• 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:
So there will be more forts to siege down in wars? And what's up with the colony population change. I didn't understand the sentence "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..".
 
  • 1
Reactions:
So there will be more forts to siege down in wars? And what's up with the colony population change. I didn't understand the sentence "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..".

Well before you kept the colonist there until it was finished, now you get the added fun of solving a math problem to determine the optimal time to pull him out.
 
  • 14
  • 1
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.

This sounds significantly less intelligent than I originally thought, I had assumed it would actually work as follows...

1 - War declared, enemy crosses a border to directly enter a province with no fort, but this area is 'hostile' as it does have a fort in another province.
2 - Enemy is now in the area forts ZoC, so may move to any province in this area, including the fort province.
3 - To exit this area into the interior of the country the area must be turned neutral by sieging the fort.


In short: I think you need another status flag for areas... as below...

Areas can be fortified, hostile, contested, neutral or friendly.
Allied country areas are friendly or contested.
Non-participatory country areas are neutral or contested.
ALL areas with an unsieged enemy fort are fortified or contested.
ALL areas of an enemy country are defined as hostile or contested.
Areas of an enemy country where all enemy forts have been captured are neutral.
Then --> Armies should not be able to exit a fortified or contested ZoC area into a hostile area, so the current area must be neutralised before proceeding.

Only one line of forts needed, no more walking through areas into a country interior.
 
  • 9
Reactions:
A Grain Province gives +0.5 Land Force Limit,

Well, that is interesting. How big Russian army will be now, considering that there is a lot of grain provinces? How will AI handle that its forcelimit is too big to supply it lets be honest - region is a too poor to build up to forcelimit with streltsy)? Won't it struggle building too many units and lowering its income too much, so it won't be able to build and will lose even more income?
 
  • 1
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.

Really, L8 forts aren't much worse than L2 forts at the beginning of the game. The added breach chance from the big piles of arty you have by that stage, plus the fact that you probably have siege bonuses from generals or ideas, makes it far more reasonable than it looks.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
So you just exclude peasants from revolting to make your statement valid.

As has been stated, even peasant revolts need leaders. Otherwise, if there is no central leadership to the revolt it will get crushed swiftly.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Paradox, PLEASE take away the free forts for AI !! Or atleast limit it, its bshit to see nations like Bahmanis having level 8 forts almost everywhere in the late game....
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
Now I'm not really getting why this 'removing penalty width from terrain' is supposed to be a good thing. For one the penalty made sense. Secondly how in the nine hells is a country like Tabarestan going to beat the Timurids or QQ without the terrain penalty? I got 'this is Persia' as Tabarestan in the previous patch, but thinking on the new changes, institutions and fort attack penalties, it was already somewhat harder. Tech differences would be less and being the smaller force besieging would be more perilous. However the one thing that actually saves you is the terrain penalty. Siege a mountain fort with 12K troops after the terrain change and you just get wiped by 50K Timmies. So I would strongly plead for keeping it or at least explain how it should be done now.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
So you halve the cost for forts.....and then force us to build twice as many?

Exactly. The new system requires a lot more forts which is why they have to be made cheaper. The price would not have gone down for nothing :)

Paradox, PLEASE take away the free forts for AI !! Or atleast limit it, its bshit to see nations like Bahmanis having level 8 forts almost everywhere in the late game....

You should look for previous dev replies in this thread ;)
 
  • 12
  • 4
Reactions:
Hey Paradox,
could you implement an interface feature in the message settings for all your games?
I'm about dead-tired of and annoyed with always having to mark 200+ message filters, individually, to; "Open Pop-up & Pause".
This same procedure (about 10-15 minutes of gametime) everytime a new patch, hotfix and/or DLC is released...
Just add a "set-settings-for-all-messages-button" or something similar to make global adjustments to the message settings. That would be a great addition with no downsides.

Thanks.

BTW I've been a fan of your games since EU2, love them!
-Keep historical, un-Minecraft'ish, un-Sims'ish and un-RTS'ish...
Fortsæt det gode arbejde! :)
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Will you ever change the Trade Ideas finisher? It is very weak now that you can get many more merchants out of Trade Companies and Colonial Subjects.

Before, I suggested allowing two main trading ports, so one can collect both at home and on overseas territories (or in Genoa and in Venice if one controls northern Italy, for example), or just drop the malus from collecting in more than one place for those with full Trade ideas.
 
  • 9
  • 1
Reactions:
What about having fort giving you Army Tradition? IE an upgraded fort per each 50 development gives you full +1 AT monthly. Will that be changed?

Expansion idea finisher will be bloodly useless for Russia as they don't have any "interest" in trade company at the most. Unless they manage to snake down to Persia and forward trade all the way up to Novgorod which would be awkward!
 
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.

Are we all desiring of that though? Why is Putin's approval ratings sky-high and his country soaked in bottomless corruption? Why aren't there massive revolts in all the African countries who top the lists, despite them having 7th term presidents and living in destitute conditions?

Corruption dulls the mind. You could even say it corrupts it. It makes you not care. That is its true evil.
 
  • 4
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
Exactly. The new system requires a lot more forts which is why they have to be made cheaper. The price would not have gone down for nothing :)

So solution for forts, system that is ten times better then carpet sieges that we used to have before 1.12 patch, is to just add more forts and practically bring back old system of carpet sieges.

Are we getting faster siege ticks? If not this is complete disaster.
 
  • 7
Reactions:
Are we all desiring of that though? Why is Putin's approval ratings sky-high and his country soaked in bottomless corruption? Why aren't there massive revolts in all the African countries who top the lists, despite them having 7th term presidents and living in destitute conditions?

Corruption dulls the mind. You could even say it corrupts it. It makes you not care. That is its true evil.
Because rebellions are hard to do well. There's a reason most coups talk about the importance of kicking out the corrupt old leadership. And Putin is popular because he's Making Russia Great Again, really - they got beaten down over and over between 1989-99, and Putin has made them feel strong and powerful again. People like having pride in their group, and Russia couldn't in the Gorbachev-Yeltsin years. They can now, for all their other problems - Russia is flexing its muscles, making NATO back down over and over, and feeling like a real power again. I can see the appeal, even if I think he's a loathsome, corrupt little weasel.

And remember, in the EU era, most meaningful rebellions were run by elites, not peasants. Elites tend to benefit from corruption, not be hurt by it.
 
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
Peasant revolts have no leaders, that's why you can crush them so easily.

Don't forget that Peasant revolt also have less morale than your army at default morale. As long you have a morale bonus, you will almost always beat them man to man.
 
Really, L8 forts aren't much worse than L2 forts at the beginning of the game. The added breach chance from the big piles of arty you have by that stage, plus the fact that you probably have siege bonuses from generals or ideas, makes it far more reasonable than it looks.

You don't get added breach chance? The modifier is always between 0 and 5, while the negative modifier from L8 fort is -7? I think. You do get siege bonuses that aren't available in the early game, but artillery bonus on forts maxes out very early. L8 forts are horrendous.

Are we all desiring of that though? Why is Putin's approval ratings sky-high and his country soaked in bottomless corruption? Why aren't there massive revolts in all the African countries who top the lists, despite them having 7th term presidents and living in destitute conditions?

Corruption dulls the mind. You could even say it corrupts it. It makes you not care. That is its true evil.

There aren't massive revolts because just like in EU4, the people whom corruption exploits have no agency, and the people whom it benefits control the tools of oppression. I made the assumption in my post that (sadly) most of the people on this forum are living in a highly developed country that probably is aware of and attempting to tackle the issue of corruption.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
Reactions: