• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

EU4 - Development Diary - 6th of August 2019

Good day and welcome to another Development Diary for EU4's upcoming European Update + Expansion. After enjoying a plethora of maps, missions and other content work from our esteemed content designers, I'm here to turn our attention towards the mechanical changes and additions we can look forward to in said European update.

We're going to start with Mercenaries. Not too long ago, I penned a dev diary outlining our ambitions with mercenaries

I'll take this moment to draw attention to the fact that the UI and numbers are far from final

6th Aud DD macro.jpg


In the upcoming Euro update, the old method of recruiting mercenary units one by one in individual provinces is replaced by the action of hiring Mercenary Companies. Mercenary Companies are complete armies of pure mercenaries, as such will not consume from your manpower pool. They can be recruited in any of your core provinces, where they spawn at full strength, but with low morale.

Mercenary Companies come in two flavours: Local Mercenaries and Foreign Mercenaries.

All nations have three bands of local mercenaries available for recruitment, ranging in size from small to large, capped at a minimum of 2 units and a maximum of 40, depending on the development of your nation. Other than the fact that all nations will have local mercenaries available for hire, there is nothing special about them.

6th Aud DD company available.jpg


Things get a little more interesting with foreign mercenaries. Across the world, there will be foreign mercenary companies, tied to a province of origin; the Free Swiss Guard from Bern, the Flemish Company from Vlaanderen, the Raiders from Navajo etc. These companies come with their own General who is loyal to that unit and that unit only. They also can have different costs and modifiers on the unit, depending on which company you hire from. These companies can spawn and despawn over the course of the grand campaign, but no matter how much you want any particular mercenary company, you can only recruit Mercenary Companies within your trade range. So while you may feel confident invading a colonial Portugal, know that they may well have a far larger pool of Mercenary Companies to draw upon.

6th Aud DD Frisians.jpg


So let's take a closer look at the mercenary units themselves. They are typically more expensive than your standard nation's armies, although those costs compared to the current 1.28 mercenaries are likely to be reduced. This is largely due to how Mercenaries will no longer have unlimited manpower, able to feed themselves with coins and bandage wounds with solid gold. No, from the upcoming European update and going forward, Mercenaries will have their own local manpower, unique for their army

6th Aud DD local manpower.jpg


Not to belabour the point, but UI and numbers shown and discussed here are far from final

Once you hire, for example, this Cossack Host, they will replenish any lost souls from their own unique manpower pool until, eventually, they will be completely exhausted and no longer able fight at full strength, leaving them liable to be wiped out in battle. Our intention here is for mercenary companies to be the muscle you flex in times of war and conflict, rather than the go-to permanent standing army for all nations. To this effect:

Make mercenaries always stay at 100% maintenance

We added this and are quite happy with the results. If a nation chooses to rely heavily or exclusively on mercenaries at all times, they will certainly be footing the bill for them.

As for when you terminate your deal with any Mercenary Company, they will leave your nation and your command like all other units, but will not be available to hire by your nation for 10 years. If, in time of great war, you may find yourself at a disadvantage if you have exhausted your access of mercenaries against a foe who has many other companies at their disposal.

You may notice that the Local Manpower for a mercenary army replaces certain actions in the UI. While mercenary regiments can still be consolidated, they fight as a single unit under their leader. They will not accept being lead by another leader or army and cannot be split, nor merged with another. In the event that their leader dies, they shall elect a new leader from within.

6th Aud DD dead leader.jpg


In playtesting, this has lead to it feeling rather chunky, when manoeuvring multiple stacks which cannot be merged together, as they can have different arrival times and movement paths. We are looking into a better way to manage such stacks of armies, and as inconsistent arrival times has been a bugbear for some time, it seems a fitting moment to address it.

Some other points about Mercenaries which warrant bringing up here:
  • Hiring a Mercenary Company won't prevent another nation from hiring from that company too. We didn't want to create a situation where the player who clicks fastest gets those juicy Swiss mercs.
  • Mercenaries will use your nation's military stats, then apply any of their own modifiers on top of that. We did not want to echo the situation in EU3, where mercenaries would end up clearly spending all your money on booze because they were too drunk to fight well.
  • Mercenaries will be hired through the macro builder rather than through the provinces. This should help reduce click fatigue, but also necessitates some work on the Macro Builder, which we'll address in a future DD.
  • With Mercenaries no longer being a bottomless source of manpower, base manpower is likely to increase for all nations, likely by increasing the base amount development gives and/or boosting the value of manpower buildings.
  • Mercenaries are to use unit models fitting for their origin.
  • All changes above are going to be part of the free update.

This is a major change to system that has been largely untouched since EU3, and it won't be until 2020 that this update hits the shelves. The system is likely to get some refinement based on playtesting and feedback. Early results show a lot more involvement with Mercenary Companies, especially in multiplayer. Hearing "Oh bollocks he hired the Swiss" down the microphone certainly evokes much glee, but we shall continue refining the system. We shall be back with more about Mercenaries, as well as the content that goes hand in hand with the system, as development continues.

As ever, comments and feedback are welcome in the thread. Next week we'll be tackling another large change coming in the European Update.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
By the time you have a serious revenue stream, your base manpower would normally already be high enough that mercenaries are not needed. There are only a select few scenarios, that I can think of, where high income doesn’t generally correlate with high manpower, those specific situations being nations like the Italian city states, or the Dutch. Regardless, my point is still proven. Mercenaries are typically most useful as frontline infantry, complementing regular cavalry and artillery - when manpower conservation is necessary - and these recent changes seem to prevent this use of mercenaries, since u now have to purchase an entire stacks worth, and can’t even split/merge them. Merc changes aren’t really that great when they’re not useful enough to warrant their use. No disrespect to the devs or anything, just think the system needs to be refined more if they want the player base to actually consistently use this system.

And PS, 90% of people go admin ideas for the core cost reduction, let’s at least be clear about that lol

Constant sieges and moving with large armies to scare off the enemy doesn’t take very long to burn through a hundred thousand manpower or so even before battles that can kill tens of thousands on their own.

If you are going for a heavy conquest game, large mercenary armies are pretty much always the best way to go because gold is so much easier to get in massive amounts.

And you can get large mercenary armies going very fast if you start out in a good spot economically. If you start as a Northern Italian minor, you are probably manpower starved and floating gold from the beginning of the game. And other places are similar if less extreme.

A major driving point of this change is that massive numbers of players do use large mercenary armies to buy manpower with gold.
 
This thread should probably get shut down now, mostly just people repeating the same stuff back and forth for suggestions and pathetic name calling from both sides of the "pro" and the "casual/immersive" crowds. It's getting worse than when people started arguing over Bosnian being added to the game. I don't want to take sides here, but one of the crowds is getting pretty tedious right now. No need to call someone a parasite because you disagree with them over a game. I get that people are passionate about games they love and have supported for a long time, I get that too, and seeing them burn to the ground due to mismanagement from the developers, publishers or both is terrible. But generalizing entire groups of people into two collective hordes of x and y is hardly true. You can be pro, yet play casually and immersive. You can play casually and be a world conqueror with Ryuku. You can be a diehard fan but not study every aspect of the game to become the best player in the world.

I'm waiting for someone to say something new and give actual feedback to what the developers have in store for us at the start of next year.
 
I'm waiting for someone to say something new and give actual feedback to what the developers have in store for us at the start of next year.
You're going to be waiting for a very long while then, we've already heard everything the "casuals" think - this is the best change ever since it adds realism and immersion, but it also needs bidding and no instanced(?) swiss mercs, only 1 lucky person gets them - and what the "pros" think - this is a stupid change due to how it was implemented, RNG comp and inability to adjust stacks kills this entire idea completely, as well as other systems in the game that would need to be tweaked for this change to even have a chance to be good - what's left is just nitpicking/screeching at the other sides' opinions for being wrong, and discussing the gameplay ramifications, which is something only TTM WC players care about apparently, and there's not much else to be said there, either, it's not a good change unless next weeks DDs reveal a warfare overhaul.

They could even include options for other contentious features
They already have something like that, it's called "play an old patch so you never have to fork over money for a terrible DLC again", I'm not sure it's the smartest business strategy, but the devs are obviously playing 5th dimensional checkers that we lowly consumers couldn't hope to understand.
 
"play an old patch so you never have to fork over money for a terrible DLC again", I'm not sure it's the smartest business strategy, but the devs are obviously playing 5th dimensional checkers that we lowly consumers couldn't hope to understand.
lmfao
The only reason I play 1.28.3 despite all the horrific changes is because of all the silly governments I can make. Since that is undoubtedly at the very top of the fix list, I will probably be stuck on 1.28.3 forever.
 
Here's an idea. How about giving us a game option to use the new system or old system without breaking ironman? Then everyone is happy.

They could even include options for other contentious features... wishful thinking
Yeah, that would please a lot of people and would cater the game to personal liking, but methinks you would need to redesign a lot of stuff from ground up. That is more something for EU5.

They already have something like that, it's called "play an old patch so you never have to fork over money for a terrible DLC again", ...
Patch ≠ DLC.
 
This is not a bad change, but it is really impossible to judge without seeing all the other changes they will inevitably need to put into the game. For example, with this mercenary change it will be necessary a massive change to manpower, or be resigned to large swat of game palyed at 5 speed waitng for your and the mercenaries manpower to recover after a war.

Remeber that the big problem of eu4 is that outside of war there is really nothing to do, and to make wars you need manpower, with the actual mercenary system you can 'easily' replace manpower with money, with this new system I don't think ti will be possible, so what are you going to do when both your nation and the mercenariy companies you have access to are out of men? Wait 20 years with nothing to do waiting for it to recover?

Also the AI need the actual mercenaries because they are literaly incapable to handle manpower efficiently. Until we see how paradox fix these problems there is no way to tell if this change will improve the game.
 
Here's an idea. How about giving us a game option to use the new system or old system without breaking ironman? Then everyone is happy.

They could even include options for other contentious features... wishful thinking
The problem with that is that it means they'll have to test, balance, and code for 2 different versions of the game. It will be an ongoing maintenance cost. And we already know their current priority is to reduce maintenance cost (that's what "working on technical debt" means).

2 different versions of the game might not sound so bad, but the problem is that as more options are added it doesn't just add up, it multiplies. Already, EU4 with Dharma and without Dharma are different games in terms of balancing, testing, and content creation. If you look in the game files you'll often see "if Dharma then this, if not Dharma then that". So that would give 4 versions to test: with Dharma and new mercs, no Dharma and new mercs, with Dharma and old mercs, no Dharma and old mercs. You'll probably want an option for whatever new fort system they come up with; then it will 8 versions. Add another option and it's 16.

As you can see, DLCs already cause this problem for Paradox. There are 15 game-changing DLCs so a player can have any of 32768 possible combinations of DLCs. The way they keep it manageable is to try to make DLC features that don't interact *with each other*. That way they don't have to think about every possible combination. It stays additive instead of multiplying. (I'm sure that's a big part of why they make large parts of every new expansion free content. Anything that becomes part of the base game doesn't create this problem. Folding estates and province development into the base game must have helped a lot too)

So how does this work for CK2? Well if you look at their game options, you'll find they're nearly all of two kinds: minor ones that won't affect testing/coding/balancing (like "what year does the black death start"), and on/off switches for things that are already DLC features and thus already have to be tested with and without. The only exceptions I can think of are shattered retreat on/off and coalitions on/off. And I know they deal with the latter by just not replacing coalitions with anything else. The whole "threat" mechanic is still there, it just doesn't do anything. So that's another way of dealing with game options: accepting poor support for one of the options.

Old mercs vs new mercs would be exactly the most costly kind of game option. It would be two alternative systems rather than one system on/off, it would interact with most of the rest of the game (by having different kind of bonuses in admin ideas, national ideas, government reforms, also manpower effects and estate interactions because they're going to change manpower for the new systen), and it would be like 2 different games in terms of balancing. I can see why the devs would refuse to make it optional.
 
The problem with that is that it means they'll have to test, balance, and code for 2 different versions of the game. It will be an ongoing maintenance cost. And we already know their current priority is to reduce maintenance cost (that's what "working on technical debt" means).

2 different versions of the game might not sound so bad, but the problem is that as more options are added it doesn't just add up, it multiplies. Already, EU4 with Dharma and without Dharma are different games in terms of balancing, testing, and content creation. If you look in the game files you'll often see "if Dharma then this, if not Dharma then that". So that would give 4 versions to test: with Dharma and new mercs, no Dharma and new mercs, with Dharma and old mercs, no Dharma and old mercs. You'll probably want an option for whatever new fort system they come up with; then it will 8 versions. Add another option and it's 16.

As you can see, DLCs already cause this problem for Paradox. There are 15 game-changing DLCs so a player can have any of 32768 possible combinations of DLCs. The way they keep it manageable is to try to make DLC features that don't interact *with each other*. That way they don't have to think about every possible combination. It stays additive instead of multiplying. (I'm sure that's a big part of why they make large parts of every new expansion free content. Anything that becomes part of the base game doesn't create this problem. Folding estates and province development into the base game must have helped a lot too)

So how does this work for CK2? Well if you look at their game options, you'll find they're nearly all of two kinds: minor ones that won't affect testing/coding/balancing (like "what year does the black death start"), and on/off switches for things that are already DLC features and thus already have to be tested with and without. The only exceptions I can think of are shattered retreat on/off and coalitions on/off. And I know they deal with the latter by just not replacing coalitions with anything else. The whole "threat" mechanic is still there, it just doesn't do anything. So that's another way of dealing with game options: accepting poor support for one of the options.

Old mercs vs new mercs would be exactly the most costly kind of game option. It would be two alternative systems rather than one system on/off, it would interact with most of the rest of the game (by having different kind of bonuses in admin ideas, national ideas, government reforms, also manpower effects and estate interactions because they're going to change manpower for the new systen), and it would be like 2 different games in terms of balancing. I can see why the devs would refuse to make it optional.

Tbh I don't see how comparing this to DLCs works
DLCs are paid hence, obviously, the players who buy them have a right to expect that no matter what combination of DLCs they have the game will work just fine for them
...they pay for that specific combination, after all
If 'custom game rules' came to be, and they featured, say, 30 different gameplay options, of which one would happen to make the game unstable or something then
well, there are still 29 options left. It's fully up to player if he wants to use a certain permutation of game rules, or even if he wants to follow game rules at all.
Custom game rules is something that you COULD use but would never be forced to, and it'd be merely an addition on top of the set of rules that QA would test the game for
 
that is quite an interesting DD. never really used a lot of mercs , but the system can be improved (i wanna see Hungary black armies now!)

In the upcoming Euro update, the old method of recruiting mercenary units one by one in individual provinces is replaced by the action of hiring Mercenary Companies. Mercenary Companies are complete armies of pure mercenaries, as such will not consume from your manpower pool. They can be recruited in any of your core provinces, where they spawn at full strength, but with low morale.

Do you need a territorial or full core here?

You may notice that the Local Manpower for a mercenary army replaces certain actions in the UI. While mercenary regiments can still be consolidated, they fight as a single unit under their leader. They will not accept being lead by another leader or army and cannot be split, nor merged with another. In the event that their leader dies, they shall elect a new leader from within.

I hope these leaders are free ones

Some other points about Mercenaries which warrant bringing up here:
  • Hiring a Mercenary Company won't prevent another nation from hiring from that company too. We didn't want to create a situation where the player who clicks fastest gets those juicy Swiss mercs.
  • With Mercenaries no longer being a bottomless source of manpower, base manpower is likely to increase for all nations, likely by increasing the base amount development gives and/or boosting the value of manpower buildings.
Nice to see base manpower increase , but if you increase it for everyone...
and imagine if nation A and nation B hire these swiss mercs.
do each nation have its own mercenary manpower pool?

This is a major change to system that has been largely untouched since EU3, and it won't be until 2020 that this update hits the shelves..

so we won't have a major update until then? good to know.
 
On the topic of manpower, etc, i think you should make it so that bigger and multiethnic empires have some manpower less. I know that non accepted cultures give negative modifiers, but we all know how hard it was for Austria to manage its multiethnic empire in times of war and how the more consolidated Prussia or Germany had it easier. I mean Austria just gets a big Hungarian revolt at some point, which is easy to crush, but other than that you're just a big white blob that can bully everyone around it.

Also, could you incorporate supply range for armies? Maybe base their attrition based on how far the army is from your capital or those supply depots? The Ottomans barely made it to Vienna and in the game they can easily siege Paris if they want. Yeah it's a game, i know, but attrition and range of operations are something that definitely should be addressed.
 
Also, could you incorporate supply range for armies? Maybe base their attrition based on how far the army is from your capital or those supply depots? The Ottomans barely made it to Vienna and in the game they can easily siege Paris if they want. Yeah it's a game, i know, but attrition and range of operations are something that definitely should be addressed.
Why?

1) What issue with gameplay does this address? Surely, having the Ottoman threat be real is a good thing?

2) Army logistics in the period didn't rely on shipments from home. There might be some justification for modifying replacement rate far from the depot, but there is really no historical support for attrition to be so related. Had the Ottomans not been stopped by an allied army at Vienna, they might very well have penetrated further into what is now Italy, Germany and France.

To my mind, if you want to argue for this, you need both a gameplay issue to address and a historical justification for addressing it in a particular way*. It seems to me that you have neither, here.

*: It would help if that way was also likely to be fun/deep.
 
well to his defense if lets say a non colonial france wants to walk all the way to china all you need to have is military access and you can just march up there no problem. in reality such army would lose men on the way and would not be able to get any reinforcement like the game suggest as teleportation magic does not exist.
 
(1) Any number of countries can hire the same company
You would start to love love it, once playing as German minor to learn that France and Commonwealth hired all the companies from Iberia to Ural

(3) No restrictions on the hire of mercenaries based on culture religion, relationships etc.
French hiring Indians, British hiring Ghurkas, Commonwealth employing Tatars. Why would be?

(4) No changes to current abysmal state of manpower
DDRJake said clearly it will be rebalanced.

(5) No indication of Idea group changes to reflect the changes to mercenaries.
I would say this is pretty obvious that certain mercenary ideas will be rebalanced to the new system. Perhaps not Mercenary maintenance or discipline as they work quite well, but available mercenary probably will.

(6) Inability to carpet siege with un-split-able mercenary companies.
[/QUOTE]
While I understand it might be considered balancing factor.
 
Of course DDR, you don't even patch anything that basically the whole community doesnt want. Get rid of territorial corruption for gods sakes listen to your community. And this stupid 50% dev to change capital to Europe is ridiculous. You are making me want to leave the game after 1900 hours.

The only thing I ask is for you to actually listen to your player base.
 
Each foreign mercenary company will have its own infantry/cavalry/artillery ratio. Some will favor infantry, some will rely on more cavalry than average, others will bring a lot of artillery. They also come with own set of military modifiers on top of the hiring's country, which will usually work in favour of their preferred composition.

So, will the mercenary companies have their own abilities/perks to them? (i am not talking about taking the client country bonus thing).

Say, if we already can only settle for a company with a bad inf to cav ratio, are some of these companies going to have some bonuses, like '+50% cav to infantry ratio', in order to justify taking them in the first place? Wouldn't make much sense to hire Mongolian or Serbian, Croat, Wallachian cavalry-heavy company, with all the penalties that bad inf to cav ratio gives.
 
Theyve copied that from IR and I didnt like that decision back then either. Mercenaries are supposed to be not that good generally. For countries woth no military tradition, yeah they could be better than their own troops. For countries like France, Spain, and Prussia, recruiting mercenaries should be a last resource and used for sieges and such, as they would be significantly worse and less discipline and lower morale than their armies. Other wise Mercenaries are always a go to option since day 1, for all countries.
Agreed. I'd be fine with, say, local mercenaries using your own bonuses, but foreign mercenaries should not use your own bonuses but rather whatever their own modifiers are.