EU4 Development Diary - 3rd March 2016

[BIGBenfica9™]

I'm assuming from the DLC name "Mare Nostrum", that colonization will change by some way, am I correctly assuming that there are gonna be buffs to historical colonizing nations like Portugal?

 

[Mr. Capiatlist]

Let's leave the Trump politics to the mega-thread in the OT.

 

[Praetorian44]

I'm glad to see that trade leagues are back. I'm really looking forward to next week's DD. Can't wait to find out about the naval changes.

 

[Freudia]

I don't disagree that the cost could do with "tuning", but that is just a matter of fiddling with multipliers. Mercantilism makes your trade more profitable by boosting your trade power - that is its primary (and existing) benefit. Maybe having it give a spy defence boost, as someone suggested, could be cool - and an option that is opened up by having it be a two-edged sword, instead of just something you boost whenever the (random) chance arises.

Maybe. I do know that in its current implementation as shown by the dev diary it's a useless button, though. Besides, even if it cost less, those are points that could be used to sign peace deals or annex vassals or purchase tech or ideas. Mercantilism doesn't seem too pressing of a purchase compared to all four of those, but that might just be a difference in playstyle.

No, I understood you perfectly - but those allies are all OPMs! The limitation to a single province in trade leagues is necessary for this very reason. As a by-blow, maybe it will keep the HRE with more OPMs later into the game (which it could do with).

I misunderstood your position, then, as you came across as if you thought I said something I didn't. My apologies.

Regardless, just because they're OPMs doesn't mean they're literally ignorable. OPMs in the HRE have on average a force limit of 7 and the ability to field that. 8 OPMs is still 56 units. That's a lot to take care of when you realize that a war against a trade league member is not just those OPMs, but also that OPM's allies (which could add another 15-20, depending on nations) and if the emperor gets called in (which can add in a whole lot of other units). It's pretty unfeasible to attack into a trade league for a lot of nations. That seems pretty silly to me.

Playing as England right now I had no problems getting mercantilism up to 35%+. Corruption was a major factor in mercantilist states failing or being constrained in their development - one reason the later British Empire went for Free Trade rather than continuing a long mercantilist tradition. In the long haul, mercantilism is a dead end.

And in my Netherlands campaign a campaign ago I got very little mercantilism-raising options at all. I do not think England should be the gold standard as you have access to benefits that come for most nations much later in the game, if at all (provided you're not barred out of parliaments due to special government types).

 

[xetios]

The expansion is called "Mare Nostrum", but what will we have that is focused on the Mediterranean Sea?

 

[Dakka]

I can honestly say this may be my favorite DD for MN so far. Good to see Hanseatic League as a power again. Looking forward to this one! Hope that mercantilism get's cheaper though, maybe 75 points?

 

[Kaiser of Ze reich]

So if Venice forms a league, can Venice invite Florence, Mantua, Siena, and Lucca?

If say Venice is killed by Austria, would Florence lead the league?

 

[User4035]

Awesome. Glad to see another of my suggestions is to be implemented.
Federations for merchant republics!!!

Sad to see the Ragusa conquest CB exploit gone. lol. But it did have to go. ....was a little cheesy being able to vassalize ragusa as genoa or hansa right at start of game.

 

[Scidagh]

Warning guys don't make this too complicated, you don't want this game to become like HOI3 do you ?
And by the way 200 diplomatic points is too much for 1 mercantilismt points.

 

[Vistariel]

I super excited, because while I am sure I may not have been the first to propose the idea: I proposed a rough idea for trade leagues quite some time back that greatly resemble this structure. (Sig post on HRE, etc).

Yay!

 

[Vistariel]

Trade Leagues sound awesome, but considering how the leader gets 50% of your trade power, it doesn't sound like a good deal for members.

I believe the mutual defensive alliance for OPMs is the benefit.

 

[OBRkenobi]

Greater control of Mercantilism seems silly when you have no way to lower mercantilism without events. Given that mercantilism adds corruption now, I can see good reason to get rid of it, but no way for the player to do so.

Also, 200 diplo points for 1% of Mercantilism seems extremely overpriced to the point where it won't be used. Keep in mind that lagging behind in tech for a few points of mercantilism isn't desired because lagging behind in tech raises corruption now for some silly reason.

Trade leagues sound like they'd be okay on paper, but then you factor in that the whole union takes just a single diplo slot, so trying to invade an OPM inside a union would bring you to war with the entire union and the other allies the OPM would have. This could potentially result in Denmark declaring on Lubeck and suddenly fighting 9 OPMs and 3 other allies of Lubeck, not counting the ones that'd get pulled in via declaring war on the empire from outside. This doesn't sound sane.

Those are some incredible points you've raised. Although I slightly disagree with your first point because mercantilism will mostly likely only start causing corruption after a certain percentage is reached (for balancing and a reason for players to use the encourage mercantilism function), I think that the mercantilism cost should be reduced to at least 150 diplo power. For your last point I think trade leagues should have a member limit and possibly a limit to the distance OPM's can join a trade league leader.

 

[ChildeR]

Regarding the OPM limitation and those suggesting a dev limit instead: have you thought it through? A development limit means that if the members do the only thing a small nation that cannot expand can use their monarch points on, i.e. increase development, they would leave the league. That would likely be frustrating for a player in charge of a league (they have no control over it, but they'd lose members over time).

I don't think OPM limit is bad, and a small amount of provinces might be OK too, but I don't think a development limit would be a good idea. Whatever the limit, it should be small enough that leagues are only a large boost when you are relatively small. A single slot getting you several mid-major allies would be too powerful IMO, even if only defensive.

 

[kentun]

This awesome! I can't wait to destroy Lubeck & co as Prussia, then asked that 60% trade power transfer

 

[Ornlu Wolfjarl]

Only if you deliberately write a history of the Spanish Empire that focuses on its problems and ignores all the things it had going for it right up until the Napoleonic Wars actually did it in.

'Mercantalism' and 'ruin' are basically made up concepts created to tell a story that's more about politics than data.

What do you mean?

 

[Ornlu Wolfjarl]

Regardless, just because they're OPMs doesn't mean they're literally ignorable. OPMs in the HRE have on average a force limit of 7 and the ability to field that. 8 OPMs is still 56 units. That's a lot to take care of when you realize that a war against a trade league member is not just those OPMs, but also that OPM's allies (which could add another 15-20, depending on nations) and if the emperor gets called in (which can add in a whole lot of other units). It's pretty unfeasible to attack into a trade league for a lot of nations. That seems pretty silly to me.

I think trade leagues need the equivalent of loyal/disloyal mechanic that exists for vassals, PUs and marches. It should take effort from the leader to keep the members happy, and the members should be able to express discontent a few years before they decide to leave the league.

So for example, Blobby declares a war on Member 1, who is part of Leader's League along with Members 2 and 3. The Leader is obligated to defend Member 1 actively, since losing the war and Member 1 gets annexed, the league would be shaken and the other members would be dubious that Leader should be leading their League. However, Member 1 has a horrible relation with Member 2, bordering on rivalry. Member 2 joins the war as is obligated, but decides they won't spend their time and manpower on defending someone they hate, so they stay at home.

On a side note, Member 2 might end up getting crushed by Blobby (as would any disloyal vassal), because their lands count for province warscore, and their armies as an active threat. The above suggestion can then be accompanied by this: Any disloyal vassal/league member's land does not count as being part of the total warscore. The AI should actively avoid attacking disloyal enemy states to simulate that they have reached some sort of agreement.

 

[nOxr]

Let Burghers Estates be able to become 'Supporting members' of a Trade League. The simple effect of this would be that the relationship between the Country and the Trade League would affect the loyalty of the Burghers. If the Country is friendly or allied with the leader of the Trade League, the Burghers become more loyal and influential. However, if you are rival with or go to war with the leader of the Trade League, the Burghers would become disloyal.

At least for Sweden and Hansa, this small feature would go a long way to simulate their relationship.

 

[MiniaAr]

Trade leagues seem nice, but I see little use for them outside of Hansa: Genoa and Venice, both merchant republics, have poor access to useful OPM states. Will it be possible to force an OPM into a trade league in a peace deal?

I don't understand this.
Venice and Genoa have access to a lot of OPMs:
Italy: Mantua, Modena, Parma, Lucca, Montferrat, Siena, Pisa, Corsica, Urbino
Balkans: Athens, Naxos, Crete, Corfu, Ragusa, Montenegro, Achea, Morea, Epirus
Black Sea: Theodoro, Trebizond
Levant: Cyprus, Lebanon, Ramazan, Knights

I agree that it should be possible to force an OPM in a trade league, or alternatively that an OPM released after a war has a high chance of joining a trade league. It will probably have Republican government, which hould be a positive factor.

 

[Vaximillian]

There was a dev diary? Where is it?

 

[aqvamare]

I think the only problem with trade league in MP games how easy it is to pick a OPM out of the league and than war and annex it.

At the moment it is 100% defensive allaiance system. So if you want to war a OPM out of this, you sell one of your low development provinces for 0 Gold and than you make the DOW on this nation. This nation is out of trade league, you annex it, you profit. And the trade league leader cannot counterattack to this, because his league will not follow him into a offensive war.

You should add a mechanic, like 20 favor needed, to call your league into a offensive war.