Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
These mechanics sound interesting, but I am disappointed that desire for independence is yet another mechanic that is simply a function of dumping in monarch points. You'd think there could be more to it than that...
Agreed.. although this will now increase the pressure on Admin points, which I always seem to have rather a lot of. I'm really glad that they didn't use Diplomatic points!
Though this still leaves poor Mil Points the ugly sister of the three, all tarted up and nowhere to go.
They really need to add some more stuff for us to spend Mil on.
It's an upgraded form of the Trade Treaty. They give a percentage of there trade power say 50%, and in return you must protect them if they are Dowed. So it's like a guarantee but you get trade power for it, and it's enforced. However they are not called into wars on you, or by you.
My guess for the protectorate is that it's simply a vassal that gives trade power rather than income.
Don't think it's just a treaty, that you do through the diplomatic screen. I think it's something you have to go to war and force the nation into. Otherwise it would be too easy to take all of traderoutes if you are first.
If we look at the picture we can see trade power in the first column. I don't know if they will give 50% or 100%. I would lean towards 50% since it seems to be the case for colonial nations. I would like 100% more though. Since you don't get any other income you should totally monopolize trade.
Yes I am sure you guys are right! That's the only explanation that fits the picture - it shows Tax, Tariff and Trade Power for Colonial Nations, and we already know that they will give Trade Power. Protectorates show just Trade Power, matching your guys' explanation. Then it shows a PU with no revenue at all, which matches current PUs which don't give Tax.
So the only subject type missing from the picture is the good ol' plain Vassal. My guess is that they will be unchanged from now - Tax income only, no Tariff or Trade Power.
That's excellent - quite a lot more variety in vassal types and income options.
And it sounds like Trade is going to get some significant new strategic opportunities: you're currently locked out of Trade Nodes where you can't get any provinces, now you can get a Protectorate there instead. Definitely sounds interesting.
It's a house and a flag. And it's a general purpose button, not specific to one of the vassals.
Could it be a Release as Vassal button, moved from the Diplomacy screen? That'd make sense, that Release as Vassal button was always kind of orphaned on Diplomacy, just plonked there because there was nowhere else to put it. It'd make much more sense on the Subjects screen.
2. What's the Crown column in the Subject Nation list?
I'm not sure on this.. can't think of any explanations that would lead to it being blank for all those Subjects in the example screenshot. Unless it's just not filled in because this is still a beta screenshot, and they've not finished connecting it up yet..
3. Global Income Modifiers - Colony and Vassal Income.
Vassal Income is probably exactly the same as currently shows on our Economy->Income. 50% default, more for Feudal, exactly as now? Wouldn't be surprised if there are some new ways of increasing/decreasing that, as well.
Interesting to note that Colony Income will also have a global modifier, which (if this screenshot is representative) starts quite low, only 30%. Just modified by Decisions/Events/Technology/Government ? Or more sophisticated?
I wonder if they will re-purpose the Overseas Ships system that currently impacts Tariff Efficiency, i.e. you need enough ships to support your Colonies, and that can reduce the Colony Income.
I am sure that they will at least have the same kind of reasoning as current AI DOWs do. They'll be able to make some consideration of relative military strength, and what allies the overlord has and what they have.
Not that the AI is currently perfect in this regard, indeed it's sometimes way off (e.g. the issues some people have where their vassals get DOW'd despite them, the overlord, being super powerful.)
But it's definitely not going to look at only Liberty Desire when deciding, I'm sure.
I guess my concern is mainly on the frequency of the revolts. They're free to attack me any time (as I would want it if I were playing them), but I don't see a France with 500k troops NOT getting revolts from subjects in this system. I don't see them loosing either. It makes me wonder how the calculation will work.
This generally looks good, although I do wish the system had taken into account the real reason for the colonial independence movements -- the Enlightenment.
Yes, taxes were the cause around which the British colonials rallied but the thing that really separated years of contented colonial empires and the age of revolution was the Enlightenment. As people came to question authority, and came to instead believe rationalism ought to govern in all things -- creating the scientific method, challenges to religious authority, the creation of social science, and ultimately revolutionary movements -- the idea of colonial empire became increasingly untenable.
The birth of the Enlightenment ought to trigger an increase in liberty, not tax rates. (And for that matter lead to many additional affects because it's really what led to the end of the renaissance and the birth of the modern age. It ought to be a huge in game event like the Reformation, and a big trigger for world shaping events all around the western world.)
I'd really hate to see colonies revolting in 1640 because of taxes. And I'd hate to see contented colonies in 1780 for any reason.
I don't quite agree. Rather, I think that there are many similarities between the American rebellion of the 1770s and, say, the Catalan revolt of the 1640s.
Numerous tax revolts were seen during the 1640s. In those years France and Spain witnessed some brutal rebellions due to the increased tax burden. The right to raise taxes was still thought by the local nobility and gentry to be a prerogative of the estates and when kings bypassed those institutions then dangerous revolts came about. Some of these revolts, like the catalan one, had strong elements of national independecne. In fact the kingdom of Aragon declared independence from Spain but did not receive enough support from France to stay independent. After some years it was crushed by the Spanish troops. As the seventeenth century progressed the power of the kings over his subjects increased making rebellions weaker and weaker. Nevertheless, however strong European states may be in the eighteenth century, there was a problem: overseas colonies were much more difficult to control. An Irish or Scottish revolt was likely to be suppressed easily by a strong state like England, but when a colony distant some thousands miles from the seat of goverment rebelled it was a completely different story. Add some foreign support and voilà independence.
I believe that the reasons for rebellion were very similar, what was different was the aftermath. The new american state adopted a different government with different constitution and ideas about who sovereignty belonged to. The form of goverment resulting from those rebellions is different, but the reasons for rebellion were almost the same.
Well sure, that's why I was asking. When you say "what game was balanced at release" that's a pretty broad question...
XCom is hardly balanced, just that nobody notices the imbalances since its primarily a singleplayer, non-competitive game. Look at the number of balance changes Enemy Within did, then consider that Enemy Within has done more to FUBAR the balance than fix it. MEC Troopers for example have rendered Heavies almost completely redundant.
Haven't played EW yet but I am not shocked at all that introducing entirely new character development tracks breaks the existing game. But I don't think the original game was that bad. For example, Snipers were great, but you couldn't use all Snipers. Heavies were a little weak but there was no obvious "follow XYZ procedure to win" in the tactical game (the total lack of strategic depth was itself a problem).
EU4 you have unit types, technology groups, national ideas, starting territory, and a huge myriad of decisions and events specific to a country. Civ 5, on the other hand, all the civilizations start off identically and only get a few civilization specific units and buildings.
They've started to branch that out more so that you get civs like Venice that are only allowed 1 real city but can buy off the city-states. But that isn't really the same thing as "balance" in EU4. I meant more problems like I mentioned; flaws in the mechanics that mean you can do things that render other parts of the game obsolete.
For example, in original Civ 5 there WAS a problem where you could just build units and disband them for cash, and you'd get more cash than if you had simply had the city "build" money. This is an obvious design flaw that moots the entire "build" money mechanic. But it's relatively minor and doesn't really affect the game.
DDRJake discovered several much more serious ones in EU4 at various points, like the ability repeatedly complete missions for money, or the ability to shed AE by "losing" a war to an OPM, or the ability to bank Admin points for westernizing through coring. Many of these are still intact. Missions are highly abusable still, particularly for small powers that have few flavor missions. That's the sort of "balance" things I'm talking about - it's just absurd to think you can uncover exploits like these in multiplayer.
Ultimately nobody is going to be running around doing bizarre things in multiplayer looking for exploits; you're spending your time messing with the other players and trying to win, not experimenting with mechanics.
Yeah I'm guessing that's what it is. The icon is a picture of a fort, which suggests "protection" i.e. "protectorate".
Hmm I wonder what that is going to be. Maybe some kind of expanded version of Guaranteeing a Nation? We can see it doesn't give income, and the name and the icon certainly indicates "protection", so it does sound rather like it's a big nation guaranteeing to protect a smaller nation.
History buffs, what does "Protectorate" indicate in real world nation history for this time period?
"Protectorate" is a much more flexible word than "vassal"; indeed vassalage in EU4 is probably applied a bit too broadly (and has limited relevance to feudalism). I could see it operating as the client state (the category that includes all states subject to other states) of choice for republics and states of different religions (since it doesn't really make sense for them to be vassals strictly speaking). It looks like no income will be received, but a protectorate would be firmly established as under the patron country's sphere of influence; I'd expect that in terms of call to arms it functions one-way sort of like guaranteeing independence.
I think this subjects screen is definitely exciting news regarding my feature proposal, so I'll be eager to see what Paradox does with it. Feel free to read that, as that seems to apply as valid speculation as to where this all might be going.
That's the problem with counter-factual history. Anything that didn't happen is always theoretically possible. Some of it was actually possible. Other things weren't given the realities of the era. A lot is tied up in people's widespread cultural beliefs -- what they found thinkable and compelling and what they didn't.
What I'll say is European tax revolts go back to the Romans. Wherever there is a ruler there are people over which they rule, and those people are never happy about the situation. The rulers sometimes go too far, and violence happens. But that's all something very different from the national independence movements based in liberty and democracy that began with the American and French Revolutions, spreading into the Revolutions of 1848, and going into the modern democratic nation states of the west. It's pretty much well-established history that all that traced back to the Enlightenment.
Before the Enlightenment people just didn't have the intellectual framework to think about the world that would support mass uprising to build new mass republics (in the way we now think of republics, not the Italian oligarchies we also call republics). Revolts against an abusive king? Sure. Just maybe support his replacement with a new king -- very, very, very rarely. Throw off a monarch and replace him with a government run by the people? No. No more than they could even comprehend creating an atheistic communist state in 1640.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find a reputable scholar who claimed something like the revolutions in the Americas was possible before the spread of the Enlightenment. I think you'd be hard pressed to find one of the Founders of those new republics who would claim they could have done their work without the legacy of Locke, Rosseau, Voltaire, and their compatriots.
It's a fort, suggesting "protection" = "protectorate", and above it appears to be a normal crown. If you compare the crown image to the PU icon, they appear to be the same crown. I.e. it's not suggestive of a region, I believe.
That nation, Carnatic, is Indian according to Novacat.
I doubt it's region-specific. Or at least, I don't think that's the main definition of it. I think levithan and jockedahl got it right: it's a subject nation that provides only Trade Power. In return the Overlord is bound to protect them, being auto-called into all their wars. But the Protectorate will not be called into the Overlord's wars.
The Trade Power factor seems almost certain - the Subject screen shows a Trade Power number for Protectorate, but no other incomes (Tax, Tariff). So the Protectorate must provide a % of its Trade Power to the overlord, just like Colonial Nations will.
I would therefore assume that there's no region requirement, and you can have Protectorates anywhere in the world. I wouldn't read anything into the fact that the shown Protectorate was in India - it had to be somewhere!
I would at least hope that's the case, I see no logical reason why you couldn't have a European Protectorate. I suppose theoretically they might say "New World = Colonial Nations; Asia/Africa = Protectorates (representing East India Company etc?); Europe = normal" but that seems arbitrarily restricted, and in any case, what then happens if you are an Asian nation? Would you then get Protectorates in Europe then?
Let's hope that the only region-specific subjects are Colonial Nations, and that Protectorates apply everywhere except New World, like Vassals and PUs do.
I'm going to guess it's for releasing a colonial nation as an independent nation.
2. What's the Crown column in the Subject Nation list?
I'm not sure on this.. can't think of any explanations that would lead to it being blank for all those Subjects in the example screenshot. Unless it's just not filled in because this is still a beta screenshot, and they've not finished connecting it up yet...
When will we get Tax Income management for normal Vassals?
I really hope that this means that they'll soon also enhance normal vassals with Liberty Desire and manageable Income %.
With Colonial Nations, one can click the Increase Tariff button and it will increase the % of Tariffs paid, at the cost of increasing Liberty Desire. Why not have that for normal Vassals, as well? Allow the modifying of the Tax Income % up from 50, which would similarly increase Liberty Desire and eventually cause them to fight for independence. Similarly, allow other nations to Support Independence of normal Vassals.
Now that the all code is done for Colonials, we can hope that this could come sooner rather than later. (And it's always theoretically possible that it's already there.. there's no normal Vassal on that screen that we can be sure about. You never know..)
Oh yeah, well done! Or, if integration is not in progress, it's the % Inheritance chance.
Hmm, interesting, and I now notice that it shows 0% Liberty Desire for Hannover. So PUs now also have Liberty Desire?
Then, well.. maybe Vassals do too! We can't see one to be sure. That might follow on from my last point, and maybe Tax % IS manageable now for Vassals!
This is odd.. we can only increase the Tariff %? That button is clearly only a +, not a management button suggesting the allowing of reductions as well.
I suppose that increases the risk.. once you increase, you can't decrease again, so you're stuck with the resultant Liberty Desire.
But it's a bit odd that it's a one way slider and therefore seemingly the only way of lowering Liberty Desire is to wait for the subject to go to war and then beat them. There will be Events that can adjust it, too. But still it's strange if the % only moves in one direction.
Hmm, interesting, and I now notice that it shows 0% Liberty Desire for Hannover. So PUs now also have Liberty Desire?
Then, well.. maybe Vassals do too! We can't see one to be sure. That might follow on from my last point, and maybe Tax % IS manageable now for Vassals!
Interesting possibilities; that definitely opens up the possibilities for factions to be implemented in the manner I've suggested in my thread. Now all we need is a way to designate custom domestic province groupings for administrative divisions! The ideas in my proposal could definitely be adapted to utilize the liberty desire mechanic as well.
What I'm still looking for is the following, and apologies if I missed the answers elsewhere:
1. Will the cultures brought over from the CK2 converter have their own selection of culturally named regions in colonization? I.e., will a Norse Britain be able to have unique names in Brazil or Mexico?
2. When the colonial nations gain independence, will the names of the nations they can choose also be named culturally?
As happy as I am about CoP, I just would like to know if I can get my Norwegian Wood achievement with this expansion. (Since you cant personally own the required provinces in the new world.)
I tried to ask two or three times, but sadly no reply. If anyone has inside information or a good guess, please do not be afraid to tell.
As happy as I am about CoP, I just would like to know if I can get my Norwegian Wood achievement with this expansion. (Since you cant personally own the required provinces in the new world.)
I tried to ask two or three times, but sadly no reply. If anyone has inside information or a good guess, please do not be afraid to tell.
What I'll say is European tax revolts go back to the Romans. Wherever there is a ruler there are people over which they rule, and those people are never happy about the situation. The rulers sometimes go too far, and violence happens. But that's all something very different from the national independence movements based in liberty and democracy that began with the American and French Revolutions, spreading into the Revolutions of 1848, and going into the modern democratic nation states of the west. It's pretty much well-established history that all that traced back to the Enlightenment.
I don't think we disagree that much. My point is that from a practical point of view economic factors like increasing taxes are a very important, if not the most important trigger of revolts. That is even more evident with the French revolution. You may think it was triggered by people disagreeing with the Monarchical form of government and asking for democratic government. That was an element, but in my opinion it was more marginal than we think it was. In reality the famine and the financial crisis of the Frecnh state played a much bigger role in triggering the French revolution than new thoughts about democracy. Democratic values were spreading but they were too limited to cause big changes. It was the famine and the anger of the populace which overthrew the king in my opinion, not some en-lighted mind behind a desk. I agree that the political developments were much more determined by the new democratic ideas (see the universal declaration of the rights of man).
Before the Enlightenment people just didn't have the intellectual framework to think about the world that would support mass uprising to build new mass republics (in the way we now think of republics, not the Italian oligarchies we also call republics). Revolts against an abusive king? Sure. Just maybe support his replacement with a new king -- very, very, very rarely. Throw off a monarch and replace him with a government run by the people? No. No more than they could even comprehend creating an atheistic communist state in 1640.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find a reputable scholar who claimed something like the revolutions in the Americas was possible before the spread of the Enlightenment. I think you'd be hard pressed to find one of the Founders of those new republics who would claim they could have done their work without the legacy of Locke, Rosseau, Voltaire, and their compatriots.
I didn't say the American revolution could have happened before, I just argued that many of its triggering conditions were the same as 1-2 centuries earlier. I don't argue that had Catalonia achieved independence it would have established a democratic goverment like USA did. I just don't think that the main triggering reason of the American revolution were ideas about equality and democracy. Those were ideas of the few enlightened minds which wrote the constitution but I very much doubt Americans went to war with England over those principles. Instead they went to war over principles of representation and decentralised ruling which were quite similar to the issues raised by the Aragonese 130 years before.
When you say "what game was balanced at release" that's a pretty broad question...
