EU4 - Development Diary - 10th of April 2018

[master_kong]

None of these reforms have any downsides, side-effects, etc? So this is just a matter of gathering points and subsequently unlocking the bonus, just like it really happened in history?

And just like every other game mechanic. Bonus after bonus after bonus, it's like fairy tale(!)

 

[TheDungen]

And just like every other game mechanic. Bonus after bonus after bonus, it's like fairy tale(!)

And completely immersion breaking.

 

[Assassin739]

So how will the Peasant's Republic work?

 

[Piotrzeci]

I mean... at this point Parliament is a pain to deal with and a rather pointless mechanic. Why would anyone pick it (except for Era criteria)?

 

[noldorin]

Please..Add formable govement type Tribal federation for anatolian beyliks

 

[Borkalax]

Except the absolutism nerf, which indeed makes it an interesting decision.

I'm thinking there could be an early build for a republic, that goes into more power, and whatever else is needed in the early game, and then you somehow roll back the reforms, and as absolutism appears, you have a new, absolutism focused build, perhaps with unrest reduction, but since we don't exactly know all the changes yet, optimal routes are speculation at best.

 

[Atreides]

Agreed. The game needs more tradeoffs to set it apart from simple min-maxing.

Trade offs don't really exist in EU4. The sliders of EU2 and EU3 were specifically designed to be trade offs that applied to all countries. That philosophy was specifically turned away from EU4 - the all bonuses all the time is not an accident. EU4 is designed so that if someone wants to have a Quality, Quantity, Offensive, Defensive army - they can do that.

Maybe in EU5 there will be some form of give/take costs involved in Ideas/Events/Policies, but I do not expect EU4 will ever have that. It is just not part of the core design philosophy.

 

[KazimierzWielki]

Great! I have hope that by the way it will be changed mechanism of Elective Monarchy. I would like have mechanism which give strong reason (bonus) and possibility to retain Jagiellon dynasty on throne by longer time (as was historically) and more chance that ruler will be elected from another country than from Austria, because diplomatic reputation has too more influence on this now. In my opinion costs of prestige for support local heir are extremely too much and retain local dynasty has no sense now. Additionaly, AI doesn't support local heir.

 

[TurtleShroom]

Does this mean you'll withdraw that glob-forsaken, stupid Nerf gun that you fired on Merchant Republics that essentially makes them unplayable? I'm talking about the penalties to Republican Tradition if you have more than three or four (or so) States. It essentially makes it impossible to effectively expand and dominate as Merchant Republic.

On the other note, will you ever add a proper republican government to Novgorod and the Vechy Republics so that, when you form Russia, you aren't railroaded into a monarchy?! One of my best games involved me uniting Russia as Novgorod before "Third Rome", and I got to keep my Republic government. It doesn't make any since that Novgorod would instantly crown a Tsar if it formed Russia. It was the biggest mistake that "Third Rome" introduced, and that's saying something.

 

[SolSys]

@DDRJake You had said that this feature will be free but now its claimed as part of expansion should i interpret it as paid or unpaid feature

There were only 2 DDs so far and both of them mentioned the feature is part of the expansion [right in the opening].
Unless I missed some dev post/reply I'm not sure where you got this info.

 

[creativitypersonified]

There were only 2 DDs so far and both of them mentioned the feature is part of the expansion [right in the opening].
Unless I missed some dev post/reply I'm not sure where you got this info.

If you don't own the expansion, you will have the new reform system, however the reforms will be a select group that will give you similar effects to like it did before this patch.
As an example the Ambrosian Republic government reform looks like this(of course preliminary values subject to change!!!):

#Special for Milan
ambrosian_republic_legacy = {
    # government mechanics flags go here
    legacy_government = yes
    unique_government = yes
    valid_for_new_country = no
    allow_convert = yes
 
    duration = 4
 
    republican_name = yes
    royal_marriage = no
 
    valid_for_nation_designer = yes
    nation_designer_cost = 10 
    max_states = 2
 

   allowed_ranks = { 1 2 3 }
    republic = yes
    modifiers = {
        global_tax_modifier = 0.10
        land_morale = 0.05
        global_autonomy = -0.025 
        max_absolutism = -30
    }
}

 

[MateusY]

This update sounds pretty good, all I suggest is that you make some changes to the looks of this tab, right now it looks kinda weird and a bit ugly

 

[TheDungen]

Trade offs don't really exist in EU4. The sliders of EU2 and EU3 were specifically designed to be trade offs that applied to all countries. That philosophy was specifically turned away from EU4 - the all bonuses all the time is not an accident. EU4 is designed so that if someone wants to have a Quality, Quantity, Offensive, Defensive army - they can do that.

Maybe in EU5 there will be some form of give/take costs involved in Ideas/Events/Policies, but I do not expect EU4 will ever have that. It is just not part of the core design philosophy.

Well it is a damn shame because the EU4 era is so interesting but the game gets boring because it caters to the lowest common denominator.

Does this mean you'll withdraw that glob-forsaken, stupid Nerf gun that you fired on Merchant Republics that essentially makes them unplayable? I'm talking about the penalties to Republican Tradition if you have more than three or four (or so) States. It essentially makes it impossible to effectively expand and dominate as Merchant Republic.

Merchant republics aren't for playing wide, they're for playing tall. What they should have however is a way to become some different form of republic if they get to wide.

 

[Regaccio]

at this point Parliament is a pain to deal with and a rather pointless mechanic. Why would anyone pick it (except for Era criteria)?

Because Parliament is great. If you have a Parliament you don't have to assign Nobles any provinces, and unlike with the nobility estate there's no autonomy floor for Parliament provinces. Any province that's in parliament just gets straight up bonuses to Manpower, Tax, and Production efficiency... Provinces assigned to nobles just get a 25% autonomy floor for Tax and Production, in exchange for 20% local manpower and some defensiveness.

As for it being a "pain to deal with" - compared to estates? I don't think so. With estates they're constantly asking for more land as you expand, begging to take more slices out of the pie, and what you get in return from them basically remains the same.. But with Parliament seats? You just assign them wherever you want the bonuses the most and it's done. No annoying "choose a stabhit or steep loyalty reduction" events, no penalties for doing the wrong thing, no using up your +Loyalty interaction then getting screwed by an event. Just positive province modifiers and bonuses from debates.

Did I mention that as an English Monarchy, all the events that force you to choose between pissing off the Nobles or something else, let you pick that option with no downside since you don't have nobles?

As for the debates mechanic, it isn't perfect but it can still be really nice. There are some no-brainer decisions like spending 10 Legitimacy in bribes to pass an issue that gives 10 Legitimacy and +1 legitimacy/year for 10 years. There are two issues that give an instant +1 Stability, and another that gives you an extra Colonist and Settler Chance that can be great early on. And if you play your cards right, you can get these bonuses at the paltry cost of some money, a little Corruption (money), legitimacy (which you're usually capped on anyway), or spare church power.

You might dislike Parliament or think it doesn't have enough depth, but I don't know how anyone could say it's pointless. I wish every monarchy I play could have this instead of annoying nobles. Now that Slacken Recruitment Standards exists nobles aren't even necesary for manpower boosts... (Though sometimes I miss the mil points)

 

[JKiller96]

Seeing as Groogy's use of 'the' instead of leaving out 'the' we can assume it focuses on THE holy roman empire. government reforms certainly fit the hre topic well since the hre consists of all government types.

 

[Thorum]

^^ Which tribe is in the HRE?

 

[Xetfield]

^^ Which tribe is in the HRE?

Austria, the land of hot, kangaroo and Mad Max

 

[TheDungen]

Seeing as Groogy's use of 'the' instead of leaving out 'the' we can assume it focuses on THE holy roman empire. government reforms certainly fit the hre topic well since the hre consists of all government types.

Or it could be the Renaissance, or the industrial revolution, or the xth century, or the early game midgame or late game, or any such concept.

 

[creativitypersonified]

Or it could be the Renaissance, or the industrial revolution, or the xth century, or the early game midgame or late game, or any such concept.

All of the dlcs released after rights of man have their focus on a region and the only one that has been released so far that can be said to have been focushed on a time period is art of war so it's very, very unlikely that the dlcs focus is a time period

 

[JKiller96]

^^ Which tribe is in the HRE?

Any tribe as long as their capitol is in the empire sir