Welcome to another development diary about Europa Universalis. Now we are very close to the announcement of the new expansion that we aim to release in June... If Frö smiles upon us....

We have switched around what we will talk about in the development diaries for now, so today we’ll instead talk about Peace!

But first of all, lets talk about a feature that is something that some have requested..

Return Province!
Sometimes you have taken a province that is the core of a rival, or someone who do not want to buy the province, or even talk to you as you are so evil.. Not that we would ever be warmongering-alliance-breaking-world-conquerers..


Now you can just return the province to any state that has it as a core. You will lose some Agressive Expansion and prestige, but it will definitely reduce the chance of them attacking you in the short-term.


Peace Overhaul

This is obviously something that is in the accomanying patch.

First of all, we removed the treaty called annex.

…


..

.


Well, instead we are now able to target every province an enemy own, so taking all provinces is an annexation.

You will also always be able to demand the capital in a peace treaty, and you also do not need to occupy territory to demand it in peace, however unoccupied territory is more expensive to claim.

Revoking cores will no longer cost diplomatic power.

Diplomatic Power Cost, War Score Costs and Prestige gain for each province now scale with the province’s development, instead of being fixed costs.

Overextension and Agressive Expansion also looks at development instead of base tax.

And finally, you’ll be able to demand gold even while “annexing”.

 

[Chief of Staff]

Very good changes, now one thing is missing: ability to give and take at same time. For example: country A won a warscore of 50 againts country B and country A wants 3 provinces that costs 60 warscore. Country A may be able to offer some gold or a minor province for compensation of warscore. These examples could be multiplied. Another example: country C wons a war againts country D. Country C ask three core provinces of her but country D makes a counter offer, "give 4 of core provinces of country C + country C revokes remaning cores".

To be honest, historical treaties where one side gets all he wants is rare. Many treaties designed to reduce further friction and conflicts. Therefore land exchanges were quite common.

I agree. Treaties often had compensation and other provisions that wouldn't be seen as demands in them. Often treaties in actual history were mix of offers and demands. In fact, I would be willing to offer some kind of compensation in exchange for whatever I demand, as long as I can afford it of course. I would also be willing to negotiate a land exchange treaty in peacetime, especially if Country B have province I want while I have province they want which I was willing to dispose of. At very least, this negotiating authority, war or not, should also cover the provinces owned by CN, as it's not unheard for mother countries to sign treaties to exchange lands to settle the borders, a example being Treaty of Madrid (1750). I think land exchange would be a nice twist to the EU4 diplomacy, if AI can at least be trained to use it properly.

 

[Cpt. Fabri]

Honestly what Charles had to deal with was absolutely impossible to manage. He had wars with both the French and the Ottomans, and we all have played EU4 so we know how bad a situation that is. Simultaneously the Schmalkaldic League was forming and giving him literal Hell. Truthfully he did mismanage Spain's economy but he was nothing in comparison to Devil-spawning, Nation murdering son of his, Phillip II.

Wow, what a definition for a monarch who considered the library, chapel and garden far more important than anything else in his palace (El Escorial). Because he ordered burn heretics? How many religious and therefore political executions were done under protestant rulers like Elizabeth Tudor?

Felipe II did many things wrong and I know them very well, but the black legend certain countries tell about his biography is just bullshit. He was the most powerful ruler of his time, and because of it he had many enemies some of them even more ruthless than him.

 

[Nucky]

I agree. Treaties often had compensation and other provisions that wouldn't be seen as demands in them. Often treaties in actual history were mix of offers and demands. In fact, I would be willing to offer some kind of compensation in exchange for whatever I demand, as long as I can afford it of course. I would also be willing to negotiate a land exchange treaty in peacetime, especially if Country B have province I want while I have province they want which I was willing to dispose of. At very least, this negotiating authority, war or not, should also cover the provinces owned by CN, as it's not unheard for mother countries to sign treaties to exchange lands to settle the borders, a example being Treaty of Madrid (1750). I think land exchange would be a nice twist to the EU4 diplomacy, if AI can at least be trained to use it properly.

It sounds nice, but I think it would be difficult to balance. The risk is that it would be easy to screw the AI. It would require a lot of development time to make the AI smart enough to do these kinds of deals.

 

[WhiskyGlen]

Every game series which has a succesful previous title is a bit of x 1/2, isn't it? You paid for a full game, and you can disable all DLCs and then compare it to EU3. But well, both show a world map, so its certainly just x 1/2.
Thinking of every game series which comes to my mind, I have no clue how you would determine if a game is worth its own number or just 1/2. But the differences between vanilla EU3 and vanilla EU4 are certainly bigger than the differences between following titles in other game series.

Super Mario Bros: basic platformer. Left to right only. A couple power ups.

Super Mario Bros 2 (US version): Ability to select one of four players instead of default Mario. Potions which bring in alternate dark world. New power-ups. Keys to open doors. Ability to go backwards. Granted, a bit unfair since Super Mario 2 was just another game with Mario sprites added.

Super Mario Bros 3: Lots of new power-ups, ability to start a level with a power-up from inventory, ability to go behind features in level via white blocks, not 100% linear progress, unique boss levels, etc.

Super Mario World: Yoshi, enhanced world maps many with secret finishes, more unique boss fights, etc.

Super Mario 64: 3d Mario. Beyond revolutionary in every way.

EUII: Gain casus belli, make alliances, o to war with neighbors, siege fort, assault for, capture territory, annex nations, vassalize nations, obtain royal marriages, can only take capital last, etc.

Same for EUIII and IV except with coalitions in 4 and monarch points instead of research. Base game feels the same. Backdoor mechanics changed some. Forts only being in some provinces? Complete gameplay changer. New game after this release. Even transferring provinces was a major gameplay changer, yet that is a paid feature.

I love that it's going to be totally different. Just don't love that it's a year after release and many of the features will be paid.

 

[Will Steel]

Super Mario Bros: basic platformer. Left to right only. A couple power ups.

Super Mario Bros 2 (US version): Ability to select one of four players instead of default Mario. Potions which bring in alternate dark world. New power-ups. Keys to open doors. Ability to go backwards. Granted, a bit unfair since Super Mario 2 was just another game with Mario sprites added.

Super Mario Bros 3: Lots of new power-ups, ability to start a level with a power-up from inventory, ability to go behind features in level via white blocks, not 100% linear progress, unique boss levels, etc.

Super Mario World: Yoshi, enhanced world maps many with secret finishes, more unique boss fights, etc.

Super Mario 64: 3d Mario. Beyond revolutionary in every way.

EUII: Gain casus belli, make alliances, o to war with neighbors, siege fort, assault for, capture territory, annex nations, vassalize nations, obtain royal marriages, can only take capital last, etc.

Same for EUIII and IV except with coalitions in 4 and monarch points instead of research. Base game feels the same. Backdoor mechanics changed some. Forts only being in some provinces? Complete gameplay changer. New game after this release. Even transferring provinces was a major gameplay changer, yet that is a paid feature.

I love that it's going to be totally different. Just don't love that it's a year after release and many of the features will be paid.

I thought my NES Super Mario was the greatest Mario game.

I was proven wrong. Now I have to get those games.

 

[SchwarzerKaiser]

I got a "Disagree" on this for some reason... o.0

That's all that guy with 0 posts does. I haven't got behind the reasoning for his disagreements and couldn't spot any pattern, so I decided to just not pay any attention.

 

[Will Steel]

That's all that guy with 0 posts does. I haven't got behind the reasoning for his disagreements and couldn't spot any pattern, so I decided to just not pay any attention.

Don't mind that guy, I have seen him disagree on just about every notable post. Probably a spammer or a failed troll who thinks his disagree spam does anything.

Also, the new forum is bad, they turned it into Facebook with all these 'like/dislike' buttons. Really bad design in my opinion. What they should've done is add POLLS.

 

[Lord_P]

I thought my NES Super Mario was the greatest Mario game.

I was proven wrong. Now I have to get those games.

Super Mario Bros. 3 and Super Mario World are the greatest Mario games of all time.

 

[Golladan]

That's all that guy with 0 posts does. I haven't got behind the reasoning for his disagreements and couldn't spot any pattern, so I decided to just not pay any attention.

Probably someone that created a second account just to do that.

 

[Metz]

The banner on top says Johan talks about peace on May 7th, but tomorrow...

Does that mean we can expect a new update on the expansion in a few hours?

 

[Haccoude]

The banner on top says Johan talks about peace on May 7th, but tomorrow...

Does that mean we can expect a new update on the expansion in a few hours?

Someone else pointed out that the whole "If Frö smiles upon us...." has ties to Friday, so I would assume we get something today, even if not necessarily in a few hours.

 

[saegoto]

It's strange to me that u can get Paris (capital) in one war.

 

[Haccoude]

It's strange to me that u can get Paris (capital) in one war.

Why? England got it during the HYW.

 

[Kh3lben]

Nice changes . Now if only you could make it so that we could humiliate + take land that would be perfect.

 

[doken]

I understand Humillation as "I disrespect you so much that I won't even take any of your dirty land".

 

[riadach]

Honestly what Charles had to deal with was absolutely impossible to manage. He had wars with both the French and the Ottomans, and we all have played EU4 so we know how bad a situation that is. Simultaneously the Schmalkaldic League was forming and giving him literal Hell. Truthfully he did mismanage Spain's economy but he was nothing in comparison to Devil-spawning, Nation murdering son of his, Phillip II.

Ah yeah, but sure he gave the Irish a leg up.

God, I really am a particularist.

 

[gaius valerius]

1st of all, its not like Charles was the first person to bribe electors into making him emperor,
2nd I love how you blame Charles for the reformation and the actions of Saxony and Brandenburg during the reformation defying the Pope and sheltering Luther
3rd Charles V is basically a weird case in history because he is a great man in the classical mold but unlike most great men of history the challenges he faced were literally impossible to overcome, you can say he mishandled a dozen different things but I would ask you to say how he could have handled them better and then even if there are answers to some of his mistakes I would ask how he could have possibly figured that out, for example the Spanish economy falls aparts under his rule, not really his fault and really goings on in the Americas were pretty far beyond his control but even if he could better control how much silver was mined and shipped back to Spain and then minted and used. Did he, did anyone really have in depth understands of complex market forces like inflation or even a strong enough understanding of supply and demand to realize that production of any product at too productive of a rate will destroy its worth especially if said product is a non necessity such as silver.
4th He actually realized that not only did he fail but that the job he had set out to do was literally impossible and empire on the scale he was attempting was completely impossible given the means of the times causing him to split his lands when he abdicated giving Austria to his brother and Spain to his son

1st) Indeed, that is not really a point at all.
2nd) Charles had little to do with the Reformation occuring, but he was mentally ill equipped to handle it. Ferdinand had keener insight in that matter, whereas Charles was hampered first by his Erasmian upbringing and as he matured by his staunch defense of catholic unity. The effective split did not occur in 1517 to begin with but gradually came to be fact in the decades that followed.
3rd) Great men are a 19th century invention of Ranke-ism, long since dead in actual history. Those markant personalities certainly have their input, but they do so within the constraints of their time, often without really understanding those in the first place. We have the benefit of hindsight which they lack. Charles V and Philips II in his turn acted on what they knew, they didn't see the long term consequences, nor could they grasp the subtleties of inflation and so forth. They were concerned with the matters of their class, of aristocrats and kings. Their trade was - since medieval times - war, their currency, land. The disasters that befell the Spanish monarchy (as those that befell the French in turn) can not be blamed on persons, they were simply the logical outcome of socio-economic superstructures at work.
4th) His realisation of his failure was a deeply personal one, he was at that time an old man, worn out by events and a failing health. He did not have the personal insight to settle matters in the first place, his vision was blurred by his own stance, he lacked pragmatism in the sense that Ferdinand had it, though he was certainly less detached than his Castilian-bred son Philips. As a side-note, Charles V at the end of his life wanted to RESCIND the earlier agreements made with his brother concerning imperial succcession.

 

[Kh3lben]

I understand Humillation as "I disrespect you so much that I won't even take any of your dirty land".

You are kidding,right? What you are describing sounds more like "angry girlfriend behaviour" lol.

ps : This bloody American grammar spell checker is really irritating Paradox

 

[Tom013]

You are kidding,right? What you are describing sounds more like "angry girlfriend behaviour" lol.

ps : This bloody American grammar spell checker is really irritating Paradox

This forum has a spell-check that is not a consequence of your browser? I can switch what dictionary my browser uses...

 

[DC123456789]

So the name is Common Sense? Interesting.