EU4 Development Diary - 3rd March 2016

[Anthedon]

Do members get kicked out automatically when they acquire additional provinces?

Limitting it to just OPMs seems a little too restrictive at first glance. Guess trade leagues will be very popular in the HRE.

 

[Choorus]

I would suppose, that at least some of Trade/National ideas would decrease the cost of mercantilism increasing?

 

[aqvamare]

Yes, from this developer diary, trade league members loose memership when they get more than 1 provinces under there control. So if you them, sell them low development provinces, and they will leave the league and you can pick them.

Image ragusa under venice control, who buys alabania from ottman, and than ottman eats ragusa as full nation.

 

[Ameron]

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.

Let's see:

• OPM vassals of other tags, they can't have external diplomacy until they're released (Montferrat, Urbino, Athens)
• OPM vassals of Venice (Naxos and Corfu): why release them when you can easily and cheaply diplo-annex them? For Genoa they count as the above.
• OPMs that don't exist until you release them from one of their cores (Pisa, Modena, Parma, Montenegro, Achea, Morea, Epirus, Lebanon). You likely need to go to war to release them, so why don't we include all the tags you can easily reduce to OPMs (everything you can fully annex in one war, for example Florence, Ferrara, Milan, Serbia, Bosnia, Byzantium, Candar, Karaman, Dulkadir, Aq Qoyonlu)
• OPMs that both Venice and Genoa are strongly interested to annex (Ragusa). Cyprus imho is here too, at least for Venice with its free claim mission.
• OPMs that need to be released from one of the merchant republic cores (Crete, Corsica): you have a core on them, why should you get only half trade power from it?

Basically, most of the names on that list imply going to war with someone, and I suspect in that case simple annexation is a better choice. That's the reason why I used the words "acces to useful OPMs": access stands for the ability to get them to join the league using only diplomacy, useful means OPMs that provide trade power where you can make use of it and that you wouldn't rather annex. In Italy for example, I can see as viable choices Mantua, Siena and Lucca.
To increase the numbers of OPMs, as Venice and Genoa, you need to fight someone: this is why I asked if there's an option to force them in a peace deal (maybe the new trade war CB could be used).
How the defensive alliance works has a huge impact on how much this strategy would be viable: if an attacked member gives the league leader a defensive call to arms, it could mean (for Venice and Genoa) fighting Ottomans or Mamluks allied only to a bunch of OPMs. If the league leader becomes warleader on defensive side, then the mechanic is so much better that it could be overpowered.

There's an upside I didn't think of, though: as both Venice and Genoa you can use the trade league to deny easy expansion to your enemies. For example, if all those HRE OPMs around Austria are in the league, it'll be much harder for the damned Hapsburgs to blob all over the place. For Venice league membership offers a way to "expand" into HRE without warring with the emperor, which is also nice. Finally, more OPMs means more developed land.

Of course, I'm going to try a Venice run focused on releasing OPMs and expanding the trade league, instead of blobbing over the Balkans (by the way, I imagine this mechanic is a fun and "legit" way to get the Venetian Sea achievement, without using gamey protectorates or selling your land when you've built a million trade ships)

 

[Horkak]

ill probably never use the trade dispute causes belli now, but

 

[Kermann]

How about interconinental trade blockades (i.e. the Napoleonic blockade of Great Britain), will there be such a function implemented in the expansion too? It would be a really nice way to try to counter those new enormous trade networks that might happen. Maybe a "Force Embargo on Rival(s)" peace resolution, as well as a diplomatic option.
How does that sound?

 

[Manzo_]

I don't much see the point in setting an arbitrary limit of 1 province to join the league. If you want to prevent a large nation to join the league, why not implementing a malus that reflect a logical consequence in letting a strong nation into the league? As I see it now, if members of the league had the possibility to challenge the leadership of the league, the leader would never let in a nation such as Denmark or France. On the opposite, if a minor with 2-3 provinces desires to join the league, and the leader see that he is still relative weaker than himself, he would still consider his proposal. It's more a bottom up approach rather than the 1 province limit...

 

[isip]

Nice, but could you please make it possible to declare war while in regency council. Not much fun sitting in a 0/2/0 regency for 15 years while your caususbelli to reclaim the throne of England dissapers

 

[KrupPato]

• OPMs that need to be released from one of the merchant republic cores (Crete, Corsica): you have a core on them, why should you get only half trade power from it?

I think the really interesting aspect of feature is that you can have as many OPM in defensive alliance at the cost of a single diplomatic slot.

It's like HRE when you revoke the privilegia, if you lead the trade league you like to have more possible OPM in the league than your cores.

And even better if they are in your main trade node so that all steer where you collect.

 

[Ameron]

I don't much see the point in setting an arbitrary limit of 1 province to join the league. If you want to prevent a large nation to join the league, why not implementing a malus that reflect a logical consequence in letting a strong nation into the league? As I see it now, if members of the league had the possibility to challenge the leadership of the league, the leader would never let in a nation such as Denmark or France. On the opposite, if a minor with 2-3 provinces desires to join the league, and the leader see that he is still relative weaker than himself, he would still consider his proposal. It's more a bottom up approach rather than the 1 province limit...

It could be made so that OPMs can join the league regardless of their development, while everyone else has an increasing "development" malus to their willingness to join, similar to the one in diplo-vassalization

 

[grommile]

You can continue patching a broken game and releasing new DLC's but it won't cure it.

What? That - done intelligently - is literally the only thing that can fix a broken game. (Writing a new one isn't fixing the old one.)

 

[Leninade]

What use is a trade league if it takes up a diplo slot? And more importantly is anything being done to make navies worthwhile to build at all? I saw that navies now require their own unique manpower, which is fine and all, but making navies more difficult to use and to build doesn't suddenly make them more attractive. Between the new states mechanic fucking anyone that straddles arbitrary lines through Europe such as Venice or Austria, the new corruption mechanic fucking anyone that dominates their trade node, and mercantilism being made into a negative, I can't see any reason to actually play as one of the countries that is supposed to be fleshed out by this expansion. Even trade leagues sound like an easily ignored afterthought. Why waste a diplo slot on an OPM with a small trade benefit when you can use those precious slots on real allies and just take the clay from the OPMs you were going to league with?

 

[indika_tates]

What? That - done intelligently - is literally the only thing that can fix a broken game. (Writing a new one isn't fixing the old one.)

There is a point where you can't simply release more and more features and DLC's and you have to stop. For me, the game best state is after the release of Common Sense. There was a good bunch of features introduced, a balance between expansion/coalitions and a funny sandbox. I played this game since the release so I have a sense of how it evolved.

This game had a severe disease since it's beginnings. The AI. A poorly and rather stupid one. Historical nations can't properly defend theirselves? Lucky nations. Ottomans can't defend the bosphorus having 3x a larger fleet than you? Nerf straits. Players expanding too fast into the HRE? 1st World war for annexing ULM. So that's the reason I'm saying that no patch or DLC will cure the disease this game has.

 

[Dijkmans]

Dear Paradox could you make it when you are protecting trade and in that fleet are heavy ships you will automatically start privitering

 

[ChildeR]

I'm not sold on the idea that managing a confederation of OPMs is a better and more profitable long-term strategy than just annexing/conquering them.

It doesn't have to be, because the opportunity cost is completely different. You take no AE and need to spend no ADM/DIP. It only costs you a single diplomatic slot and perhaps some defensive calls.

 

[Sheriff Godwin Law]

Agreed, lead this confederation AND conquer your neighbors. Only the members need to be one province minors, the leader can get as big, blobby and monstrous as he wants.

 

[guachi]

Also 200 diplo power for 1% mercantilism especially now that it has a downside is just laughable. I'd like to see anyone ever actually click this button, i doubt we'll see that.

People who can do math and figure if 200 for mercantilism is more worth it than, say, increasing production in one province three times will certainly click this button.

Are you capable of doing that math?

 

[grommile]

Spending 200 DIP on Unjustified Claims that further my territorial objectives, or on annexing 12.5 (or more) development worth of subject nation, seems likely to outperform either of those choices.

 

[guachi]

that "promote mercantilism" button might as well read "I'm an idiot"

Like I replied above, if the alternative is spending 200 diplomatic points to raise production three times, then 1% mercantilism might be worth it based on the math.

Can you do the math to figure out if it's worth it? And if you can't does that make you "an idiot"?

 

[CrisisCauser]

It also has a double affect on your Corruption. Increasing Mercantilism directly increases your Corruption, and it makes you more likely to lag in tech which also increases corruption. It will take some take to figure out if there is value in this.