• 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 - 24th of July 2018

Good morning all! What would Tuesday be without an EU4 dev diary? Tragic, I say, so here for the last of the Summer dev diaries while the bulk of the Swedes are on vacation, I bring to you a summary of balance changes coming in the 1.26 Mughal Update. This is not exhaustive (We'll post up the full changelog closer to release) and is about changes made to the game and its existing mechanics, rather than the new stuff we've added. We'll have another Dev Diary in the future to act as a "roundup" of new mechanics and how they work.

Estates:

As we have mentioned before, Estates now cause a disaster at 100% influence rather than 80%. They also no longer have a minimum requirement for land. In addition to this:

- Confiscating estate land now gives a +5 unrest modifier in the province for 15 years. This modifier goes away if you give the land to another estate.
- Confiscating estate land now adds 25 local autonomy in the province that the estate was previously in.
- Advisors generated by Estate interactions now scale in cost depending on estate influence.
- Influence from estate events generally increased.
- Cossack Estate now gains twice as much influence per development in granted provinces.
- The cap for how much development in granted provinces can increase influence is now 50% rather than 40% for all estates.

Trade Nodes:

- Bengal trade now flows into Doab, which in turn flows into Lahore (renamed from Kashmir) undoing the injustice to these nodes.
- General renaming and reshaping of Indian trade nodes (see screenshot)
- The Katsina Trade Node now connects to Ethiopia instead of Alexandria.
- The Ethiopia Trade node now also connects to Aden.
- Coromandel flows straight to the Cape

Trade n stuff.png


In general this means more Indian trade will be able to flow around Africa into Europe without needing massive amounts of control in Aden. Zanzibar isn't quite the slush fund it used to be, but remains lucrative.

Tributaries:

Far away tributaries with no expectation of help or feasible reason to be a subject was something we're looking to change with this update. As such, the AI is no longer interested in establishing new tributary relationships with nations who do not border them. This goes for both asking and receiving requests. Existing tributaries are fine, so Ayutthaya & Khmer won't suddenly want to abandon Ming in 1444.

Speaking of Ming, 1.26 may as well be renamed the Sukhothai update, as declaring an independence war no longer calls in your overlord's Tributary overlord. Sukhothai can now declare war against Ayutthaya without Chinese intervention.

Expansion:

An issue in EU4 that we've long recognised is that conquest is almost always a good idea: you are able to immediately get a financial benefit from land, buff up your own forcelimit, size, trading potential, while at the same time denying your foes that land. We've been wanting to change this so that one has to consider what they conquer with a bit more forethought and with that we turn to your States.

Your maximum number of States is now far more important: If you hold more territories than your state limit, you will face a yearly corruption penalty, currently +0.02 per territory (not per province). For example, if you have a State Limit of 15, you can have up to 15 States AND up to 15 Territories without penalty. Overseas Colonial Regions and Trade Charter Companies are exempt from this calculation. This corruption hit is halved in Easy mode, and entirely absent in Very Easy. Additionally sending Missionaries and cultural conversion are not possible in Territories. You must make them a state to do these.

In conjunction with this, all nations' base state limit has been doubled (up from 5 to 10).

There is a define ALLOWED_TERRITORY_VS_MAX_STATES which allows you to tweak this value in defines.lua

Subjects:

In the interest in encouraging more indirect rule, holding a subject for a long time will gradually reduce their liberty desire. Subjects can now also gain trust with their overlord, instead of having it pinned at 50.
Force Limit Contribution from subjects now scales with the subject's own FL, minimum of +1 + 10% from vassals, +20% from marches.


End Game Tags:

Preventing weird country formations, like Ottomans to Byzantium or Minghals or England to Mughals to Shan to Mughals to Japan is something we're historically not very good at. It generally involves a lot of different file changes and something usually gets overlooked. In script as of 1.26 we now have a scope known as "End game tags" which will prevent most cases of such nations forming other nations (Holy Roman Empire, Rome and Papal States are so special they trump this list, eg: Byzantium can for Rome, Italy can form Holy Roman Empire...).

The current list is:

Mughals
Ottomans
Byzantium
Rome
Holy Roman Empire
Rum
Qing
Russia
Commonwealth
Japan
Yuan
Hindustan
Bharat
Arabia
Papal States
Spain
Great Britain
Italy
Germany
Ming

That's the bulkier of the balance changes. As usual, there will be more nuanced changes in the fine details to come along in the full Changelog, which we will be sharing closer to release.

We are well aware that balance changes can get people worked up and are seldom without contention. I have very fond memories of forums around the the 1.12 release. Remain civil when expressing your feelings over your favourite balance changes as, although I endeavour to explain why we make changes, there are as many opinions as eyeballs in the world. Thanks for your time.

And if Balance Changes are not your cup of tea, let's have a look at some of the other National Idea changes brought along in the 1.26 Update. We'll look over at the Bengal region, where there is now a distinction between The Bangal Sultinate, and the Bengali Minors in the area.

I love U.png


Bengal Sultanate ideas
start =
infantry_power = 0.1
global_manpower_modifier = 0.15

bonus
backrow_artillery_damage = 0.15


bng_combat_piracy =
trade_efficiency = 0.1

"Pirates have infested the waters of the Bay of Bengal for too long. We must protect traders en route to our ports by discovering and eliminating pirate havens along the Arakan coast."

bng_habshi_generals =
army_tradition = 0.5

"Abyssinian slave-soldiers purchased in Arab markets play a significant role as elite infantry soldiers. Those that excel as leaders shall be given greater levels of command, while those who demonstrate exceptional loyalty shall make up the palace guard."

bng_clearing_the_delta =
development_cost = -0.1

"The Bengal Delta contains an immense expanse of potentially very profitable land that goes unexploited due to thick forestation. We must subsidize efforts to clear the forests to make way for new farmlands, cities, and trading posts."


bng_attract_sufis =
idea_cost = -0.1

"Sufis have long been innovators of Islamic thought as well as wise councilors. If we wish to be a leading voice in the future of the Islamic world, we must patronize Sufi lodges and convince the wisest among their order to settle in our domain."

bng_conquest_of_the_gangetic_plain =
leader_land_shock = 1

"To our west are the fertile and populated lands of the Indo-Gangetic Plain. The Sultans of Bengal have long coveted its great cities and vast wealth, but only now as a new and ambitious crop of generals rise to power is our ambition likely to become a reality. We must do all we can to ready our forces for the coming conquest."

bng_rupees =
global_tax_modifier = 0.1

"The lack of a widely adopted standardized currency is stunting the development of Indian commerce. As one of the foremost economic powers in the subcontinent, we are well placed to begin the minting of a new silver coinage with standard weights, which we shall call the rupee."

bng_bengali_industrialization =
global_trade_goods_size_modifier = 0.1

"Bengal is uniquely situated in India to begin a revolution unlike any seen before. We stand poised to exploit new developments in our already world-class textile and shipbuilding industries. Let us begin an industrial revolution!"


Bengali Minors ideas =
start =
merchants = 1
infantry_power = 0.1
}

bonus =
prestige = 1
}


hindu_sufi_syncretism =
religious_unity = 0.5

"Beyond the eastern frontiers of the Islamic world, came Sufi mystics to settle land grants or to commune with nature in Bengal, intermingling with the Hindu population. Cooperation led to extensive land reclamations in forested and marshy areas and helped to introduce new syncretic forms of music, painting, dancing and sculpture reflected in the temples and shrines constructed during this period."

ganges_brahmaputra_confluence =
trade_efficiency = 0.1

"The mighty Ganges and Brahmaputra have traveled far to intermingle and spread out into the Bengal Delta, funneling trade and commerce in its wake. For thousands of years the area around the delta has been a natural place for the easy exchange of goods and ideas."

rice_fields =
global_manpower_modifier = 0.2

"We Bengalis are primarily rice eaters, and the rainfall and soil in the area lends itself to massive surplus rice production, with the mighty silt laden rivers and monsoon allowing for three separate growing and harvest seasons a year."

mustard_oil_ilish_mach =
war_exhaustion_cost = -0.10

"Wars may torch the granaries and markets. The weather may wither or crush the crops in the fields. Elephants and ants may try to eat what we have planted. Give us a little oil, however, and our fish-laden rivers will give us the food we Bengalis desire most!"

jute_production =
#production_efficiency = 0.1

"Native to our region, Jute is a long, soft, shiny vegetable fiber that can be spun into coarse, strong rope, matting or thread. In high demand for its resilience and relatively light weight, we can benefit from its cultivation and production."

opium_fields =
global_tax_modifier = 0.1

"What's that? People will give us gold and silver for our flowers!? The opium of our region is highly prized and easily grown, commanding twice the price of any other opium in the world. Let the trade begin!"

bengali_renaissance =
global_institution_spread = 0.1

"The Bengal Renaissance that took place in this region was a reaction to the encounter and impact of Europeans arriving for not only commerce, but for study, art and scholarship. The Bengal Renaissance blended together Hindu teachings from the past with Western education, politics and law, as well as a re-casting of Bengali culture. This led to a flourishing of the arts and sciences."

And if neither Balance changes nor National Ideas are your thing, well, swing by next week, where we'll talk about that new image you keep seeing in the buildings interface is. There are still a fair few dev diaries to come before Dharma is due to hit the shelves.
 

Attachments

  • Trade n stuff.png
    Trade n stuff.png
    3,9 MB · Views: 2.156
Last edited:
People need to relax with the critisism.

Will the changes make it more difficult to blob? Yes, but why is it bad to have some extra difficulty / challenge? Bolobbing hard and WCs are still easy achievable despite the changes!

All changes are welcome in the game (see how many things have changed since release). It just makes the game be alive after so much time, you need to adjust your optimal strategy from patch to patch. I understand based on the DDs that the new optimal strategy / meta will be having large vassals for your expansion if you want to be very aggressive and that's fine - In future patches the optimal strategy can be something else.

Aren't people interested in seeing how the changes will play out and any extra layers of strategy this may offer?

I am personally very happy to explore that!
 
I’m wondering if the dev even like their game or only wish to slowly destroy it while making money.

The changes to missionary and culture conversion are unreasonable, we need more incentives to do conversions not make it harder, humanist is the best way to play in the meta.

Corruption cost for territories is broken, there is no reason for this, the only way that blobbing can be nerfed is by adding bonuses to playing tall not this. With all the modifiers, you choose corruption? WTF
 
I like the direction of these balance changes a lot :) And, just for the record, I think it would be a great thing for Paradox to just ignore whether any change makes any achievement harder or even impossible. Achievements are (in my personal opinion) probably the worst thing that happened to the EU franchise, and they should play no role whatsoever in balance or other gameplay decisions. Hence, I'm inclined to like the missionary change and any effect it has on One Faith is no relevant concern (to me, that is).
Of course, your mileage may vary on that ;)

You obviously have the right to enjoy whatever it is you enjoy, but I just can't figure out why anyone would like that missionary change. I mean the expansion one I get, while I disagree with the implementation. But the missionary one? At best it's an annoyance at worst it makes a lot of content quite useless (extra missionaries certain policies, the entire idea group, a huge nerf to papal influence etc.). I mean the AI doesn't convert or conquer enough to make the religious map mode unrealistic (whatever that is in a sandbox game), so it only really affects yourself. At which point if you don't want to convert don't, no need to annoy the rest of us :(
 
Your maximum number of States is now far more important: If you hold more territories than your state limit, you will face a yearly corruption penalty, currently +0.02 per territory (not per province). For example, if you have a State Limit of 15, you can have up to 15 States AND up to 15 Territories without penalty. Overseas Colonial Regions and Trade Charter Companies are exempt from this calculation. This corruption hit is halved in Easy mode, and entirely absent in Very Easy. Additionally sending Missionaries and cultural conversion are not possible in Territories. You must make them a state to do these.

So colonial nations will still be allowed to blob up but you say get the fuck out to every other nation in the game? Terrible idea
 
Mhm.

I think if I play this patch, I will probably be modding the state limit back up, then, especially if I ever get around to finishing my CK2 => EUIV Rome run - I wasn't overly happy with the state reduction in my last playthrough.

(But I have so many games around at the moment, it's entirely possible I won't get to EUIV before the next one, which may change things again.)

That said, no minimum limit on estates means I can largely ignore them (since I was not particularly impressed with what they brought to the game last time, with the tedius micromanagment of assigning the being the worst part), so there is that.
 
People need to relax with the critisism.

Will the changes make it more difficult to blob? Yes, but why is it bad to have some extra difficulty / challenge? Bolobbing hard and WCs are still easy achievable despite the changes!

All changes are welcome in the game (see how many things have changed since release). It just makes the game be alive after so much time, you need to adjust your optimal strategy from patch to patch. I understand based on the DDs that the new optimal strategy / meta will be having large vassals for your expansion if you want to be very aggressive and that's fine - In future patches the optimal strategy can be something else.

Aren't people interested in seeing how the changes will play out and any extra layers of strategy this may offer?

I am personally very happy to explore that!


there is no criticism, All criticism are removed sooner or later.
 
So to convert people, you would now need to give up one state, and make another territory a state for the length of conversion. So if you plan to play an expansion game, basically all of your administrative points would be spent on rearanging territories and states for converting, to keep unrest under control.

Devs, what exactly where your thoughts when you came up with this?

not at all, you just keep the provinces in a state uncored and switch as necessary.
 
Expansion:

An issue in EU4 that we've long recognised is that conquest is almost always a good idea: you are able to immediately get a financial benefit from land, buff up your own forcelimit, size, trading potential, while at the same time denying your foes that land. We've been wanting to change this so that one has to consider what they conquer with a bit more forethought and with that we turn to your States.

Your maximum number of States is now far more important: If you hold more territories than your state limit, you will face a yearly corruption penalty, currently +0.02 per territory (not per province). For example, if you have a State Limit of 15, you can have up to 15 States AND up to 15 Territories without penalty. Overseas Colonial Regions and Trade Charter Companies are exempt from this calculation. This corruption hit is halved in Easy mode, and entirely absent in Very Easy. Additionally sending Missionaries and cultural conversion are not possible in Territories. You must make them a state to do these.

As a person who likes to play tall, I have to disagree with this change. It doesn't encourage people to play tall, it discourages people from playing wide. This changes nothing for people who want to play tall, it just makes the game more annoying for map painters.

Reward the player for the behaviour you want to encourage, instead of punishing the player for the behaviour you want to discourage.
 
You don't like achievements. That's ok, I get it. But many people do. Might I suggest the reasonable compromise that the changes are made as they are intended, but that achievements are actually thought of and modified so that the ones intented to be possible are still possible after the changes, if such issues were to occur for this patch or any other. Only reasonable exception to this as I see it is The Three Mountains which ahs always had sort of a reputation as the "let's see what broken exploits players find this patch to do this impossible thing so we can maybe fix it if it's really bad" achievement.
No. The thing is that basing game balance decisions on the achievements that require world conquest or massive blobbing will, almost inevitably, be to the detriment of the playstyle and general direction of the game that I prefer.
I thoroughly dislike massive blobbing and world conquest. I get that there are quite a lot of people who enjoy playing that way. If Paradox finds that it is more profitable and/or more in line with their design philosophy to cater to the "achievement hunters" (which I use without any deprecative connotation), that is a legitimate game design and/or business decision, albeit one that I happen to disapprove. Neither other players nor Paradox are idiots for simply having a different taste in gaming.

The worst direction, in fact, for the game to take is some inconsequential compromise. Paradox should decide what they want EU4 to be and streamline the game with that decision in mind.
 
Your maximum number of States is now far more important: If you hold more territories than your state limit, you will face a yearly corruption penalty, currently +0.02 per territory (not per province). For example, if you have a State Limit of 15, you can have up to 15 States AND up to 15 Territories without penalty. Overseas Colonial Regions and Trade Charter Companies are exempt from this calculation. This corruption hit is halved in Easy mode, and entirely absent in Very Easy. Additionally sending Missionaries and cultural conversion are not possible in Territories. You must make them a state to do these.

I am really happy about changes like these. That make conquest more strategic. Love it.
 
No. The thing is that basing game balance decisions on the achievements that require world conquest or massive blobbing will, almost inevitably, be to the detriment of the playstyle and general direction of the game that I prefer.
I thoroughly dislike massive blobbing and world conquest. I get that there are quite a lot of people who enjoy playing that way. If Paradox finds that it is more profitable and/or more in line with their design philosophy to cater to the "achievement hunters" (which I use without any deprecative connotation), that is a legitimate game design and/or business decision, albeit one that I happen to disapprove. Neither other players nor Paradox are idiots for simply having a different taste in gaming.

The worst direction, in fact, for the game to take is some inconsequential compromise. Paradox should decide what they want EU4 to be and streamline the game with that decision in mind.
It does not need to be one way or the other way, it should be made with both playstyles in mind.

As a person who likes to play tall, I have to disagree with this change. It doesn't encourage people to play tall, it discourages people from playing wide. This changes nothing for people who want to play tall, it just makes the game more annoying for map painters.

Reward the player for the behaviour you want to encourage, instead of punishing the player for the behaviour you want to discourage.
This should always be the approach, help the player have a fun choice in both playstyles.
 
As echoed by many people in this thread the conversion changes to territories seems bizarre and will inevitably just lead to people toggling states on and off to achieve unity. Assuming this is only here to reinforce the (new?) mantra of limiting the amount of provinces you own.

If this change goes ahead could you at least put Dues Vult back to the start of the religious idea group? If I'm going to have a limited number of converted provinces at least let me have some fun and claim them earlier :(
 
  • Estates: I can get behind those changes. It was pretty simple to manipulate estate loyalty and influence by temporarily adding/removing states. It's also great that they will be added to the base game. I'm a bit torn on the removal of minimum land requirement. On one hand it removes tediousness, on the other hand I can't see how estates could become an important internal real management factor if they are completely optional (which was the main reason why a lot of people wanted them to be in the base game in the first place)
  • Trade Nodes: nothing to complain here from my side, adding additional trade node links to prevent easy trade flow control/shutdown is a good change
  • Tributaries: Making/Accepting tributary request over long distances being fixed is really nice. There are still a lot of other issues with them though
  • Expansion: you basically just created another money sink with the state/territory ratio. Seeing the current one state meta it's understandable that you want to buff states, but this really feels like a cheap solution. Missionary/Culture Conversion restrictions are completely unnecessary (especially if it turns out that you can convert provinces in states without fully coring them). Not sure why you would reduce tediousness from estate management and introduce new one in missionary management (which already is pretty tedious anyway). About One Faith runs: ZZ Top would say "Dhimmi all your lovin' " :D
  • Subjects: became a bit more useful. They probably are more important for religious playthroughs now, though sadly subject AI is pretty unreliable in wars and has some trouble if player overlord is constantly at war
  • End Game Tags: with the change to the new mission system tag switching to collect a lot of unique mission rewards was quite powerful. Since it seems there will be more unique mission trees added in future DLCs I can at least understand why you wanted to limit tag switching. Still sad that some more fancy strategies will be lost because of this and so not really agreeing with this change

  • The big elephant in the room: Trade Companies. I simply don't get this. Veteran players have pointed out again and again how powerful they are. Yet they will receive another buff in 1.26 with the ability to purchase TC provinces, unique buildings and being exempt from the state/territory ratio. Overall it seems that strategic variance is further reduced as going Humanist and Exploration, then buying a foothold in TC regions and building up your empire from there vastly outclasses all other strategies (well maybe HRE fast revoke can hold up as an alternative somewhat), which seems pretty bad for a game which is labelled as Grand Strategy (especially if you also take new tag switching restrictions into account)
 
No. The thing is that basing game balance decisions on the achievements that require world conquest or massive blobbing will, almost inevitably, be to the detriment of the playstyle and general direction of the game that I prefer.
I thoroughly dislike massive blobbing and world conquest. I get that there are quite a lot of people who enjoy playing that way. If Paradox finds that it is more profitable and/or more in line with their design philosophy to cater to the "achievement hunters" (which I use without any deprecative connotation), that is a legitimate game design and/or business decision, albeit one that I happen to disapprove. Neither other players nor Paradox are idiots for simply having a different taste in gaming.

The worst direction, in fact, for the game to take is some inconsequential compromise. Paradox should decide what they want EU4 to be and streamline the game with that decision in mind.

Ufff I disagree entirely! Streamlining a game that I most love because of the possibility to play however the heck you want is exactly the opposite of what I would like. Achievements are not all geared towards wide play. Removing freedom of choice by implementing barriers such as the missionary or expansion (the corruption can't be decreased after a certain number of states) is bad for the game.
I fail to see how either of the changes will make your gameplay any better, while it will unarguably make wide play and convertion worst. That would be ok if the design behind the changes was good, it is not.

The misionary change is either:
- You need full cores to convert: Nobody in it's right mind would pay the admin for that.
- You don't need full cores only state: Useless change, only adds more micromanagement.

The expansion one:
- If you are playing tall you're probably not even gonna notice a difference.
- For wide, due to the fact that the change does not affect TC makes it even more railroady to go to India. Bad design.

What I don't understand is why it is necessary to nerf (badly at that) a style of play to make to other one more enjoyable. Just add mechanics that make tall more interesting, it's a borefest at the moment and it has nothing to do with wide being more profitable. Everything to do with lack of economic and trade management for tall countries, an over simplistic building system and the lack of administrative government decisions (hopefully to be addressed this patch! that's a great change for example)

I am not just being negative for the sake of being negative, more than happy to praise the map changes, a lot of the new tags, idea sets, the changes to estates etc etc.
 
Subjects:

In the interest in encouraging more indirect rule, holding a subject for a long time will gradually reduce their liberty desire. Subjects can now also gain trust with their overlord, instead of having it pinned at 50.
Force Limit Contribution from subjects now scales with the subject's own FL, minimum of +1 + 10% from vassals, +20% from marches.

If only subjects didn't take diplo slot. You know what? Maaaaaybe, you guys, should think about making a diplo slot only for subjects? Separate for Allies and separate for subjects. Colonial subject and tributary 0.5, and vassal/march - 1. then you can always have a subject ot two and not be worried that you can't get ally as well.
 
On the state conversion change i propose 3 solutions which i find might ease up the problem (again i'm noob at EU4 so open for suggestion)
1. Allow conversion of territories in an idea of Religious (finisher?)
2. Adds a chance for every convertible province to get a "local missionary" to convert it (e.g. province get slowly converted without state interference)
3. Allow conversion of territories, but will convert at 1/4 speed (in line with autonomy floor)
 
Additionally sending Missionaries and cultural conversion are not possible in Territories. You must make them a state to do these.

To me this seems like a change that just increases hassle and annoyment.
Think about it this way: If I have a state limit of 15, I will now only make 14 territories into states and leave one slot open. When I conquer land, I will make territorial cores, then state one region, not fully core any of this, convert everything, de-state it and do it to another region.

This change adds absolutely nothing of value to the game, other than making conversion more annoying.