EU4 - Development Diary - 27th of September 2016

[Grand Historian]

So you want to make old forts useless, but new ones prohibitively expensive? Smart.

I want to make old forts useless when they're supposed to be useless to prevent gamey tactics, and new forts less common because they're supposed to be less common. I appreciate the sarcasm - perhaps you have an idea on how to fix forts yourself?

Why are we assuming that Brandenburg is the one being successful?

As Trin said they were the ones to get the events, so thus it would seem that Brandenburg is the one that you're 'supposed' to form Prussia as.

 

[Golladan]

As Trin said they were the ones to get the events, so thus it would seem that Brandenburg is the one that you're 'supposed' to form Prussia as.

And? Why would that mean that Brandenburg is the one forming it in Jake's hands off?

 

[Anthedon]

Is that a Sweden nerf? It only affects the AI, but still. Didn't think you had it in you.

Keeping a few (one) fort(s) in mountain regions might be useful now. At least against the AI. Good change.

 

[Grand Historian]

And? Why would that mean that Brandenburg is the one forming it in Jake's hands off?

Hands off?

As the TO usually gets annexed by Poland, while Brandenburg has the protection of the HRE, that would logically follow process of elimination that Brandenburg would form Prussia.

 

[ywxiao]

Hands off?

I think what he's trying to say is that it could just as well be TO that's forming it. In fact I see more TO forming Prussia than BB, all you need to do is not lose to Poland, which is easy if they didn't take the union, and convert to Pro/Ref.

 

[Grand Historian]

I think what he's trying to say is that it could just as well be TO that's forming it. In fact I see more TO forming Prussia than BB, all you need to do is not lose to Poland, which is easy if they didn't take the union, and convert to Pro/Ref.

Easy with player interference.

 

[Sexual Velociraptor]

I want to make old forts useless when they're supposed to be useless to prevent gamey tactics, and new forts less common because they're supposed to be less common. I appreciate the sarcasm - perhaps you have an idea on how to fix forts yourself?

I've said multiple times, half fort costs across the board. If they want late game forts to be less common, then make a player only need 1 per 200 dev to get the full army tradition, not per 50. As it is the mechanic implies you want 1 fort per 50 dev, but you simply can't afford that.

 

[ywxiao]

I've said multiple times, half fort costs across the board. If they want late game forts to be less common, then make a player only need 1 per 200 dev to get the full army tradition, not per 50. As it is the mechanic implies you want 1 fort per 50 dev, but you simply can't afford that.

That's assuming they want you to have permanent +1 AT, which I don't think is the case.

Easy with player interference.

There's a 25% chance of Poland not taking the PU, which means they will have trouble overpowering TO. Even when they do form PLC they still occasionally fail against TO, which can get alliance with Hungary or Bohemia.

With what appears to be close to 100% chance of TO converting it's basically Prussia in close to 25% of the games.

Ottoman intervention could also save TO. I dread to think what will become of Ottomans once they no longer have the 25% tech penalty. In my Aztec game they easily ate half of Hungary, nearly half of Poland, and half of Lithuania, ate the Levant, the Balkans, the Caucasus by 1565.

 

[Golladan]

Hands off?

Observer games that Paradox runs overnight to see how the world develop.

As the TO usually gets annexed by Poland, while Brandenburg has the protection of the HRE, that would logically follow process of elimination that Brandenburg would form Prussia.

The are other nations in the HRE that also has the protection of the HRE and that can form Prussia.

Just trying to understand why some people are jumping to the conclusion that something was done to Brandenburg based on Jake's statement that Prussia is common in his hands off games.

They could have just removed the Reformation requirement the AI has to make the decision visible. That would give all nations that can from Prussia an interest in taking the provinces that are needed right from the start, instead of only after the Reformation starts. Attach an AI interest in the decision, and you have an AI that is even more likely to pursue forming Prussia.

 

[Madbadger]

"Primitive Status is now tied to starting techgroups."

So, since westernization is gone, what is the mechanism for getting rid of the old primitive nation penalties, specifically 90% gold income penalty, inability to build boats, and the 50% development cost surcharge? Embracing feudalism?

 

[Grand Historian]

The are other nations in the HRE that also has the protection of the HRE and that can form Prussia.

Which ones?

Just trying to understand why some people are jumping to the conclusion that something was done to Brandenburg based on Jake's statement that Prussia is common in his hands off games.

It's not the only possibility, it's just the most likely one from my perspective.

I've said multiple times, half fort costs across the board.

You deride me for proposing cheaper forts and then turn around and ask that they be halved?

There's a 25% chance of Poland not taking the PU, which means they will have trouble overpowering TO. Even when they do form PLC they still occasionally fail against TO, which can get alliance with Hungary or Bohemia.

With what appears to be close to 100% chance of TO converting it's basically Prussia in close to 25% of the games.

Ottoman intervention could also save TO. I dread to think what will become of Ottomans once they no longer have the 25% tech penalty. In my Aztec game they easily ate half of Hungary, nearly half of Poland, and half of Lithuania, ate the Levant, the Balkans, the Caucasus by 1565.

Good points.

 

[Sexual Velociraptor]

You deride me for proposing cheaper forts and then turn around and ask that they be halved?

You said to keep the late game forts the same, and reduce the cost of early game forts. I think the late game forts are the ones that are truly prohibitive. At 4 Ducats per month per fort they cost an absolutely ridiculous amount of money, and thus are basically useless for the players outside of extremely niche places and situations. Even if you have a perfect spot for the fort, I want to know why you would build one rather than just win the war outright (which you should be doing by the time you can build fort 6 and 8.)

The idea of lowering the cost on the early forts doesn't address my primary concern, which is that late game forts are basically AI only.

 

[Grand Historian]

You said to keep the late game forts the same, and reduce the cost of early game forts. I think the late game forts are the ones that are truly prohibitive.

Late game forts should be extensively prohibitive because you should not be building them in the same fashion as you would earlier forts.

Granted, I think there's a better solution to all of this than maintenance, but I have yet to hit upon it.

 

[Golladan]

Which ones?

Pommeranian, Saxon, and Prussian culture nations.

 

[Sexual Velociraptor]

Late game forts should be extensively prohibitive because you should not be building them in the same fashion as you would earlier forts.

Granted, I think there's a better solution to all of this than maintenance, but I have yet to hit upon it.

I'd accept that if it didn't mean that:

1. The longer you were at almost constant war, the lower your army tradition gets.
2. The AI didn't already do it.
3. The less expensive forts didn't fall almost instantly later. (Making forts something of an all or nothing approach.)
4. The fact that the best strategy is to not build any forts, and delete any forts level 4-6-8 in any conquered provinces after sepratism dies down.

It makes no sense that the game mechanics would encourage players no not build any forts whatsoever.

As for how to deal with it here's what I propose:

• Half fort purchase and maintenance costs.
• Forts have their manpower replenished out of your manpower pool.
• Reinforcing forts costs as much money as reinforcing infantry.
  
• Mothballing returns the men to your manpower pool.

That would mean that forts become less annoyingly magical late game, because if you beat a country's army to death over and over eventually they'll have a hard time reinforcing their forts.

Additionally forts now offer you something useful for offense, in the fact that they're essentially a manpower reserve if you run low. (Mothball and send the men to fight.)

The only part I'm unsure on is if reinforcing after mothballing a fort should cost money.

I think you're a bit too worried about people spamming level 8 forts, but consider this: Even if you halfed the costs of the forts, a level 8 is still 400 ducats and 2 upkeep a month. That would need to be compared to a manufactury which is only a hundred more and EARNS you ~1 ducat a month in a good trade node. (Which could go to buying more manufacturies or troops to WIN wars.)

The opportunity costs of building forts is sky high, it needs to be lowered to even be considered.

 

[Grand Historian]

I'd accept that if it didn't mean that:
The longer you were at almost constant war, the lower your army tradition gets.

The answer to this is to rework Army Tradition or have the fort/development ratio scale with fort level, not make late game forts spammable.

The AI didn't already do it.

Removing the AI cheat is one of the most requested features on the forum.

The less expensive forts didn't fall almost instantly later. (Making forts something of an all or nothing approach.)

Almost instantly is a bit of an overstatement, but in general I agree with you. Maybe dismantling outdated forts recoups half/three-fourths of their cost?

The fact that the best strategy is to not build any forts, and delete any forts level 4-6-8 in any conquered provinces after sepratism dies down.

Which would be inevitably changed when merc spam finally gets nerfed.

 

[Quaade]

Prussia being created "enough" is probably my biggest worry. It took a sequence of pretty unlikely events to lead to its formation historically, very few of which are likely to occur once you've unpaused the game at the start. As such, havinging Prussia (or at the very least least, the specific militaristic Prussia we saw in history and is modelled in game) forming often is nonsensical. Seeing it crop up every now and then is fun. Seeing it crop up regularly is immersion breaking.

Yes, but that´s not what everybody wants or realize... They want Prussia since it was so important part of this period, regardless of how it came to be I´m with you though, it shouldn´t be created all the time...

That said, how are "lucky" nations decided? Is it purely a gameplay thing? Cos I can't really think of a nation in the historic EUIV time frame that got luckier than BBurg.

It´s to ensure that some nations that were historical lucky or powerful would have a higher chance of doing so in the game, even with lucky bonus, France fails from time to time, which I personally enjoy seeing instead of having an all-powerful land of baguettes all the time

I want to make old forts useless when they're supposed to be useless to prevent gamey tactics, and new forts less common because they're supposed to be less common. I appreciate the sarcasm - perhaps you have an idea on how to fix forts yourself?

An old fort wasn´t useless as such... They became more and more outdated, but they still held some value in defenses... I do agree that they should be more useless as times goes by, and that new forts should be spread futher apart...

• Half fort purchase and maintenance costs.

• Forts have their manpower replenished out of your manpower pool.

• Reinforcing forts costs as much money as reinforcing infantry.

• Mothballing returns the men to your manpower pool.

I could buy these changes... Always bothered me that garrisons went poof into the air, also when a peace is signed and a fort is "given" back, it seems like the garrison just transfers along with it... So the 2.000 men that held it in defense of the invading baguette, suddenly is loyal to England...

The only part I'm unsure on is if reinforcing after mothballing a fort should cost money.

I think it should, if it works like manpower... It would also make it more of a choice to mothball all forts or make a few crucial remain since the cost of reinforcing all at once could have been too much...

However, the system with drawing from manpower pool would work better if manpower pool was the force limit, instead of the cap currently in-game... The pool should be increased, sure... But it should be a total value, say 50k then you would use 20k for a standing army leaving 30k to reinforce after losses and then you can choose to spend 10k on forts. If the war begins goeing badly or you need to switch focus, you could then mothball forts and regain the manpower there at the risk of the fort being taken over quickly (perhaps leave 100 just to make it a few ticks).

 

[PhroX]

I guess it's decided by how the nations performed historically to try and make historical power balances somewhat more likely.

I can say for certain though that there are nations luckier than BBurg.

Manchu is the obvious example. What's luckier than having the military of the most powerful nation in the world support you as their Emperor and conquer everything for you? That's like Austria France Ottomans decided Brandenburg should be the Emperor of Europe, and sent their armies to beat up everyone who disagreed.

Castille/Spain with their dynasty and even the conquest of the new world.

Manchu, fair enough. I wasn't really thinking outside of Europe.

Castille? Maybe. They got lucky in their conquests in the New World, but they'd still have been a major power, and probably have come to dominate those regions in the long run without the remarkable early success.

I probably didn't really word things quite right first time round. Brandenburg/Prussia is the European nation who's success was most predicated on luck. Other nations did get some major bits of luck, but given the geogracal population, political etc. situations at the start of the game's timeframe, their success was likely. Maybe you might not expect things to be exactly how things turned out, but if you look at the major powers in 1800, other than Prussia, they were all in good situations in 1450. Brandenburg was effectively irrelevant at that time, and lucked repeatedly out over the course of the next 350 years.

 

[Checco]

Sweden losing the Lucky Nation status probably means EU4 is about to be abandoned in favor of EU5 or something else .

 

[TheRedComrade]

This Can only lead to an over-powered Russia with no PLC to slow them