• 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.

EU4 - Development Diary - 1st of November 2016

Hi everyone, and welcome to another development diary for Europa Universalis IV. This time its rather meaty and is about major gameplay changes for the 1.19 patch.

While we were reasonably happy with how Fort and Zone of Control has played out since introduced over a year ago, it has had one major drawback. The rules have so many cases to keep track of that it was practically impossible to make all cases clear to the player. This causes much confusion amongst players, who also had an experience that was not as great as they had hoped while playing.

So now Zone of Control have changed completely. Instead of affecting a province and sometimes blocking passage in adjacent provinces, Zone of Control rules are now area based.

Areas = The same map division that States/Territories are organsied around. And which 1.19 will show thicker borders around.


A Forts is:
  • hostile if it is controlled by someone you are at war with.
  • friendly if it is controlled by you, or by someone on your side in any war, unless you are at war with them (should not happen).
  • neutral otherwise.


An area is:
  • friendly if it has at least one friendly fort and no hostile fort.
  • hostile if it has at least one hostile fort and no friendly fort.
  • contested if it has at least one hostile fort and at least one friendly fort.
  • neutral otherwise.

Zone of Control blocks an army to move between two adjacent provinces if they belong to different areas, one of which is hostile and the other being either hostile or contested.

(Note that movement within areas is never blocked by Zone of Control)

An occupied province without a fort will flip back to its owner's control if there is in the area at least one non-besieged fort controlled by him but no hostile forts.

To ensure an army can always reach the fort that is blocking it from moving and then come back after sieging it down, all armies can ignore Military Access in all non-neutral areas

Rebels never impact hostile rules, and yes, Capital Forts now work like all other forts.

In order to stop the enemy from reaching the interior of your country, you will often need to have one fort in every area.. Even without that though, forts can force the enemy to make detours unless they first siege down some forts.

While doing this, an average country ends up with more forts than before, so maintenance have been halved.

While doing these changes, we have tweaked the map dramatically, adding in lots of wastelands to give natural borders, and also made a big revision to the area setup, so now areas are pretty much all between 3-5 provinces, giving a more even balance.

eu4_131.png





We have added a new peace treaty as well in 1.19, called “End Rivalry”. This peace option force the enemy to remove one of their Rivals. The removed Rival cannot be added again until 15 years after removed.


We play the game quite a lot every week, and read far more on what issues you as players have. So we keep balancing and changing things to make for a greater player experience. In 1.19 we have some rather important changes to how you play the game.

Combat has been changed a bit as well in this patch, as we removed the combat width penalties from terrain, as it made battles last way too long, and was a double defensive bonus combined with diceroll penalties.

Sieging units will no longer get a rivercrossing penalty if a relieving force engages them, even if they did cross a river a few days, months or years earlier.

We have changed the chance to increase colonysize from colonist being placed to instead being a lower the bigger the colony becomes. Previously it was pretty much a no-brainer to keep it as long as possible, as it became better the bigger the colony is. Now íts more of a choice..

Another complaint was the fixed levels of liberty desire that got applied to vassals and marches as they grew past certain arbitrary limits. Now it is scaling by development of the subject so you can always judge impact of their growth.

For those of you that care about score, Great Powers are now likelier to be getting score each month, as they have a default +5 rating in each category. Also maintaining enough forts is now an impact on your military score gain.

Corruption is now not entirely 100% bad, as a country with 100 corruption will now get -20 unrest in their realm.

Courthouse & Town Halls no longer affect unrest but instead reduce state maintainance by 25% and 50% respectively, while their building costs have been halved.

The Casus Belli from Expansion and Exploration Ideagroups did not really work as great as before with the new technology system, so in 1.19 they are getting changed. The Casus Belli themselves are gone..

Exploration Finisher now allows you to fabricate claim on another continent that is in your capital in a colonial region. (Colonial Subjects can do it everywhere in a colonial region.)

Expansion Finisher now allows you to fabricate claims inside any trade company region that is on another continent than your capital. (Without Wealth of Nations, it is any overseas port not in a colonial region, and not in europe.)

At the same time, distance impact on building spy networks have been dropped to 1/10th of before.

For those of you that have Rights of Man, we are now adding even more things. In 1.19, Trade Goods will have a local impact. A Grain Province gives +0.5 Land Force Limit, Iron gives 20% Faster Building Construction & Ivory gives 20% cheaper state maintenance.

We have also improved the “trading in good” - bonus, where some are almost twice as powerful as before, and some have changed completely.

Next week we'll be back talking about all interface improvements for 1.19.
 
  • 239
  • 57
  • 26
Reactions:
I'm not a fan of removal of combat width reduction and removal of strait crossing penalty for besieging forces.
I'm on the fence on combat width, but absolutely agree with correcting the crossing penalty. It makes no sense that if I crossed a river to get to a fort, that penalty retroactively applies to me when fighting a relieving force later. If anything I should be better entrenched than the relieving force that is negotiating the terrain more recently.
 
  • 14
Reactions:
Great changes!

@Johan With more forts, is there a chance late-game forts will be easier to siege? Stacking + fort defense is powerful strategy, and it is impossible to offset due to siege ability bonus being so rare.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
So... what is the practical difference between contested and hostile? It seems like they behave exactly the same?
If you take a non-fort province in a contested area, you get to keep it. If the area is hostile, it flips back to its owner's control.
 
  • 6
  • 2
Reactions:
Exploration Finisher now allows you to fabricate claim on another continent that is in your capital in a colonial region. (Colonial Subjects can do it everywhere in a colonial region.)

Expansion Finisher now allows you to fabricate claims inside any trade company region that is on another continent than your capital. (Without Wealth of Nations, it is any overseas port not in a colonial region, and not in europe.)
Why? Why would you do this? The changes for this patch looked amazing until this ruined it :(

Those CBs were good because they were instant and allowed you to take land without have to pay dip for it. Now you`re going to have to go through the horribly boring and elongated process of fabricating claims and then still having to pay dip for land unless you waste your time claiming it all.
 
  • 24
  • 5
Reactions:
Talking about peace deal changes...will you ever be able to release nations and return cores with the hulimate CB again? I know you can take 300 monarch points but it doesn't help you weaken your rivals in any meaningful ways.

So for example you cannot weaken Austria as France at the start of the game since you cannot get a CB against them other than the hulimate rival one.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Sounds good. Personally i was never really bothered with the fort mechanics but some of my friends will see it as a welcome change...

I like the addition of wasteland "walls", like in CK2. It made war a lot more interesting!
 
  • 4
Reactions:
I'm on the fence on combat width, but absolutely agree with correcting the crossing penalty. It makes no sense that if I crossed a river to get to a fort, that penalty retroactively applies to me when fighting a relieving force later. If anything I should be better entrenched than the relieving force that is negotiating the terrain more recently.
It makes perfect sense. Either you engage incoming forces through the river or you get pincered by fort+relieving forces.
 
  • 5
  • 3
Reactions:
Another complaint was the fixed levels of liberty desire that got applied to vassals and marches as they grew past certain arbitrary limits. Now it is scaling by development of the subject so you can always judge impact of their growth.

Does this mean it scales in relation to the overlord. So a 150 development subject doesn't get uppity "just because" even though it's ruled over by a 3000 development empire? It's already better than the first iterations of liberty desire, but vassals still can't really scale with huge empires without getting silly ideas.

On that note, could you also do that for diplo vassalization? The arbitrary limit of 100 development to diplo vassalization doesn't really make sense. And it's a fun tool to expand without war.
 
  • 21
  • 1
Reactions:
Interesting how forts can let you move through territory without military access. This could be useful in many situations, especially in the HRE if you aren't the emperor. Is friendly territory still a thing when you're at peace?
 
@Johan Was smaller combat width really that bad? It added strategy to combat. If you had a smaller army but with better stats you could win a fight. Now you will get flanked and loose more. What is the real reason to removing it? :(

I was thinking also about this and its probably (or it should be) a temporary solution. Its great that we will have shorter battles. Too long battles are one of the uglier problems of EU4. So imo this change is good overall. Combat width in current state of the game (limited flanking and other factors...) doesn't help defender that much, defender still loses just battle takes longer.

This change does sacrifice some depth - combat width is nice concept that I wouldn't like to see completely removed. We need a better solution here.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Interesting how forts can let you move through territory without military access. This could be useful in many situations, especially in the HRE if you aren't the emperor. Is friendly territory still a thing when you're at peace?
Yes, also when at peace.
 
  • 23
Reactions:
Mostly really nice changes. But the removal of the two CBs is a no-go in my opinion. Conquest is much too weak as it is and creating multiple claims in one country is almost impossible thanks to the steep rise in costs. The translation of this changes in reality is: "Taking religious for the CB is now even more mandatory. We might as well just set it as the first idea group by default."
 
  • 19
Reactions:
I was thinking also about this and its probably (or it should be) a temporary solution. Its great that we will have shorter battles. Too long battles are one of the uglier problems of EU4. So imo this change is good overall. Combat width in current state of the game (limited flanking and other factors...) doesn't help defender that much, defender still loses just battle takes longer.

This change does sacrifice some depth - combat width is nice concept that I wouldn't like to see completely removed. We need a better solution here.


:( Makes me sad. Maybe it will be moddable for who wants it. Overall the update looks good imo.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
Am I the only one who really dislikes the changes to forts and zones of control?
 
  • 19
  • 5
Reactions: