EU4 - Development Diary - 27th of October 2020

[wobarch]

The first 2 changes are really needed and good that they are coming now (better late than never)
Please also add an alert for new estates agendas. I miss them always.

This is also my problem with the new feature. 200 gov cap is sooo much... And the button is so small, that the most people will miss this when needed, or just misclick. An undo or an confirmation toolbox would be nice here, to not accidentally destroy the own country

 

[Sidolowka]

Then for every 15 development of the province and further 200 governing capacity you can expand the infrastructure more for more slots of buildings and manufactories.

I'm absolutely loving the concept, but a flat 200 increase in GC is... well, interestingly high? Switzerland only starts off with 150 GC (200 base -50 from Swiss Cantons), I'm not sure if you could even afford to have even one of these 'upgrades', even if you didn't expand at all until admin tech 17 or something.

I get that the cost is intentionally high to prevent players from stacking 5 Furnaces on Lublin for example, but a flat 200 is a bit too much. Maybe a 200% increase that multiplies could work better? (Base cost: 25 -> 50 -> 100 -> 200, etc.) Because right now (assuming you want to play tall), given the same amount of GC, you would be much better off just developing that 15 dev province to 50 dev instead of building one more manufactory, which would both rake in more income and not burden you with being ridiculously over governing capacity out the gate.

Alternatively there's also the possibility that you could also increase the manufactory slot count 7 times on a Cocoa/Dyes/Silk province then hand it over to your colonial nation/vassal to manage, which could be somewhat viable I guess.

Operation 'Turn Every Province In India Into Golconda' is a go

 

[ImAdrian]

My first reaction to the 200 GC cost was something like:

 

[RhoxOS]

Can you abandon that infrastructure? What if the enemy acquires the province with infrastructure? If it's non-removable and the enemy gains control of it on acquisition, it would be a coring cost increase nightmare again. Shivers.

 

[Groogy]

Useless at the end of the game when we own 50% of the world (or more)

It's by design not viable for you if you own 50% of the world
People seem to have a weird concept of playing tall

 

[EarlKonrad]

Being able to see how much GC will be decrease by the building is great!

Why would anyone ever pay 200 GC for 2 building slots? The price seems way too high to ever be justifiable.

 

[Groogy]

The intent is not to be capable of adding an expand infrastructure on every single province you own, but only be able to afford it for a select few. So when you reach towards mid towards end game and you have ~3 000 or more Governing Capacity, if you are an expansionist empire you are by design not capable of affording it.

 

[Groogy]

Can you abandon that infrastructure? What if the enemy acquires the province with infrastructure? If it's non-removable and the enemy gains control of it on acquisition, it would be a coring cost increase nightmare again. Shivers.

If province switches hand then it is destroyed

 

[Ionxion]

Then for every 15 development of the province and further 200 governing capacity you can expand the infrastructure more for more slots of buildings and manufactories.

New mechanic might have use but at current costs I hope this is a typo. 200 governing capacity for +1 building slot/manufactory is completely imbalanced and never worth the investment. Even by building the statehouses and reducing to an absurd -50%, 100 development is still going to be far more beneficial than +1 building slot

 

[Groogy]

A number that I like is 100 + 100% of the dev of the province. So 150 for a 50 dev province.

I like this idea

Edit: It will also mean that the modifier of +100% can be modified by other modifiers, like buildings. While the base set will remain untouchable but can be set to lower.

 

[Groogy]

Hey Groogy, do you know when you'll release the sikh teachings? It's been a week since you talked about them.

It takes time to do research, to balance things etc. But hey if you want my random numbers that makes no sense and will not be what we launch with I can do that.
Here's the first two gurus.

guru_nanak = {
    trigger = {
        always = yes
    }
    chance = {
        factor = 1000
    }
    modifier = {
        monarch_admin_power = 1
    }
    teachings = {
        share_and_consume = {
            type = ADM
            cost = 50

            global_unrest = -5
        }
        work_honestly = {
            type = DIP
            cost = 50

            production_efficiency = 0.15
        }
        recite_his_name = {
            type = MIL
            cost = 50

            global_regiment_cost = -0.25
        }
    }
}
guru_angad = {
    trigger = {
        is_year = 1539
        is_month = 9
    }
    chance = {
        factor = 5
        modifier = {
            factor = 1.5
            is_year = 1540
        }
        modifier = {
            factor = 1.5
            is_year = 1541
        }
        modifier = {
            factor = 1.5
            is_year = 1542
        }
        modifier = {
            factor = 2
            is_year = 1543
        }
        modifier = {
            factor = 2
            is_year = 1544
        }
    }
    modifier = {
        monarch_military_power = 1
    }
    teachings = {
        gurmukhi_script_teaching = {
            type = ADM
            cost = 50

            technology_cost = -0.15
        }
        temple_langar = {
            type = DIP
            cost = 50

            church_loyalty_modifier = 0.15
        }
        wrestling_akhara = {
            type = MIL
            cost = 50

            yearly_army_professionalism = 0.2
        }
    }
}

 

[Lavilledieu]

I get that the cost is intentionally high to prevent players from stacking 5 Furnaces on Lublin for example, but a flat 200 is a bit too much. Maybe a 200% increase that multiplies could work better?

You are overlooking a small thing here. A percentage is a bad idea, since that would allow you to gain extra manufactory slots for almost no price on low dev provinces. A flat value is the way to go

 

[Groogy]

You are overlooking a small thing here. A percentage is a bad idea, since that would allow you to gain extra manufactory slots for almost no price on low dev provinces. A flat value is the way to go

This

 

[Mindel]

I'm glad that numbers in DDs are preliminary, because 200 GC is crazy.

 

[Groogy]

Whoa, yeah, I’ve gotta agree with everyone else in this thread. I love the idea— going tall is one of my favorite playstyles, so I’d like to use this feature often in my games going forward— but 200 GC seems waaaaaaay high. 25 GC seems fair to me. Maybe 50 GC, but even that would be really pushing it close to the point of “not worth it”. If you are set on having the GC cost so high (and even if you aren’t), would you consider adding dev cost reduction to the effects? That’d be another excellent way of using this feature to encourage tall play. If, say, you made the cost 100 GC but added a -20% dev cost to the province, I’d consider that a good balance that’d be a reasonable investment in some super-tall games, and if you did the same but with 50 GC (please this please this), it’d be a must-have in any tall campaign of mine.

Definetly not as that would be a feedback loop as more dev means you could stack even more dev cost in one province. So if you go for a standard meta play here you would end up with +20 dev provinces that costs 5 mana to dev.

 

[Groogy]

When can we expect hordes not recieving their loot money from razing to be fixed?

We fixed that over a month ago

Patch 1.30.X - Europa Universalis 4 Wiki

eu4.paradoxwikis.com

 

[Groogy]

Will additional buildings be destroyed too?

Of course. Believe I made it so it will try and keep the oldest buildings first.

 

[Groogy]

Would we be able to expand infrastructure for our subjects?

Right now no because you could seriously harm them by doing it, so I'd have to think about how it should work if it is even possible to make it work.

 

[wobarch]

Also I checked the steamshop while the free eu4 weekend. A lot of new players are frustrated about the outdated tutorial. I think you could give way more people a way into the game if there would be an actualization of the tutorial. Clearer tooltips and more alerts