Hello, and welcome to a new era of EU4 development, where we’ll have development diaries talking about what we are doing almost every week.

One of the criticism we’ve had regarding EU4, have been that the game has always premiered conquest, and if you didn’t expand, you fell behind. In the next major update, you’ll be able to make an empire that is more focused on tall than on wide. After all, it is just common sense of us to listen to what the community is requesting.

Most of you are familiar with the concept of base tax. This permeates the game at so many fundamental levels, with everything from forcelimits to coring costs being coupled to this. We also had a value in a province that was called manpower. Trade-Goods produced was arcanely connected to the basetax, and there is not a single human being that could calculate how much manpower in a province actually

Now we have 3 separate values in a province called Base Tax, Base Production & Base Manpower.

Base Tax affects your monthly tax income as before, and also increases your defence against hostile spies.

Base Production impacts the amount of trade-goods produced in the province, and how quickly ships gets build in the province.

Each level of base manpower increased your nations maximum manpower by 250, and also impacts the garrison growth in the province, and how quickly regiments is recruited in that province.

All of them together is called “Development”, which describes how heavily populated and built up the province is. Each level of development increases the supply limit, forcelimits for your armies and navies and makes it harder to converts its religion.

Finally, the development level also allows you to be able to build more buildings in that province.

Wait?

What am I talking about here? Well, first of all, we have reduced the amount of possible buildings, as a large part were fillers. Secondly, we removed the power-cost for building buildings. And finally, not every province can have the same amount of buildings. Currently, a province can have 1 building as default, with some terrains like desert or mountains reducing it by 1, and some increasing it, like farmlands. And, every 10 development allows another building slot in a province. So Paris may be able to have 6 buildings in 1444, while Figuig can not support a single building.




Now you say that we haven’t really talked that much about wide versus tall, but bear with me.

You will be able to spend adm, dip or mil power to increase base tax, production and manpower respectively in a province, where of course the cost keep increasing, but if you dream about a 20 base tax Dublin, then you can do that Doing this in deserts or arctic climate is far more expensive than doing it in better climates. The ideas that affected build power costs, now affects the cost of improving your province. There is also technologies that decrease the cost of improving development in the later half of the game.

Here’s the example of a few buildings in the game.

Marketplace - Dip4 - +2 Trade Power - 50 gold
Barracks - Mil 6 - +25% Manpower - 50 gold
Cathedral - Adm 19 - +3% Missionary Strength & +40% Tax Income - 200 gold
Stock Exchange - Dip 22 - +100% Trade Power - 400 gold
Town Hall -Adm 22 -5 Local Unrest - 400 g

Next week, we’ll talk a little about something that fits England very well..

 

[Jamey]

I like the idea of continuous weekly Dev Diaries.

Questions:

1) How are manufactories handled?
2) Is the MP cost escalation based on total development? Or separate per category?
3) How are unique buildings handled?

 

[Golladan]

I like the idea of continuous weekly Dev Diaries.

Questions:

1) How are manufactories handled?
2) Is the MP cost escalation based on total development? Or separate per category?
3) How are unique buildings handled?

1) Manufacotires are either take up a building slot. You can see in the screenshot that the button for manufactories is no longer there.
2) Johan mentioned in the old forums that it's based on how much it has been developed.
3) Johan mentioned in the old forums that unique buildings were removed.

 

[Jorlem]

I notice a rather important few questions have not been asked yet: Will this patch add Jan Mayen, and how much will we be able to develop it, if so?

 

[AhoyDeerrr]

2) Johan mentioned in the old forums that it's based on the total development in the province.

Correct me if I am wrong but I thought he said that it was based on the amount of times the province has already been upgraded? meaning the first upgrade for a province with 5 total development would cost the same as a the first upgrade for a province with 15 development for example.

 

[Golladan]

Correct me if I am wrong but I thought he said that it was based on the amount of times the province has already been upgraded? meaning the first upgrade for a province with 5 total development would cost the same as a the first upgrade for a province with 15 development for example.

Right.

 

[Sun_Wu]

Temujin is a bit out of the time period but Timur isn't, he died in 1405.

Indeed, and M&T starts in 1356 which makes Timor quite in time line for us.

 

[A-150]

3) Johan mentioned in the old forums that unique buildings were removed.

So their benefits are now gone and not being replaced, that's not good.

 

[TheDecider]

Correct me if I am wrong but I thought he said that it was based on the amount of times the province has already been upgraded? meaning the first upgrade for a province with 5 total development would cost the same as a the first upgrade for a province with 15 development for example.

You mean it would work like this?
1/1/1 = Tax/Production/Manpower (T/P/M).

Going from 1/1/1 (1444 BM start value) -> 2/1/1 cost X ADM
and going from
10/10/10 (1444 BM start value) -> 11/10/10 would cost X ADM
meaning they'd cost the same?

This would just give already rich starting countries an even bigger advantage.

In my humble opinion the cost for each "stat" should just scale from it's current level:
1/1/1 -> 2/1/1 should cost X
10/10/10 -> 11/10/10 should cost Y
where X is less than Y.

Also, given that all stats costs the same at 1/1/1, it should cost the same in total points developing different stats:
1/1/1 -> 2/1/1 costs X ADM
10/10/1 -> 10/10/2 costs X MIL
meaning same cost

So their benefits are now gone and not being replaced, that's not good.

We haven't yet been told how they're getting replaced, they probably will though even if just a money sink it gives a early/mid game goal - despite being just a snowballing power (rich getting even stronger).

 

[AhoyDeerrr]

You mean it would work like this?
1/1/1 = Tax/Production/Manpower (T/P/M).

Going from 1/1/1 (1444 BM start value) -> 2/1/1
would cost the same as going from
10/10/10 (1444 BM start value) -> 11/10/10
?

This would just give already rich starting countries an even bigger advantage.

In my humble opinion the cost for each "stat" should just scale from it's current level:
1/1/1 -> 2/1/1 should cost X
10/10/10 -> 11/10/10 should cost Y
where X is less than Y.

Also, given that all stats costs the same at 1/1/1, it should cost the same in total points developing different stats:
1/1/1 -> 2/1/1 costs X ADM
10/10/1 -> 10/10/2 costs X MIL
meaning same cost

I obviously can not say for sure but that is what it sounded like from what Johan said.

I would say that to an extent it makes sense for it to work like that else you would have a problem where improving the provinces that start with high development is not valid and so by the end of the game all player provinces would be at a that limit of validity. Which would defeat the point of developing provinces to stay relevant as a small nation because it would mean capturing new poor provinces then upgrading them would be more effective that upgrading your decent starting provinces.

 

[A-150]

We haven't yet been told how they're getting replaced, they probably will though even if just a money sink it gives a early/mid game goal - despite being just a snowballing power (rich getting even stronger).

It was cool for RP purposes, "Glorious Monument in _______ province"

 

[Vishaing]

Really the biggest thing that should determine how expensive it is to develop a province should be the climate of the province itself. It should cost far more to develop a Desert than it does to develop fertile grassland. Other terrain features could apply modifiers. A Major River for instance would reduce the cost by quite a bit, and reduce the cost in Desert Provinces dramatically.

Then the cost increases by how much base tax/production/manpower is already there. Making it so the cost scales with how many improvements are already there with no regard for the base stats would be terrible and would, as stated, just lead to the Rich starting rich and getting and staying even richer.

 

[Oceanflex]

Those of you talking about how cost goes up after developing things. The number of times you've upgraded is stored on the nation level, not the province level. Confirmed on old forums, if you upgrade your 2/3/2 province to a 2/3/3 province, upgrading your 5/6/4 will cost more than it would have. This is to balance building "tall" with buiding "wide" so that an OPM can upgrade the same number of times as a great power.

 

[AhoyDeerrr]

Those of you talking about how cost goes up after developing things. The number of times you've upgraded is stored on the nation level, not the province level. Confirmed on old forums, if you upgrade your 2/3/2 province to a 2/3/3 province, upgrading your 5/6/4 will cost more than it would have. This is to balance building "tall" with buiding "wide" so that an OPM can upgrade the same number of times as a great power.

Ah, that makes perfect sense. Thanks for clearing it up.

 

[A-150]

Those of you talking about how cost goes up after developing things. The number of times you've upgraded is stored on the nation level, not the province level. Confirmed on old forums, if you upgrade your 2/3/2 province to a 2/3/3 province, upgrading your 5/6/4 will cost more than it would have. This is to balance building "tall" with buiding "wide" so that an OPM can upgrade the same number of times as a great power.

That doesn't really balance it as a great power can just steal that one province you have been upgrading for 100 years, and upgrading a new province will be expensive if it follows this rule (not to mention a huge waste of your or the ai's time). And this will be exploited against the AI by players and possibly against other players in multiplayer matches.

 

[Oceanflex]

That doesn't really balance it as a great power can just steal that one province you have been upgrading for 100 years, and upgrading a new province will be expensive if it follows this rule (not to mention a huge waste of your or the ai's time). And this will be exploited against the AI by players.

Meh, the old buildings system was already exploted in an identical manner. Also, gives a reason to upgrade your capital, rather than all of your boarder provinces.

EDIT: though, I would be OK with some kind of reduction in the inflated cost of upgrades if you lose your upgraded province (say, for every 3 upgrades you lose, you get 1 upgrade worth of inflation removed, possibly added to the province's new owner's "inflation")

 

[Golladan]

Those of you talking about how cost goes up after developing things. The number of times you've upgraded is stored on the nation level, not the province level. Confirmed on old forums, if you upgrade your 2/3/2 province to a 2/3/3 province, upgrading your 5/6/4 will cost more than it would have. This is to balance building "tall" with buiding "wide" so that an OPM can upgrade the same number of times as a great power.

Johan's wording was too ambiguous to say with certainty that it's on a national level.

And if it is on a national level (I'm quite certain it isn't), it doesn't really make building tall viable.

 

[A-150]

Meh, the old buildings system was already exploted in an identical manner. Also, gives a reason to upgrade your capital, rather than all of your boarder provinces.

EDIT: though, I would be OK with some kind of reduction in the inflated cost of upgrades if you lose your upgraded province (say, for every 3 upgrades you lose, you get 1 upgrade worth of inflation removed, possibly added to the province's new owner's "inflation")

Sounds like more work for the devs. It'd honestly be easier setting it on a province level. Upgrading the capital wouldn't work if you move it (which the ai does sometimes), then it can be taken the normal way. I hope this issue gets addressed.

 

[Oceanflex]

Johan's wording was too ambiguous to say with certainty that it's on a national level.

And if it is on a national level (I'm quite certain it isn't), it doesn't really make building tall viable.

The post I was refering to explicitly said that an upgrade to one province would make upgrading other provinces more expensive. It also suggested that they made it this way to help smaller nations keep up with larger ones. Though, I agree that it won't be the only thing they need to do to make building tall viable.

Sounds like more work for the devs. It'd honestly be easier setting it on a province level. Upgrading the capital wouldn't work if you move it (which the ai does sometimes), then it can be taken the normal way.

The AI usually only ever moves their capital if it becomes an exclave, or via event. I was saying upgrade the capital because, usually, your capital is defenceable and not on the boarder, making it a pain to take.

I don't see how province level is any easier, either you add +1 to something associated with a province, or add +1 to someting associated with a tag (and when someone tag swaps, set the new thing to what the old thing was).

 

[A-150]

I don't see how province level is any easier, either you add +1 to something associated with a province, or add +1 to someting associated with a tag (and when someone tag swaps, set the new thing to what the old thing was).

Provinces change with nations, lose province lose the cost increase with it. Plus it will avoid things like this: creating a lot of subjects, letting them upgrade their provinces, and then annexing them back. You end up not having to spend anything but still get upgrades, plus it won't increase the cost of more.

If it's set on an national level it will be like this.

 

[Arizal]

I must say this is really good.

I often saw posts stressing the nonsense that was (and still is until this patch) the mechanic of paying MP to build buildings. This meant that a country with many military buildings would be less advanced militarily than one which wouldn't have constructed those buildings. Also, I like the idea of "tall" empires. If this can be balanced, we could have a proper depiction of Russia and of other countries (sadly not China).

I also like very much the idea of "real" development diary, as something in which the developpers tell their ideas for the game before them going out. That way, there could be less revolts on the forum after a patch, because people would know what is coming.

It feels almost as if PI, enriched by the sales of a certain game, decided to create EUV out of EUIV by perfecting it by another long production cycle. I hope the same thing is coming for CK2 In my opinion, if EUV and CK3 were created now, it would alienate the fans, unless something could be done to compensate for the hundred of DLCs they bought.