EU4 - Development Diary - 7th April 2016

[Dark Kain]

This would go against the way they want you to play MRs I think (aka only taking centers of trade and very high value provinces which are spread out across a lot of areas).

The problem is that you can't pick selectively center of trades to become Part of your State, while keeping the rest of the same area as territory.
If those 20 provinces could be all centers of trades/estuaries that would be perfectly fine, but it is not going to be the realistical outcome in-game.

 

[Florryworry__]

YESYESYEDYEDYESYEESTSEYEEEEEEESSS! Really happy about the corruption change if we have rich empires that make money off of trade we can tootz deal with corruption now fantastic this is the way to go for many logical/gameplay/realism reasons cant wait to play the game now haha

 

[Artess]

3 states or 15 provinces in states is the exact same thing.

I guess this makes sense. Thanks for the change. Novgorod won't be completely boned now.

 

[Benghi Bon]

Will you make it so that razed provinces don't have +10 revolt risk? Hordes are now utter chaos. I feel it's incredibly cheap to nerf an advertised feature of the Cossacks DLC months after its release, where people like me paid full prices for such a feature to now be, well, death sentence.

 

[01smito01]

- Removed Regicide Event

Thank goodness for that.

 

[Aquae Sulis]

...its great to see 1.16 & Mare Nostrum breaking popularity records.

Out of curiosity, how do you measure popularity records?

 

[Kiyant]

So it is intended that Turks can form Arabia?
Because you dont mention it at all.......

 

[Tufto]

Yes.

I don't know who sneaked that in.

Drama!

 

[Milith]

If the Florence player made Florence a merchant republic then nevermind, I'll be honestly awed.

What's the difference? I'm providing you an example of effective, competitive play that's compatible with Merchant Republics. The fact that he wasn't actually a Merchant Republic doesn't change anything.

 

[Dnote]

Any chance of adding the Raiding idea to the Custom Nation designer? Or giving us a tip on how to do it ourselves?

 

[grommile]

You can always spam more heirs

Actually, no, you can't. You can't tell your Sultan to retreat to the harem and impregnate all his concubines.

 

[grommile]

The odds of that happening are remote. I've played many many hours of EU4 and only seen even a handful of RC's. And even then NONE of them were for the full 15 years. The idea that RC's are this HUGE blight on gameplay by the whiners is so completely over blown that I understand why Paradox has just completely ignored them.

When I say it's perfectly feasible? I mean "this actually happened to me, as a Muslim country (+100% Heir Chance) whose historical attitude to succession would usually strongly militate against an underage heir even being allowed to sit on the throne".

 

[Freudia]

Absorb vassals, generate claims in preparation for when the regency ends, colonize, several other things that don't require a war dec.

Several things that take no thought. Got it.

 

[misiceman]

I really think a simple thing like -1 stab plus some AE (-10ish) generation would make declaring during regencies "interesting". As both penalties imply it is not really the ruler who is making the decision, yet allows for a wartime event when needed or a huge opportunity. And placing the cost in admin would be the right place to do it as they are the most valuable points.

Or perhaps a disaster that starts to tick up as long as you are at war during regency, but ticks down while not at war. Make it tick rather fast (2ish points per month maybe) so the risk/reward scenario is real. "you can declare but....". To note this disaster would only initiate on DECLARING war, maybe even declaring would start you at 25 % or something while in progress wars would still tick. There is a lot that this game can do with the disaster mechanic.

 

[Freudia]

If you think war in this game takes a deep amount of thought, I feel for you. It's not quite as bad as in CK2 where bigger army wins no matter what, but it's damn near close.

It requires far more attention and planning than anything else in this game. The extent of my thinking for a lot of mechanics that aren't war is basically 'send colonist/diplomat/missionary to x province/nation, done.'

 

[brifbates]

I see 3 paragraphs, but none addressing the points levied against regency councils. Care to do so?

What's to address? Regency councils are the down side of choosing to play a monarchy. You can choose to stay a monarchy and reap the up and down sides or you can move away from a monarchy to a different government form with its own set of up and down sides. Just because the down side inhibits your preferred playstyle doesn't make it a bad design. Given that Christian monarchies have the biggest up side in the game, them having the biggest down side is only fair.

If you want to argue that other religions should be treated differently since they can't get PUs I'd be ok with that. As someone said, Muslims really shouldn't get RCs but instead should get an adult ruler, possibly with lower legitimacy because that's how their inheritance laws worked. I'm not that familiar with the other religion groups so I can't say if RCs make sense for them or not.

As for the penalty itself, I have no problem with it as it is a realistic portrayal of how a loyal, conservative, regency would have acted. If they want to add events around a regency that could change it to a disloyal, greedy, etc. type with various positive/negative effects up to seizing lands and revolting or dragging the nation into war so it isn't just "15 years of speed 5 AFK" that would be kind of cool. Until then I don't see any problem with the status quo. Just because a certain segment of the game-playing public dislikes something doesn't mean it needs changed.

 

[Reckall]

All of which consist 100% of waiting... and all of which can be done while I'm fighting wars. (OK, I have to spend a day at peace to initiate subject annexation.)

Wars are inherently hectic. WWI lasted from 1914 to 1918. WWII from 1939 to 1945. We both still have to completely grasp everything that happened during these few years, while still living in the shadow, after 100 years, of the profound transformations they brought to the world.

So, yes: event-wise, wars are the explosive result (no pun intended) of years of political manoeuvring, botched diplomacy and expansion ambitions. To follow them, even when studying and writing about them, you have to put time in "slo-mo": a 500 hundred pages book can cover quite well the 20 years leading from WWI to WWII (i.e.: fast-forwarding through the inter-war years at "speed 3") by barely cover WWII (even if examining the events at "speed 1").

To be totally honest, I don't understand the whines about "watching the paint dry at speed 5". Boys, are you telling me that in EU4 you can actually burn through the boring parts at speed 5??

And if you think that the interwar periods are "boring" in a general sense, think again: act outside the box, maneuver both internally and on the foreign stage, master trade and how you can use it as a weapon of war...

In my current game with Malasya a single botched war put me in an almost hopeless situation in less than six months. But, right now, I'm climbing out of this dark hole without resorting to military actions. It was a challenge worth of my time, and it was fun. If patch 1.16.2 will break the save I could consider to install it later, just to see if I can pull off my long term "recovery plan". If "war" is the only ace in your sleeve... well, then good luck when things go south.

 

[M Bird]

So when are you going to fix chinese tech Zaporozhie??

 

[Jurrak]

I'm sad to see the Regicide event go. I really like the idea and while I agree it's quite overpowered in it's current form, I don't think it needs to be outright removed.
I believe there are some ways the event could be nerfed instead, while still keeping it in the game:
- have it only available to countries which develop the later Espionage ideas,
- arranging the assassination should require a significant amount of money dependent on the income
- have a chance for the event to fail, with possible hits to the player's prestige, stability and maybe diplomatic reputation, as well as worsened relations with the target country

Again, I understand that the event in it's current state is severely imbalanced, but I think it would be a real shame if it was simply removed, instead of trying to nerf and fix it.

 

[Freudia]

Though increased revolt risk was original plan..

And they decided against it in the 1.15 patch specifically because it didn't play well, nor was it fun. And yet here we are with them doubling back on their decision against it, for some unknown reason.