EU4 - Development Diary - 28th of March 2017

[chrnno]

I mean, I can completely understand it from a gameplay perspective, it just has me scratching my head on the context.

The context is that when fixing what they perceive as exploits Paradox doesn't really care about what else is affected by the change.

 

[Twilight Sparkles]

All the hate about losing buildings from bankruptcy is hilarious xD

 

[Tavior]

All the hate about losing buildings from bankruptcy is hilarious xD

I don't hate it.

I just wish they had thought about using a more serious temporary debuff to province's income (to reflect the build's derelict and Govt can't afford to pay employee etc..). It would been more OK.

Most of the time if I ever risk going into debt spiral, my highest priority is to build more building that boost your income such as temple, marketplace, workshop, courthouse (25% state maintenance), and finally manufacturer.

Nearly EVERY other debuff that hurts your baseline income IS temporary, at the most, why the sudden change in policy?

Devastation, lower autonomy, rebel risk (penalty to income) and other.

 

[Zoston]

On the subject of Bankruptcy:

I really feel the system is just getting ridiculous this way.

I wish instead they went back to the actual history and let that inspire them: the problem with bankruptcy was more about economic management and the benefits of a functional financial system than raining doom and destruction over your nation.

How would this work in game mechanics? You add a new value: Financial Reliability, in a similar manner to Mercantilism. Financial Reliability can be slowly raised over the course of the game, through events, ideas, and monarch points. Its main effect is to lower interest rate on loans, and increase the max number of simultaneous loans.

Bankruptcy sets Financial Reliability all the way to 0, in addition to damaging development in provinces and drastically lowering trade efficiency for ten years. (And of course emptying the treasury.)

Balancing would be harder, but it would create a much simpler, saner, and more fun system, imo. Bankruptcy rather than being a short term disaster for long term gain becomes more the opposite, a short term solution with greatly damaging long term consequences. Meanwhile expert player that properly manages their finances will find themselves able to loan, invest, and actually make more profit than the interest. (And I vaguely recall one of the major EU4 mods also did/does try to do something like this.)

It is also historical, as for example the Dutch Republic was highly successful in part because it build up a great credit score, as opposed to states like the Spanish Empire which kept declaring bankruptcy. With the result that in drawn out conflicts the Dutch were able to consistently draw on huge credit lines to keep funding the war effort, while their enemies would often run dry and be reliant solely on taxes.

 

[Grand Historian]

The context is that when fixing what they perceive as exploits Paradox doesn't really care about what else is affected by the change.

An exploit that only a very small base of the players actively use, right? I think of myself as a competent player and never even considered doing that.

 

[Grand Historian]

On the subject of Bankruptcy:

I really feel the system is just getting ridiculous this way.

I wish instead they went back to the actual history and let that inspire them: the problem with bankruptcy was more about economic management and the benefits of a functional financial system than raining doom and destruction over your nation.

How would this work in game mechanics? You add a new value: Financial Reliability, in a similar manner to Mercantilism. Financial Reliability can be slowly raised over the course of the game, through events, ideas, and monarch points. Its main effect is to lower interest rate on loans, and increase the max number of simultaneous loans.

Bankruptcy sets Financial Reliability all the way to 0, in addition to damaging development in provinces and drastically lowering trade efficiency for ten years. (And of course emptying the treasury.)

Balancing would be harder, but it would create a much simpler, saner, and more fun system, imo. Bankruptcy rather than being a short term disaster for long term gain becomes more the opposite, a short term solution with greatly damaging long term consequences. Meanwhile expert player that properly manages their finances will find themselves able to loan, invest, and actually make more profit than the interest. (And I vaguely recall one of the major EU4 mods also did/does try to do something like this.)

It is also historical, as for example the Dutch Republic was highly successful in part because it build up a great credit score, as opposed to states like the Spanish Empire which kept declaring bankruptcy. With the result that in drawn out conflicts the Dutch were able to consistently draw on huge credit lines to keep funding the war effort, while their enemies would often run dry and be reliant solely on taxes.

I would recommend posting this in the suggestion forums, as this is definitely something that should be looked into in greater detail and is more likely to see light there.

 

[Martin_Mortyry]

I can understand all the other maluses that declared Bankruptcy would inflict, but I don't really get why we have to loose buildings.

Because if they're built too tight, people won't be able to walk on the streets.

These changes are really nice! I'd add some more filters and columns to the ledger(amount of loans, countries of interest) and make amount of MIL for barrage scaled depending on level, terrain, garrison etc.

Can we axpect some more changes to the map for 1.20 or do we have to wait until 1.21?

 

[Zerodv]

Yeah i dislike the bankrupcy thing as well, it would be nice if you could bankrupt on only some loans and haventhe effects be scaled.

 

[grandadmiralbob]

Good changes to Yarkand! Could we please see Chagatai's name changed to Moghulistan?

What changed in Yarkand?

 

[Chieron]

I really like the ledger filters. Any chance we can get a "Neighbouring Countries" one as well?

Or the "interesting nations" you mark yourself.

 

[Van der Gent]

Its important to remember, however, that collateral and mortgages (the later arising as a result of the Crusades, literally meaning dead pledge) were usually enforceable under a more feudal society. Against the decently large and centralized states that made up the better part of EU4's time, however?

First of all, I merely speculated it was to represent some forms of collateral. Then it was Ameron who mentioned Edward III. But the Spanish kings - just like Edward 200 years earlier - put up collateral in the form of various liquid assets. Liquid assets are somewhat represented in the game, but of them only money is transferable (which you lose upon bankruptcy), you could lower tax/production/trade efficiency, while that perhaps should be considered I'm not sure it would present the best solution, still maybe it's better than losing buildings. Plenty of royals did put up physical assets, but not all and especially not the Habsburgs.

The Fuggers first loan to the Habsburgs had interest in the Tyroler silver and copper mines as collateral, which was the start of the massive mining operations of the Fuggers. I assume many of the Fuggers mining investments in Europe and the the new world were granted to them as part of loan negotiations and settlements. The Fuggers started with more traditional physical assets collateral but moved on to more and more of having liquid assets as collateral, which had a significant part in their downfall during the economic turmoil in Spain. For example had they owned more mines instead of investments into operations of mines, maybe they would have been able to ride out the storm. Stocks are still riskier investments than property today. But the Fuggers were true high rollers of rennaisance finance.

You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
And know when to run

 

[JKiller96]

What changed in Yarkand?

New provinces

 

[otaman1]

Artillery barrage? I'll play as Mexico and use it against USA

 

[chrnno]

An exploit that only a very small base of the players actively use, right? I think of myself as a competent player and never even considered doing that.

Yes. Presumably since it has been posted about recently* they decided removing the exploit had greater priority than more content, improved UI, fixed bugs and so on regardless of any impact the change may have on the game. Not surprising as they have done it before and will likely do so again.

*I don't recall bankruptcy ever being changed so wouldn't surprise me if you could do this all the way back to release version.

 

[kanukki]

? The Dev diary actually states it is part of the 1.20 patch, not the expansion:

Yes, but last week's Dev Diary clearly says that the Macro Builder is part of the paid expansion, so I'm a bit confused as to which it is.

Today the spotlight is on Mandate of Heaven's new Diplomatic Macro Builder.

Owners of Mandate of Heaven will have access to a new Macro Builder...

The Diplomatic Macro Builder will be part of the Mandate of Heaven Expansion, which releases for $19.99 on April 6th 2017. The day of release is fast approaching and in next week's diary we'll be covering a variety of miscellaneous additions and changes.

 

[tre3qwerty]

Yes, but last week's Dev Diary clearly says that the Macro Builder is part of the paid expansion, so I'm a bit confused as to which it is.

If you were talking about the diplomatic macro builder than yes, that is part of the DLC.
However, the one presented here is a change to the existing Buildings macro builder and it has been stated to be part of the 1.20 patch as stated in the DD.

 

[Ameron]

You mean banks can go bankrupt due to making bad and/or risky decisions!? Collateral was put up for loans even back in the day, even though they only covered a part of the loan's sum. The less collateral the higher the interest rates to balance out the higher risk. Interest rates during Edward's reign ranged between 30 and 60%. Speaking of the medieval period, properties such as castles were sometimes put up as collateral. Governments often put up taxing and trading rights as collateral, just as Edward III did. (Can't give away wool trade rights in EUIV though!)

First of all, I merely speculated it was to represent some forms of collateral. Then it was Ameron who mentioned Edward III. But the Spanish kings - just like Edward 200 years earlier - put up collateral in the form of various liquid assets. Liquid assets are somewhat represented in the game, but of them only money is transferable (which you lose upon bankruptcy), you could lower tax/production/trade efficiency, while that perhaps should be considered I'm not sure it would present the best solution, still maybe it's better than losing buildings. Plenty of royals did put up physical assets, but not all and especially not the Habsburgs.

I know that bankers used their position to earn all kinds of privileges (they still do, so it's not some unexpected news): but when the state is bankrupt, it has chosen not to pay. Money, trading rights, interests, any form of collaterals, all of them are meaningless, since a bank can't enforce them without an army against the will of the monarch. [the same article you quote about the Bardi bankers explains how all those companies bankrupted with the default of their debtors].
The thing is, if bankruptcy makes you lose recent buildings but the loans themselves don't, the whole point of collaterals is, while of course interesting, not relevant: Interest and Inflation are the two factors the game uses to represent the cost of debts.
Losing buildings on bankruptcy? It's like for the King (or Doge, or Bishop, etc etc) to tell the bank "you know that mountain of gold I owe you? well, forget about it", then add "but, sadly, you can confiscate my realm's properties, without using an army and without my agreement".
Frankly, it's a mechanic put there just to fight the "exploit" of using maximum loans to build and develop your country, then declaring bankruptcy and be perfectly fine, if not better, in ten years.

 

[kanukki]

Ah, got it now thanks. I thought the macro builder was all one system.

 

[Grand Historian]

New provinces

Specifics?

 

[salvameelito]

Will more nations be getting their own national ideas? Like the Ethiopian minors as suggested in some threads?

Also some additional flavor for Custom Nations ideas would be nice, since so many new ideas were added.

Overall, great job, keep up the good work!