EU4 - Development Diary - 30th of October 2018

[Martynios]

So the best navy in the EUIV timeframe doesn't get any flagship bonus? Britannia rule the waves indeed. Meanwhile Sweden gets bonus +100 more cannons on Flagship *lol* OP as hell.

I’ll agree with you that a bonus for Sweden is completely unjustified and testimony to the sad fact that EU4 development has by now degraded to implementing memes.

The British shouldn’t get a unique bonus though, since they’re already OPAF. Only in the 18th century did the British navy become the best in the world, and only after Trafalgar was it more or less unchallenged. Even as late as the Anglo-Mysore wars, the French fleet succeeded in preventing or obstructing the transport of British reinforcements to India.

 

[Thrudgelmir2333]

I know, but a handful of tags receive their own modification. England is a big important tag with a focus on navy; and as such should be one of these tags.
If the argument is "their navy would be too strong with it", then it breaks immersion of the mechanic, because it clearly breaches the barrier between code (and balance) and what this code should represent.

Nope, completely disagree with that. Britain isn't entitled to flagship tag mods, especially when their particular IRL advantages are already more than well represented in the game.

If you do think they should, then name the exact benefit and maybe then you'll change some minds.

 

[makaramus]

Why not? They are arbitrary excluded from the mechanic of flagships.
Maybe they could get one, but have some of their bonuses nerfed to keep them in a reasonable state of power, but just not giving them a flagship is against all immersion and reason.

I just explained "why not" for like 4 or 5 times allready
because they got WAY TOO MUCH naval modifiers! its like asking elite regiments for prussia.
their flag ship gonna use same modifiers allready too.
I literally say anything about ANY KIND OF EXTRA COMBAT MODIFIER will break gb flag ship beyond anything

I know, but a handful of tags receive their own modification. England is a big important tag with a focus on navy; and as such should be one of these tags.
If the argument is "their navy would be too strong with it", then it breaks immersion of the mechanic, because it clearly breaches the barrier between code (and balance) and what this code should represent.

I can say same argument for prussia still... should we give them elite regiments like banner units because they had elite army? no. their ENTIRE ARMY is elite.
same for britain... their flag ship is special even without special modifier

 

[ZeppelinArmada]

Why not? They are arbitrary excluded from the mechanic of flagships.
Maybe they could get one, but have some of their bonuses nerfed to keep them in a reasonable state of power, but just not giving them a flagship is against all immersion and reason.

They do have a flagship though. It's just not an unique one.

 

[tails444444]

France Got more provinces did they

 

[Ilanin]

We don't ask for balance, but it just break immersion to know, that England is considered less Naval than Spain in the eyes of this mechanic.

It's not that the British are somehow less naval, they're less "flagshippy". And this is, historically, correct. The Royal Navy in its heyday in the mid to late age of sail had an atypically decentralised approach to command and control, and this was in some respects where its strength lay. Naval combat in this era was inherently incredibly chaotic, and due to the vast amounts of smoke produced by naval artillery and the tendency of things to get set on fire it was remarkably difficult to send clear signals from ship to ship. While other nations attempted to work around this problem, the British (to the greater extent) dodged it doctrinally. There was a significant doctrinal debate in the RN about the relative value of signalling in managing fleet actions that goes on through the centuries, but it's not really until after the EU era that the "signalling" school manages to take over. In general during the Age of Sail the traditions of the RN were based upon the commanding officer explaining his plans and intentions before the battle and relying on the officers under his command to carry out this plan without further interference. For example, Nelson made only three flag signals at Trafalgar.

In order for this decentralised approach to battle planning to work, the RN needed veteran officers and experienced crew across its fleet, not just concentrated in a few elite units - and this is indeed what they had. Ships' companies were largely kept together (unless they were felt to be potentially mutinous) and gained experience with time in service, and as ships went out of service the veteran crewmembers were posted to new ships being brought into the service. The RN's officer corps was very professional as a whole, but there certainly wasn't any particular importance attached to serving on flagships (quite the reverse, actually - most officers would want to be posted to frigates and other light vessels, which had a greater chance of capturing enemy ships and therefore winning prize money).

Did the Royal Navy build first-rate warships to serve as command ships? Sure it did. Did these vessels represent an outsize fraction of its strength or a make a particularly significant contribution to how the British fought naval battles? No.

 

[GeoHector]

Innovative: Nice bonus to innovativeness, the institution spread bonus fits the group but removing monthly war exhaustion is pretty shit tbh. As things stand with those changes, no ideagroup gives any bonuses to reduce war exhaustion. I would give institution spread in the 6th idea and move the free leader somewere else, like exploration.

I don't know why, and other people said it too, but Innovative didn't lose the monthly 0.05 war exhaustion, it lost the (pretty useless) 10% reduced cost of buying down inflation. Right now it stands a solid admin group, and I think the competition among Administrative groups got higher with Expansions also.

I like this changes, nice DD.

 

[Thrudgelmir2333]

It's not that the British are somehow less naval, they're less "flagshippy". And this is, historically, correct. The Royal Navy in its heyday in the mid to late age of sail had an atypically decentralised approach to command and control, and this was in some respects where its strength lay. Naval combat in this era was inherently incredibly chaotic, and due to the vast amounts of smoke produced by naval artillery and the tendency of things to get set on fire it was remarkably difficult to send clear signals from ship to ship. While other nations attempted to work around this problem, the British (to the greater extent) dodged it doctrinally. There was a significant doctrinal debate in the RN about the relative value of signalling in managing fleet actions that goes on through the centuries, but it's not really until after the EU era that the "signalling" school manages to take over. In general during the Age of Sail the traditions of the RN were based upon the commanding officer explaining his plans and intentions before the battle and relying on the officers under his command to carry out this plan without further interference. For example, Nelson made only three flag signals at Trafalgar.

In order for this decentralised approach to battle planning to work, the RN needed veteran officers and experienced crew across its fleet, not just concentrated in a few elite units - and this is indeed what they had. Ships' companies were largely kept together (unless they were felt to be potentially mutinous) and gained experience with time in service, and as ships went out of service the veteran crewmembers were posted to new ships being brought into the service. The RN's officer corps was very professional as a whole, but there certainly wasn't any particular importance attached to serving on flagships (quite the reverse, actually - most officers would want to be posted to frigates and other light vessels, which had a greater chance of capturing enemy ships and therefore winning prize money).

Did the Royal Navy build first-rate warships to serve as command ships? Sure it did. Did these vessels represent an outsize fraction of its strength or a make a particularly significant contribution to how the British fought naval battles? No.

While I agree with that, i think he should still name what exact benefit modifier he has in mind to see what the fuss is all about. I'm dying to know what Britain's secret flagship weapon is that is so immersive.

 

[ruzen]

I wished they reworked some naval features interact with naval manpower (which is in a dire state). Perhaps make a "naval assault" feature which uses naval manpower to help with the seashore battles. This could have helped the inconsistencies with the army maintenance when sending them overseas! It should have been painfully costly to maintain a standing army at overseas.

Historically, way before colony "nations" establish in America, naval marines deal with the natives and battle them. Nations subsidized their colonies to maintain bigger armies and they bring acceptable standing armies after they believe the colony can supply enough.

This could open up and perhaps spice things up with the current colonization system. Perhaps the marine forces can act as conquistadores. That way you can both add meaning to the sailors and colonization and seashore combat.

 

[pizzapicante27]

- Gamebalance: Exploration 6th idea switched to give -25% Expel Minority Cost or 5% Settler Chance without DLC.
- Gamebalance: Innovative 2nd idea switched out to be 50% Innovativeness Gain(Rule Britannia) or -5% Idea Cost(Non-Rule Britannia).

So to get the better ideas I have to turn off the DLC?... ok.

 

[makaramus]

- Gamebalance: Exploration 6th idea switched to give -25% Expel Minority Cost or 5% Settler Chance without DLC.
- Gamebalance: Innovative 2nd idea switched out to be 50% Innovativeness Gain(Rule Britannia) or -5% Idea Cost(Non-Rule Britannia).

So to get the better ideas I have to turn off the DLC?... ok.

if you want to get idea cost reduction go for humanist then? its LITERALLY 2 times better even only for that.
I think overall cost reduction is atleast good as %5 discount
also if you combo it with trade another idea cost discount too!

 

[Magnive]

Apologies if this has been asked already, but will the limit to flagships be hardcoded or just a value in the defines? Or maybe even be something like merchants where you can give it as rewards for idea groups or decisions?

 

[Nyrael]

I'd say stats are wrong..

Very unlikely.
I myself almost never take this Idea Group, though I can see why it would be attractive to WC-ers and Achievement Hunters. But those two aren't as numerous as one would think while browsing the forums. And if you are not on a quest to paint the world into your colors, other Idea Groups can be more worthwhile.

 

[Antagonich]

• Swedish Mass Load Cannons: +100 More Cannons on Flagship

This lack a -99%hull integrity

 

[Ixal]

It certainly looks better than the last few DLCs. EU4 in its current state benefits more from rebalancing and outright reworks than from new features.

I do hope that there will be more to naval barrages as this would be useless without an army sieging the fort anyway which will likely gave cannons on its own.

Flagships sounds a bit fiddely and a micromanagement hell without a fleet organizer like in Stellaris or similar systems. Or a general naval rework to a more fleet based design, because honestly you can shift around ideas all you want but unless naval gameplay becomes actually important and less if a doomstack no one will take Naval and Maritime.

I assume it is 1 flagship for every 15 heavies and that they do not stack?

Nice change on finally adding DLC content to ideas.
And I am sure many people will be glad to convert territories again. I only fear that the additions of more money sinks means that the insane amount of money people can make through Building+Trade double dipping will never be addressed which is imo very much needed.

 

[Thrudgelmir2333]

This lack a -99%hull integrity

Not if it's from IKEA .

Ikea, the wonderful everyday (now open in Algarve)

 

[pizzapicante27]

if you want to get idea cost reduction go for humanist then? its LITERALLY 2 times better even only for that.
I think overall cost reduction is atleast good as %5 discount
also if you combo it with trade another idea cost discount too!

Meh, Innovativness is plain useless, it would be the worst mechanic in the game if only because its so bland it doesnt actually do anything, I prefer the straight up cost discount, and the Expulsion mechanic sounds cumberstone at best, I much prefer the 5% Settler chance since that one can also apply to province dev.

 

[lolada]

I see flagship like 1 strong ship that will be first to sink opposing ship thus starting morale cascade. Can be extremely good for winning fights, depending on balance..

 

[Martynios]

EU4 in its current state benefits more from rebalancing and outright reworks than from new features.

Agreed.

It certainly looks better than the last few DLCs

???

The current counter of redundant feature fluff for the upcoming DLC is on 4, reworks are none...

 

[Thrudgelmir2333]

Meh, Innovativness is plain useless.

Modern Siege Weapons begs to differ.

Also, Advisor costs being cut down a whole fourth is pretty sweet, especially for monarchies with crappy rulers who want to promote and promote and promote....

The inflation cost boost is pretty dumb, though.