• 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:
Nice! Love that you've cleared the Zone of Control madness.

What madness? After many months of inactivity, I only had to visit the eu4wiki maybe once or twice to figure out the rules of the zone of control. Now I understand it, it makes total sense, and I can protect my Brandenburg with 3 perfect placed forts.

eu4wiki said:
After an enemy army enters a province within the zone of control, they can only move from there to two other provinces: the province containing the fort, and the province they came from.

Documentation
The actual problem is the lack of good documentation that is easily accessible. E.g. the way how the Prussian patch changed the defensive bonus on a besieged province. The impact on warfare was HUGE. And somehow I could find no documentation of this major balance update at all. At first I thought it was because of their general having higher maneuverability than mine, but ultimately whilst reading a rereview of EU4 the author pointed out what actually had changed. This learning by accident is undesirable, instead this game needs good documentation.

The developers ought do a better job explaining how their game works, each time they change it. Not just by posting a changelog on the forums, but actually having an in-game window that lists the changes. It has to generate a list automatically after each patch, and the data should be accessible so an interface designer can highlight major features and paint the changed information right on top of the gamemap, if that layer of information has been enabled by the player in the options. And If you add this feature straight to the engine, it can be reused in every other game.

Forts
Back to the topic of forts, what actually needs to be updated is the salvage of obsolete or misplaced forts. Right now the player has to destroy and rebuild a fort from scratch, for the full cost. In reality the player desires to be able to pick up (at least a part of) their stones and resettle in an adjacent province, moving forts paying a discount price.

On a second thought, another solution can be to accompany the half and fully maintained forts, by a third category, the ruin. A fort ruin cost no ducats to maintain, but if reactivated it need resources and time to be rebuilt before it can be garrisoned.

Arbitrary rules
In conclusion, on one hand Paradox listen to the community in eliminating the arbitrary design of the rules, i.e. liberty desire, and on the other hand they adhere to their previous methods of balance patching, by tying zones of control to prefixed areas, and adding wastelands. Which is in itself just as arbitrarily.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
So, if I understand this correctly, a two-area deep line of forts is necessary to prevent the enemy from just walkling all over your territory? - i.e. if forts are put only in the border-areas, and there are no fort in the adjecent area deeper within your territory, then this area is neutral and the enemy can freely walk past your fort and deeper into your territory?

Yes, you need a second line of forts. That's why maintenance is reduced :)
It's also why there will be a lot more placed forts in 1444.
 
  • 34
  • 18
  • 9
Reactions:
I like where this is going, but for god's sake increase a country's state limits. I already hate the idea that arbitrary borders and regions cost arbitrary maintenance values. At least give us the opportunity to have more of those if you're lowering their size.
 
  • 8
  • 6
Reactions:
I really don't understand the logic behind corruption reducing unrest. I mean, I don't mind, I just don't get why.
 
  • 14
  • 2
Reactions:
Yes, you need a second line of forts. That's why maintenance is reduced :)
It's also why there will be a lot more placed forts in 1444.

But it's not a second line of forts, it's one line of forts that you have to build twice. Once the first line falls, the second line doesn't do anything to stop them from advancing into your territory. If you want to cut fort maintenance in half and force us to build twice as many forts then just make it so that you cannot pass through a hostile fort or a province that is bordered by two hostile forts and we'll build forts in every other province along the border.
 
  • 9
Reactions:
If there are going to be a lot more forts in the game, then sieging REALLY needs to be sped up, especially as your army will always be vulnerable as the attacker now. Will just make the gameplay slower and more stale once everyone has level 8 forts.
 
  • 18
  • 1
Reactions:
I really don't understand the logic behind corruption reducing unrest. I mean, I don't mind, I just don't get why.

Well, you can think of this like that: almost every rebellion needs a leader. Atleast every rebellion that wants to be successful. If government is corrupt then lots and lots of influential people are getting bribed and those receiving nice stuff will most likely do whatever is needed to keep the status quo. Also ruling powers will identify who might those potential rebel leaders be and give them whatever makes them more happy. At least this is how I explain this change to myself.
 
  • 4
  • 2
Reactions:
its reduced for the province its in.
that'd be great if every state has a major central/capital like province where you can build town halls and certain government buildings in there which can have area/state wide impacts. And this province can have one extra slot for buildings for being the center/capital of the area/state. This will add some more depth to the game.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Well, you can think of this like that: almost every rebellion needs a leader. Atleast every rebellion that wants to be successful. If government is corrupt then lots and lots of influential people are getting bribed and those receiving nice stuff will most likely do whatever is needed to keep the status quo. Also ruling powers will identify who might those potential rebel leaders be and give them whatever makes them more happy. At least this is how I explain this change to myself.
I understand it like this; corruption raises autonomy. Higher autonomy reduces unrest.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Yes, you need a second line of forts. That's why maintenance is reduced :)
It's also why there will be a lot more placed forts in 1444.

Okay. So out of curiosity: What makes this model better than one where interior* enemy areas without forts are treated as hostile rather than neutral?

*Interior=not bordered by areas belonging to another country
 
  • 6
Reactions:
Well now that I had further time to think and consider the ZoC changes I think it is an improvement since it is simple and straightforward but only make me less likely to use forts myself as I will need to use 3-4 times more to achieve the same effect while they cost the same and maintenance is halved.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Corruption is now not entirely 100% bad, as a country with 100 corruption will now get -20 unrest in their realm.

I'll debase my currency like mad then mid to late game, and run 100+ OE all the time then :)

Yes, you need a second line of forts. That's why maintenance is reduced :)
It's also why there will be a lot more placed forts in 1444.

will the standard siege tick interval be halved also then?

Otherwise this is just another WC slowing mechanic, as you will need twice the artillery and likely twice the troops total (or more) to siege a nation down..

Will the ai always have more forts then before, in any given timeframe? Or not?
 
Last edited:
  • 4
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I'll debase my currency like mad then mid to late game, and run 100+ OE all the time then :)

Hey, if you can handle the losses to local autonomy then that seems like an entirely valid strategy to me.
 
Corruption lowers unrest because although centralization is a theme of this time period, the reality is that the level of agency of individual actors was absurdly low during EU4. With the exception of peasants rebellions, the majority of actors capable of revolting in a meaningful sense would have been part of the corruption of the system. As was said above; corruption increases autonomy (in a real world sense). Thus individuals who would lead revolts would be sated with bribes and backhands.

Corruption increases unrest in the modern day because we are aware of it, we (hope to) have tools to bring corrupt officials to account and we are all desiring of a more equal society. In the late medieval period, the citizen did not have the same concerns we do today.

Also, suspend your belief or disbelief, it makes the mechanic a lot more interesting from a gameplay perspective.
 
  • 6
  • 3
  • 3
Reactions:
Hey, if you can handle the losses to local autonomy then that seems like an entirely valid strategy to me.

if you assign all provinces to estates, then you can have 50 coruption flat before autonomy gets higher then the estate 25% floor.

Anyways, I can totally understand why this patch will have beta test period.

I'll remain optimistic for now, as most changes seem good.