing against your country's strength. So the fact that it was a "good" idea at all previously (which was debatable already) was kind of an issue. My opinion was that it still wasn't, but the idea group would need only a slight buff to be strong regardless of the situation (like Humanist, Diplomatic or Quality let's say). And this is definitely going out of hand because exploration is supposed to be playstyle defining.

Now with the "nerf", it's back in a state where it's inferior, vastly, if you're not using that playstyle, and superior, vastly, if you're using that playstyle (think "no cb wars" vs "colonise, cb and conquest" for instance).

Anyways sorry for rambling that was longer than I wanted it to be :3

You have a point.
To be honest my original idea was to divide Exploration itself in two different idea groups (Exploration and Colonization) which portrayed the aformentioned different kinds of colonization, instead of changing Expansion too. But this would imply creating a new idea group for every cathegory, which would be outside the realm of reasonable suggestions.

Just to make it clear, i don't think Exploration is a bad idea group, i just think its much worse than Expansion at the colonization game. I wasn't suggesting a buff either but a change in its focus, because i believe ideas should tailor how you play a nation, instead of being just accumulative bonuses. However Exploration is actually one of the best ideas when it comes to this, since as you said, its a very circumstancial idea which can prove extremely worthwhile for certain nations and strategies.

If there are groups who deserve a buff (which definitely there are) it isnt Exploration nor Expansion.

 

[WoollyMammoth]

I would love to see the different terrains in provinces back as an option

From what I understand this was removed a while ago because some people found it too hard to calculate modifiers or some such.
Tbh it provided a lot of immersion for me, it as far as I know unique in strategy games and provided added depth.
Now, it is just forest or plains for example, I know there is a weigh off of gameplay vs. realism, however if there is any change at all
that this can be brought back as an option to turn on and off, that would be absolutely awesome.

Perhaps in a similar options screen like CKII? which I love

It is an expansion I'd be willing to pay for.

Please upvote if you would like to see this as well.

 

[Nohbdy1012]

An idea I had about the mothballed armies.
What if there was a third category of troops Regular, Mercenary and then Colonial Troops. These could be only built in colonial and maybe trade company territories. They would be only available as infantry and cavalry, and weaker (less discipline maybe?) than regular. However, they would be cheaper to build and maintain, and more importantly, their maintenance would not be affected by the army maintenance slider bar (except for Colonial Nations more on that later), i.e. they are cheaper to maintain but they are always fully maintained. You could reduce your main armies costs but your colonial troops would continue.

These would be the only troops available for Colonial nations until they become independent and get access to regular troops so for colonial nations, these troops would be affected by the slider bar.
Also, they should get a morale debuff the longer they are operating out side of their specific colonial region (harder and more micro) or maybe just if they are operating outside of the colonial regions in general.

Artillery would still always be a regular unit and subject to the slider bar regardless.

 

[Chief of Staff]

Unrelated to the DD, but I'd like to add that the recent influx of suggestions from the community, particularly those concerning future map updates, have been a pleasure to read. Keep up the good work

It is, isn't it? Many of them does fires some imagination about the potential of what EU4 or a future generation of EU can do, even if it is infeasible to do.

----

That being said, while I realize this is rather late to be saying it here, I wanted to point out that mothballing army might be doable so long as you have this small core of the army continuously trained and maintained. You would have regiments stood down or inactivated, waiting to be reactivated when a war breaks out.

I think there would be an incentive to stand down regiments that don't have any army professionalism and especially so if the regiments with army professionalism were to cost extra in upkeep.

The main problem here, though, is that this might put the smaller nations at severe disadvantage particularly in late game. However, the history (and most of the alternate histories played out on EU4 generally) tends to show that there is progress in general from a great mess of small and tiny principalities intermingled with a few major kingdoms towards a radically different political landscape that showed gradual consolidation of Europe into larger kingdoms and duchies. So this is probably a price worth accepting here. For a smaller nation, it would probably need a protection of a larger nation or something anyway to survive into late game.

At any rate, regiments stood down should still cost something for upkeep but much lower. And it would still count against the force limit, that is for sure, so you would still have reasons to disband regiments once war is over or whenever. One other problem is that, due to lowered upkeep of inactivated regiments, you could just maintain double the inactive regiments that of the regular ones and then unleash them immediately at the outbreak of war. Obviously, one downside is that it would start at 0 morale once reactivated yet a great masses of regiments at half morale after a month or two could still potentially unbalance the game somehow.

We really need to make this concept workable in practice before the devs can consider implementing it. So far, I haven't have any ideas as to how to do that given the issues described above.

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

Instead of mothballing armies, why isn't there the opposite option of selecting some armies to be at full mantainance while you have the slider at the minimum?
I honestly just want a way to keep my colonies garrisoned with 2k infantry without having to to pay for a fully maintained 200K artillery army.

 

[Drakenir]

Perhaps a bit late to point this out here, but I feel that it's warranted. I'm happy to see that you will be working on the border gore that is continuously perpetrated by colonial nations. However, there are larger issues with this problem than mere aesthethics. It is often impossible to complete the Spanish mission tree due to the colonial nations colonizing the same area, and often the ones needed for certain Spanish missions. With two different states controlling pieces of the same state it is impossible to found holy orders there, something that is needed to finish several Spanish missions. See the problem? This, in my most humble opinion, needs to be fixed.

Admittedly I haven't tried to play as Spain for a week or so now, so I may have missed any such improvements that have already been made.

 

[Will Steel]

Honestly, I think armies should have some sort of mothball functionality, and I think there is another possible solution - conversion to garrison.

Here is my suggestion - instead of simply "disabling" them and put their morale, numbers and maintenance to half like we do with ships, you should be allowed to "garrison" them in forts around your country and empire. When you do that, the regiments will be cut in half or 3/4 and would then become part of that fort's garrison, adding their numbers to the garrison troops and participating in sieges if any as a garrison.

The forts should have a limit on how many units they can hold, based on their level and some modifiers/ideas/traditions. The early-game medieval castle should only hold a few thousand men, while a late-game star fort should be able to garrison a decently large army detachment. An overlord should also be able to garrison forts of his vassals and such.

The forts with garrisoned units should also get some slight defense bonuses.

And then when you need your regiments back on active service, you could again order them to leave fort (i.e. kick them out), making the regiments appear at 250 strength and 0 morale, and then reinforce back like usual.

This is not only historically authentic, it makes forts (and everything related to sieging them) a bigger experience.

Examples -

Spoiler

For example, I am France, and Europe is at peace. I want to keep an active Royal Army in Paris and a smaller army at German HRE border, but I want to "mothball" the rest of my troops. So I march my armies to castles and forts and put them in the garrisons.

Or let's say I am playing China. I have almost a hundred-something regiments in my army. Instead of just turning down maintenance for everyone, I should be able to "mothball" a sizeable portion of my army by marching them north and garrisoning them in the Great Wall forts, just like historical Ming dynasty did. They would defend from the northern nomads with buffed garrisons, "farm the lands behind the wall" represented by a tiny tax bonus in provinces containing those garrisoned forts (also historically accurate), and can be recalled into service if needed in another war.

Or let's say for example that I am playing a colony or a master nation. I could build a few colonial regiments to form an army in case I need it, and have them "mothballed" and stationed in forts across Caribbean. And then a major war erupts, so I could move them around to work as active-duty colonial soldiers, or create strongholds across the Caribbean by bringing them together and garrisoning them into one fort.

It also works well for a restored Byzantine-Roman empire with their legionaries garrisoned in forts around the borders. Or the very small American standing army garrisoned around forts in the states. Or the very late-game Russian army split in small numbers across a line in Siberia. Or the East India Company army which made extensive use of existing vast number of Indian forts + newly constructed British forts.

And it works well for immersive purpose of some "Imperial Guard" type thing where you build a fort in the capital and garrison a few regiments

To summarize, a "mothballed" army should -

- Only be "mothballed" when put in provinces with forts.
- Have its regiments immediately lose 500-750 men and turn to half or 1/4 strength.
- As soon as they are "mothballed", these 500 or 250-man regiments become part of the garrison numbers of that fort.
- Number of units a fort can contain should be limited based on its level, and modified with ideas/traditions and such.
- The forts that take in mothballed regiments, get a very small defensive buff.
- In case of China, garrisoning soldiers should grant a very small tax bonus to represent how vast number of soldiers permanently stationed in the forts at Great Wall, farmed the lands around them and raised cattle.
- When recalled back into service, they should reappear in the same province they got garrisoned in, with 0 morale and reduced strength, and replenish back into fitness like usual.
- Appropriate UI changes to accommodate this feature.

I would love to see this feature. It is better than simply "mothballing" an army.

 

[Chief of Staff]

Instead of mothballing armies, why isn't there the opposite option of selecting some armies to be at full mantainance while you have the slider at the minimum?
I honestly just want a way to keep my colonies garrisoned with 2k infantry without having to to pay for a fully maintained 200K artillery army.

That would be definitely nice to have. European armies tends to have this small, regular core that would be supplemented by additional regiments raised for the war.

I also wouldn't mind having an option putting regiments on half maintenance as well. Regiments kept for purpose of garrisoning the areas or regions could be kept at half maintenance in provinces that is well away from the threats of war but where potential rebellions might still need to be watched over. Garrisons at half maintenance, depending on the potential size of rebels, could tie them up while you send in regulars to take care of them.

 

[GundamMerc]

Everyone with detailed, lengthy suggestions of how to change this or that, you should probably be making a forum thread rather than posting it here.

 

[DurzaXV]

i really feel like India needs another DLC.

 

[Blackwhitecavias]

i really feel like India needs another DLC.

Why? It just got one?

 

[Wenceslaus II.]

Why? It just got one?

I don't believe he meant that.

 

[Will Steel]

i really feel like India needs another DLC.

To be honest, India doesn't need much more than a fixed name list right now. The current one is horrible just like every other EU game, where Indian rulers get Turkish surnames and Persian first names despite having various Indian cultures, instead of using the improved separate ruler culture system.

More improvement to India and Asia in general would be wonderful, but this game seems dead already.

 

[DurzaXV]

Why? It just got one?

Because there is so much more they can do with it. India has the potential to be as fun as Europe but it just needs some work.

 

[Dakka]

Because there is so much more they can do with it. India has the potential to be as fun as Europe but it just needs some work.

I’d rather them fix the atrocious issues with GC. India works well now and I enjoyed my time playing there. But the pirates, flag ships, and minority expulsion just aren’t.... done. (And the Council of the Indies reform needs to be changed or axed)

 

[DurzaXV]

I’d rather them fix the atrocious issues with GC. India works well now and I enjoyed my time playing there. But the pirates, flag ships, and minority expulsion just aren’t.... done. (And the Council of the Indies reform needs to be changed or axed)

I agree but there is still so much untapped potential.

 

[makaramus]

How about letting the player choose its Colonial Nations' capital? Been waiting for this a long time...

THIS PLS! I am tired of thirteen colonies capital being in florida O_O