Europa Universalis IV Developer diary 13 – FREEEDOM!

  • 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.
I like the fact that Manpower will be more important in this game and that it will be effected by War Exhaustion.I know there will be alot of whining about it, but if it is implemented well.....it will be more realistic than current EU3 system.

Now the massive manpower of russia starts to make sense, eh? They will be constantly at war with the hordes, so they need all the manpower they can get from their NIs.
 
I think the best would be if creating a core required to have 0 revolt risk in given province - combined with the previous system of "Nationalism" in conquered non-cored provinces it would prevent insta-coring new lands.

Thinking of the HRE, it has to be that way you described it. If you annex ulm and instantly buy a core, the emporer can not take it away from you, because of unlawful territory. But we know nothing about the HRE mechanics right now.
 
Thinking of the HRE, it has to be that way you described it. If you annex ulm and instantly buy a core, the emporer can not take it away from you, because of unlawful territory. But we know nothing about the HRE mechanics right now.

Maybe cores should have to wait x amount of time when not land connected to another core or not a coastal core. That way England can't conquer some of inner Mali and core it instantly. That would just be crazy.

Or even simply cannot core land which isn't connected by land to another core, not same culture & not a coast. That would effectively make conquering random far off provinces not connected to a port near pointless?
 
Sure hope this will be one of the Steam for Linux launch titles! Knowing Gaben's schedules, you guys will probably release this before Steam for Linux comes out though...
 
Are there any other restrictions to using monarch power to turn a province into a core? The idea of conquering somewhere and immediately creating a core of it doesn't sit well with me. Not if it's a neighbouring province, and especially not if it's in a faraway country. Will the cost be affected by things such as distance and length of time the province has been owned?

Why do you think you would have to conquer a province before making it a core? I see these as the new "boundary dispute" mechanic which you use on enemy provinces in order to create a CB.
 
'Rzeczpospolita' is in! That's very cool indeed. Same with reworked rebel system. I only hope that all these new mechanics and improvements would not be overshadowed by resurgent determinism.

Looks promising, but i think its about time you remove Ukraine as Ruthenian revolter and replace it with countries that actually make historic sense, for example, Kiev, Halich, Chernigov, Volhyania etc. Ukraine, Ruthenia or Kievan Rus' could be left as a kind of alternative Russian unification for the non-Russian east-slavs.

That would make sense only in the early game. Later on, with Ruthenian nobility being Polonized and Catholicised, rebellions were driven by Cossacks and peasants - thus Ukraine makes more sense than anachronistic, medieval political entities.
 
Try to keep your wars as brief and to the point as possible if you want to avoid too high a war exhaustion. Remember that, for the most part, this was an era of limited war with very few major conflicts dragging on and on with regular battles and empty treasuries.

As more of a empirebuilder/lover than a fighter I am welcoming this change.

I hope the AI will play along this time, because while EU3 may have had the same ambition with the war goals and such, I find that I always need to utterly crush my enemy before they make even the slightest concession. It a tough balance to get right, but I'll remain confident :)
 
Last edited:
I smell whack-a-mole. Disappointing to hear we're still going to be dealing with generic rebels after CKII (which, excellently, gave your rebel lords a face to let you know WHO you were fighting and a country tag so they could sustain a real rebellion and had a chance of winning). Now it look like I'm going to spend time stomping (yet again) generic pointless Scottish rebellion #34.
 
That would make sense only in the early game. Later on, with Ruthenian nobility being Polonized and Catholicised, rebellions were driven by Cossacks and peasants - thus Ukraine makes more sense than anachronistic, medieval political entities.

Sorry but i have to disagree. Ruthenian nobility wasnt Polonized everywhere, and at the same rate (so area around Lvov or Lwow is definitely a completely different case compared to Kiev and Chernigov). Second, Ukraine as a state never existed during the EU3 time frame, i believe as any kind of entity it wasnt even used until the mid of end of EU3 time frame (it was used as geographic term, and even then not in 1399. i believe), and even when it came into being it was due to a specific political circumstances (Russian revolution) and is no way a natural unification of its people (same way Yugoslavia was a product of a certain political context, and not because its the natural desire of its people). At the same time, before Lithuania expanded (by force) into modern Ukraine, all the states i mentioned existed and were principalities, some since the Kievan Rus' and original Mongol invasion. So from my point of view, the question is this: what makes more sense? a country that existed 100 years before 1444. or a country that never existed before 1900s? Ukraine revolting in Ruthenian provinces is as anachronistic as Russia appearing as a revolter (opposed to being united by a decision) from Russian cultured provinces would be.
 
I smell whack-a-mole. Disappointing to hear we're still going to be dealing with generic rebels after CKII (which, excellently, gave your rebel lords a face to let you know WHO you were fighting and a country tag so they could sustain a real rebellion and had a chance of winning). Now it look like I'm going to spend time stomping (yet again) generic pointless Scottish rebellion #34.

Johan wrote, that there are varying ways to deal with rebels, so fighting them is only one option. And the leader thing he mentioned might something like to the ckII rebell stuff.
 
Sorry but i have to disagree. Ruthenian nobility wasnt Polonized everywhere, and at the same rate (so area around Lvov or Lwow is definitely a completely different case compared to Kiev and Chernigov). Second, Ukraine as a state never existed during the EU3 time frame, i believe as any kind of entity it wasnt even used until the mid of end of EU3 time frame (it was used as geographic term, and even then not in 1399. i believe), and even when it came into being it was due to a specific political circumstances (Russian revolution) and is no way a natural unification of its people (same way Yugoslavia was a product of a certain political context, and not because its the natural desire of its people). At the same time, before Lithuania expanded (by force) into modern Ukraine, all the states i mentioned existed and were principalities, some since the Kievan Rus' and original Mongol invasion. So from my point of view, the question is this: what makes more sense? a country that existed 100 years before 1444. or a country that never existed before 1900s? Ukraine revolting in Ruthenian provinces is as anachronistic as Russia appearing as a revolter (opposed to being united by a decision) from Russian cultured provinces would be.

I would consider Zaporozhie to be equivalent of Ukraine - term 'Ukraine' was actually used at a time to describe Ruthenian areas closest to the steppe. Yeah - it's not perfect name, but makes more sense than resurgent pricipality title from Rurikovich era. Old dynastic/feudal structures were simply gone, and estates of magnate families were scattered all over the PLC. Plus, majority of historical revolts starting from 16th century, involved Cossacks and Orthodox peasants. It would be hard for me to imagine that in case of successful rebellion they would recreate old principality with ruling dynasty on top. It would look more like enlarged historical Zaporozhian Hetmanate - kind of militaristic/semi-democratic entity where Cossacks and peasants would have much more influence than hated nobles and landlords. So yeah - it would be weird for them to recreate medieval title (at least during first 50-100 years), and 'Ukraine' while not perfect - makes more sense.
 
Johan wrote, that there are varying ways to deal with rebels, so fighting them is only one option. And the leader thing he mentioned might something like to the ckII rebell stuff.

Here's what he said:

"Because rebels don’t just pop up because of low stability with vague or nebulous reasons to take up arms. Each rebel faction revolts with clearly stated goals they want to achieve. Whether it is simply a tax revolt by a people being bled dry or a full blown movement for independence, the rebels are demanding, and they won’t take no for an answer.
The new Rebel tab tells you how likely it is for a rebel faction to grow within your nation. You can see whether they will attempt to break free of your sovereignty unless you take urgent action to suppress them or accept their annoying demands. The new Rebel menu reveals their objectives, how close the rebels are to succeeding and how gaining a leader might affect their chance of success."

Sounds like "Rebels with a cause", who are still just basically generic rebels when it comes right down to it - they cannot form a self-sustaining rebellion (such as, for example, the American War of Independence). Some additional mechanisms for dealling with rebellions is welcome, but I'd much, much rather see at least independence revolts resulting in wars against states with separate tags right from the get-go.
 
Sounds like "Rebels with a cause", who are still just basically generic rebels when it comes right down to it - they cannot form a self-sustaining rebellion (such as, for example, the American War of Independence). Some additional mechanisms for dealling with rebellions is welcome, but I'd much, much rather see at least independence revolts resulting in wars against states with separate tags right from the get-go.

I hope Johan or any other pds member will answer some questions here, so we will know more.
 
Good : game mechanics will now be much more transparent.
Bad : same culture & religion rebels because of an old core from a country that doesn't exist, catholic Lithuanians rebelling against catholic Lithuaniua because of an old Polish core makes no sense.
Very bad : can not go from monarchy to republic without waiting for republican rebels to win all their sieges
Looking for : ability to remove old cores of non existing nations in provinces that are same culture , religion with the country and also cores.
Unknown : time between negotiations with rebels will still be there ?
 
Thank god Paradox made Poland-Lithuania named something better then ''Poland''.

Yeah - I wonder though, if it would still be named 'Commonwealth' (republic) if player switches government to despotic monarchy for example?
 
Very bad : can not go from monarchy to republic without waiting for republican rebels to win all their sieges
Were there many examples in the EU period of countries changing from a monarchy to a republic without a successful revolution, war of independence or civil war first?

Though in EU3 you could negotiate with rebels and accept their demands without waiting for them to conquer your entire country; I don't see why you wouldn't be able to do that with republican rebels too. What I do wonder is if there will be any way to "encourage" republican (or conversely, monarchist) rebels?

Also, will there still be the distinction between the administrative/constitutional monarchy line and the despotic/absolutist line, and will it be possible to switch from one to the other by choice, or will that also require a rebellion?