EU4 - Development Diary - 7th April 2016

[lolada]

Changing corruption cost from total income based to dev-scaling represents a pretty big change in philosophy of how corruption is supposed to work, not a QA issue imo

True, that was bigger oversight. I was thinking more on bugs like missed unrest after Horde razing, some decisions, events working unexpectedly, complicated piece deals mechanics gone wrong, missing localization and similar things. These things just can get through.

Looking at bug fixes it seems they didn't test Hordes and some ROTW nations enough. Or they introduced some late changes and didn't have time to notice how bad these changes are.

 

[guachi]

You added States that you have to pay maintenance for. You added corruption that you either have put money into to counteract or take it and receive penalties. Also, if I expand into a new territory, even with a claim. it starts at 75% autonomy. These are all nerfs to every country in the game. Of course you could say the states mechanic isn't a nerf as you can have overseas land with 0% autonomy. However, you still have to pay for the states at home. Then thrown in with corruption. It's a penalty to income. These are all penalties, and you haven't buffed the countries' income at all (excluding France). I think there needs to be a little something to counteract it. Not just a development increase, as the states maintenance scales with development. I'm talking about a flat bonus to income, or something along those lines.

Yes, it's a penalty to income. Which you get around by knowing how to effectively generate lots of money. Trade income is completely unaffected by autonomy. Focus on that (perhaps) and swim in cash and your state maintenance and corruption issues will go away (especially with corruption now keying off of development).

 

[melkor88]

It's a shame they didn't go the other way for regencies and allow wars in some cases like CK2, maybe against Rivals only

 

[rodrigovc]

I will say here upfront that I did not like the corruption system which I think did not add a lot to the game. That being said I will point here constructive arguments of the problems with it. Currently it is tied to the income so you may profit from manipulating your income so you are proposing to change it to tie it with development. Ok I get where you are going, but this will cause other issues. If you consider territorial cores as development that will make corruption more expensive as you run out of states to fit your cores as you get lot less from territories then from actual cores. Also it makes trade companies far less valuable since they do count towards you total development. If you only consider actual cores as development the opposite will become true and owning a lot of territories will increase your income without increasing the amount of money needed to buy corruption down.

Finally tying corruption to the development will make high developed provinces HIGHLY valuable since you gain more from them per development. Countries that do not have access to highly developed land (either starting it or having it nearby for conquest) will suffer more than big tall countries. All those 3 development provinces in the new world will be utter garbage (you may not even want them depending of how the balancing is done) since they may give you less then what they take from you. Also gold provinces will become KING for getting corruption out of your country.

 

[bbqftw]

I will say here upfront that I did not like the corruption system which I think did not add a lot to the game. That being said I will point here constructive arguments of the problems with it. Currently it is tied to the income so you may profit from manipulating your income so you are proposing to change it to tie it with development. Ok I get where you are going, but this will cause other issues. If you consider territorial cores as development that will make corruption more expensive as you run out of states to fit your cores as you get lot less from territories then from actual cores. Also it makes trade companies far less valuable since they do count towards you total development. If you only consider actual cores as development the opposite will become true and owning a lot of territories will increase your income without increasing the amount of money needed to buy corruption down.

Finally tying corruption to the development will make high developed provinces HIGHLY valuable since you gain more from them per development. Countries that do not have access to highly developed land (either starting it or having it nearby for conquest) will suffer more than big tall countries. All those 3 development provinces in the new world will be utter garbage (you may not even want them depending of how the balancing is done) since they may give you less then what they take from you. Also gold provinces will become KING for getting corruption out of your country.

It's autonomy modified state development.

Which has its own issues of course.

No matter which scaling you use its 'exploitable'.

 

[unillogical]

It's a shame they didn't go the other way for regencies and allow wars in some cases like CK2, maybe against Rivals only

As far as I'm aware they've never given a justification for why you can't declare wars during regencies (even if there were some sort of penalty for doing so) as was done in history and as would be far better than sitting around doing very little in game.

 

[JasperClay]

As far as I'm aware they've never given a justification for why you can't declare wars during regencies (even if there were some sort of penalty for doing so) as was done in history and as would be far better than sitting around doing very little in game.

Actually, I never thought of this. I like the idea that an adult head of state is necessary to properly conduct aggressive war, but I think a penalty would be better than a ban. While I find the constant refrain of "as was done in history" to be the ultimate in anecdotal vs. statistical evidence (that is, the vast majority of monarchs who were under the cultural majority age did not declare an aggressive war on anyone, afaik) simulating the fact that a regency could do so, even with difficulty, would be better than the weird hard ban.

What about -2 stab, -25 legitimacy, for declaring war in a regency? Basically, "you better win, or there will be rebels all over." Since legitimacy gets reset when your monarch comes of age, this has the added benefit of being more punishing for doing it with an infant than a tween.