EU4 Development Diary - 25th February 2016

[perhje]

From the OP it seems like almost everyone will be able to have at least one state in addition to the capital, since there's +1 for non-tribal governments.

Also, England has both low countries and France from the start, because they are a kingdom. In addition, since there is 7 regions from tech and 32 tech in total(per category), i'd be surprised if we wouldn't get one extra among the 5 first techs.

 

[grandad1982]

Not a fan of the changes. Will be this the first patch I role back? Guess I'll try it first but the states sound clumsy and not that fun so far.

 

[PhroX]

Overall, I like the idea of States/Territories, but there are two things that stand out to me as being concerns:

1 - Hard cap on states. Hard caps are bad design as the constrain player choice. Instead, it should be a "soft cap", akin to force limits, in that you can go over the limit on the number of states, but there are rapidly increasing penalties for doing so. That way players are encouraged to keep to the limit, but have to option of exceeding it should they feel the benefits outweigh the costs. This kind of decision is exactly what strategy games should be about, and putting in a hard limit on the number of states takes the decision making away from the player.

2 - States being exclusively tied to a single pre-set region. Limiting the administrative divisions of nations to rigid boundaries with no consideration of how said nations have been developing in game makes little sense. From preexisting issues with the start, such as the aforementioned Savoy, to nations that, over the course of the game happened to expand along lines that don't match the predefined regions, you're going to end up with really illogical situations with regards the breakdown of those nations internal administrative divisions. If I control a province that is adjacent to several I control, is of my culture and my religion, why would I have to create a new administrative region just to be able to manage that one province properly, especially if the preexisting administration in the neighbouring provinces is no where near being overstretched (i.e. I don't control all the 1st region)? Either allow for dynamic regions, that can change over time based on control / culture / religion or allow provinces adjacent to a state to be added to that state even though they're outside the region, with a (preferably soft) cap on the number of provinces per state and/or a limit on how far from the region provinces can be added to it (maybe a limit on two provinces away from the region?)

 

[mcmanusaur]

In all honesty, I'm not sure what either of these mechanics is supposed to add to the experience. In my humble opinion, we're at the point where the game needs better mechanics, not simply more mechanics. So what's the goal- are these mechanics expected to create more strategically interesting decisions? Do they model something that was previously ignored, or are they just yet another set of arbitrary abstractions for the player to handle?

Perhaps a lot of it has to do with the decision to change how regions work. The fact is that regions are messy, fluid, and overlapping in real life, and we moved from a system that was at least relatively freeform to a rigid hierarchical and railroaded system, which effectively treats modern borders as a given. And now, more and more mechanics are being based off the new regions system.

This runs completely counter to the whole point of playing the game, in my opinion. What's the point of trying to create greater [insert nation name here] if the game already has notions of what the proper borders of that region are baked into it? The whole point of coring and assimilating new territory is to extend the boundaries of what is seen as part of [insert nation name here] proper. The new region system is hard-wired to ignore the geopolitical reality in favor of some abstract (and often anachronous) notion of where the proper borders are. That has no place in an empire-building game, and the fact that more and more mechanics are being based around such railroading is a huge step backward.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Corruption is a very dangerous mechanic conceptually to ROTW, since "uneven research" is more typical with big penalties. I'd rather not go back to the days -1 points/month cost, where the player incentive to speed westernize was crushingly overwhelming. You said you're still working on the numbers so there's not much point in going further just yet; the impact on gameplay will depend very much on how those numbers look.

States/territories has pretty good potential as a mechanic. I'd still *really* like to see a set of modifiers implemented to replace "length of war" though, especially now that it's tied to human player stabhits as well as AI deals.

 

[Ternega]

In all honesty, I'm not sure what either of these mechanics is supposed to add to the experience. In my humble opinion, we're at the point where the game needs better mechanics, not simply more mechanics. So what's the goal- are these mechanics expected to create more strategically interesting decisions? Do they model something that was previously ignored, or are they just yet another set of arbitrary abstractions for the player to handle?

Perhaps a lot of it has to do with the decision to change how regions work. The fact is that regions are messy, fluid, and overlapping in real life, and we moved from a system that was at least relatively freeform to a rigid hierarchical and railroaded system, which effectively treats modern borders as a given. And now, more and more mechanics are being based off the new regions system.

This runs completely counter to the whole point of playing the game, in my opinion. What's the point of trying to create greater [insert nation name here] if the game already has notions of what the proper borders of that region are baked into it? The whole point of coring and assimilating new territory is to extend the boundaries of what is seen as part of [insert nation name here] proper. The new region system is hard-wired to ignore the geopolitical reality in favor of some abstract (and often anachronous) notion of where the proper borders are. That has no place in an empire-building game, and the fact that more and more mechanics are being based around such railroading is a huge step backward.

Regions-states encourage nations to focus their conquest in a praticular (fairly big mind you) area, whether this is good or not is debateble but it's leagues better than the current overseas rules, which are overcomplicated, arbitrary(they share this unfortunate distinction with regions, but at least regions are smaller) and easily exploitable. I like the idea of commiting to conquest in a particular region as opposed to blobbing in all directions, as a game play choice, but this again is gonna be down to how one likes to play. Still the states/regions feels a step forward compared to current overseas rules to me.

 

[Freudia]

Regions-states encourage nations to focus their conquest in a praticular (fairly big mind you) area, weather this is good or not it's good is debateble but it's leagues better than the current overseas rules, which are overcomplicated, arbitrary(they share this unfortunate distinction with regions, but at least regions are smaller) and easily exploitable. I like the idea of commiting to conquest in a particular region as opposed to blobbing in all directions, as a game play choice, but this again is gonna be down to how one likes to play. Still the states/regions feels a step forward compared to current overseas rules to me.

Honestly, the whole 'commiting to conquest in a particular region' thing only really works if you're large enough to where you can afford to make that kind of conquest commitment. Small nations have to take what they can get, and I'm willing to bet that small nations along state lines are going to suffer for this precisely because they have to take what they can get and not just focus on a single area.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Honestly, the whole 'commiting to conquest in a particular region' thing only really works if you're large enough to where you can afford to make that kind of conquest commitment. Small nations have to take what they can get, and I'm willing to bet that small nations along state lines are going to suffer for this precisely because they have to take what they can get and not just focus on a single area.

Don't worry, non-tribal kingdoms/dutchies can probably get enough states, and nobody cares about those random African/Indian nations anyway amirite ?

Though depending on how its tuned it might be territory spam all day everyday.

 

[Ternega]

Honestly, the whole 'commiting to conquest in a particular region' thing only really works if you're large enough to where you can afford to make that kind of conquest commitment. Small nations have to take what they can get, and I'm willing to bet that small nations along state lines are going to suffer for this precisely because they have to take what they can get and not just focus on a single area.

Yeah, I agree, I feel that states system shold have next to no affect on small nations (unless they decide to snake), and as such hope that as a none horde dutchy you will be allowed to have 3 states from the get go(capital one, free one and non horde one). Otherwise this mechanic could needlessly influences a country small enough to be a single state.

 

[Eustonian]

Attaching states to regions seems like a big mistake, it'd introduce a lot of arbitrary railroading.

 

[Arizal]

For those who are panicking about the possibility that their empires would be too small :

At the beginning of the game, an empire can span over 4 states. This is before adding the adm idea bonus, which we must assume every player willing to expand would eventually take. So we are at 5 states. Then if we fast forward to the end game, we add 7 other states, which places us at 12 states.

By the look of it, if France is a single region and Germany two, assuming Iberia is one region as well and Italy is one too (+England), western Europe consists of 6 states. If the same size applies to the east, it would appear Europe as a whole is exactly 12 provinces (Baltic, Scandinavia, Poland, Ukraine (?), Hungary (?), Balkans (?)... Russia) or close anyway.

The biggest paneuropean empire of the era, the napoleonic empire, certainly would have had trouble holding Russia accross this massive territory before railways. The historic empire which span over a large part of Europe, the Roman one, would have to hold the mediterranean provinces, and I suspect such an empire would also end at 12 states. What is good with states is that expanding in North Africa is no longer counterproductive, nor had it arbitrary maluses. Players are more on a leveled ground wherever they choose to expand. And coring might just cost less.

This solution also put an end to the most iconic cheesy tactic I saw players talking about : abuse oversea territory by cutting their empire in order to make coring cost less. It seems realistic enough to me as a solution for me to go behind it and wait and see. Keep in mind that if an empire has most of Europe, then the rest of the world would be colonies, as historically.

Also, while a drifting de jure system as in CK2 could have been envisioned, I think it might have been too complicated for the limited benefits it would have given.

About corruption, this seems an interesting mechanic, designed to make the Ottomans and other non-occidental countries sink a part of their money in it, meaning they won't be able to filed armies as large as currently, or at least they will do so during a more brief time, before crumbling because of it. I would also tie it to more than just technology. Parliement mechanic and estates come in mind, but perhaps this is already the case by events.

Finally, I would be glad to have the ability to give estates in each of my states. It was dull in my Portugal game to only have Iberia and northern Morocco to give estates to, and not having the rest of North Africa.

 

[LordLycanthrope]

Do we have an ETA on this?!!

 

[Karandras]

The important thing to remember here, which no one has mentioned so far, is that Byz gets nerfed again. Empire level so they get increased corruption. (Mind you, I love playing Byz. I joke because I care. )

 

[Spacehamster]

Do we have an ETA on this?!!

You are clearly new here. Be prepared for some incoming oneliners from LotR.

 

[EldarPanic]

Did you fix Dobrogea ? I mean how hard is it to split Silistra in 2 ?

 

[Gargoul-MotW]

Not a fan of the changes. Will be this the first patch I role back? Guess I'll try it first but the states sound clumsy and not that fun so far.

Same here ... these changes feel somehow irrelevant and annoying to me and look like they are counter intuitive to the tactics and mechanics the game has so far.

Let's go a step further. Are those changes being implemented to eliminate certain tactics/mechanics? (CONSPIRACY CONFIRMED)

 

[Em Ay Ef]

Honestly, the whole 'commiting to conquest in a particular region' thing only really works if you're large enough to where you can afford to make that kind of conquest commitment. Small nations have to take what they can get, and I'm willing to bet that small nations along state lines are going to suffer for this precisely because they have to take what they can get and not just focus on a single area.

there's a simple remedy for small countries located along region lines--mathematically, a small country sitting on a regional border would need two states, or three if it sits at a conjunction of three regions (regions are big enough to guarantee that no small countries can border four regions at once) for unhindered development, and by the time it's big enough to spread into a fourth region, the country in question would be big enough to be able to afford another state through tech or becoming a kingdom. so as long as each small state is capable of setting up three states, it wouldn't be punished by the new system. we know for sure it can set up at least two (unless it's tribal).

 

[Sneering Imperialist]

Judging by the 'mixed' response this diary has gotten so far (Roughly 2:1 positive to negative), it seems like the next expansion is going to get absolutely blasted in the steam reviews, especially if it's as buggy as the past releases suggest it will be. Perhaps that isn't super important, but its something to consider.

 

[perhje]

While this seems to be true, the fact that three contiguous provinces can be either: all 0% autonomy with 0 gold cost or one with 75% autonomy, one with gold cost and one with neither still makes a significant difference imo.

If I'm basing any of my musings on faulty understanding of the OP, I'll be glad to be corrected.

Look at the cost for England to have Low Countries and France, not the biggest. Also the first tech-given region would most likely come among the 5 first techs.

 

[ranma100]

I like playing Russia and trying to conquer all of Europe and Asia and Africa. It looks like this patch will destroy that. Some of us like being able to make huge blobs. Don't destroy that.