• 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.

EU4 - Development Diary - 24th of July 2018

Good morning all! What would Tuesday be without an EU4 dev diary? Tragic, I say, so here for the last of the Summer dev diaries while the bulk of the Swedes are on vacation, I bring to you a summary of balance changes coming in the 1.26 Mughal Update. This is not exhaustive (We'll post up the full changelog closer to release) and is about changes made to the game and its existing mechanics, rather than the new stuff we've added. We'll have another Dev Diary in the future to act as a "roundup" of new mechanics and how they work.

Estates:

As we have mentioned before, Estates now cause a disaster at 100% influence rather than 80%. They also no longer have a minimum requirement for land. In addition to this:

- Confiscating estate land now gives a +5 unrest modifier in the province for 15 years. This modifier goes away if you give the land to another estate.
- Confiscating estate land now adds 25 local autonomy in the province that the estate was previously in.
- Advisors generated by Estate interactions now scale in cost depending on estate influence.
- Influence from estate events generally increased.
- Cossack Estate now gains twice as much influence per development in granted provinces.
- The cap for how much development in granted provinces can increase influence is now 50% rather than 40% for all estates.

Trade Nodes:

- Bengal trade now flows into Doab, which in turn flows into Lahore (renamed from Kashmir) undoing the injustice to these nodes.
- General renaming and reshaping of Indian trade nodes (see screenshot)
- The Katsina Trade Node now connects to Ethiopia instead of Alexandria.
- The Ethiopia Trade node now also connects to Aden.
- Coromandel flows straight to the Cape

Trade n stuff.png


In general this means more Indian trade will be able to flow around Africa into Europe without needing massive amounts of control in Aden. Zanzibar isn't quite the slush fund it used to be, but remains lucrative.

Tributaries:

Far away tributaries with no expectation of help or feasible reason to be a subject was something we're looking to change with this update. As such, the AI is no longer interested in establishing new tributary relationships with nations who do not border them. This goes for both asking and receiving requests. Existing tributaries are fine, so Ayutthaya & Khmer won't suddenly want to abandon Ming in 1444.

Speaking of Ming, 1.26 may as well be renamed the Sukhothai update, as declaring an independence war no longer calls in your overlord's Tributary overlord. Sukhothai can now declare war against Ayutthaya without Chinese intervention.

Expansion:

An issue in EU4 that we've long recognised is that conquest is almost always a good idea: you are able to immediately get a financial benefit from land, buff up your own forcelimit, size, trading potential, while at the same time denying your foes that land. We've been wanting to change this so that one has to consider what they conquer with a bit more forethought and with that we turn to your States.

Your maximum number of States is now far more important: If you hold more territories than your state limit, you will face a yearly corruption penalty, currently +0.02 per territory (not per province). For example, if you have a State Limit of 15, you can have up to 15 States AND up to 15 Territories without penalty. Overseas Colonial Regions and Trade Charter Companies are exempt from this calculation. This corruption hit is halved in Easy mode, and entirely absent in Very Easy. Additionally sending Missionaries and cultural conversion are not possible in Territories. You must make them a state to do these.

In conjunction with this, all nations' base state limit has been doubled (up from 5 to 10).

There is a define ALLOWED_TERRITORY_VS_MAX_STATES which allows you to tweak this value in defines.lua

Subjects:

In the interest in encouraging more indirect rule, holding a subject for a long time will gradually reduce their liberty desire. Subjects can now also gain trust with their overlord, instead of having it pinned at 50.
Force Limit Contribution from subjects now scales with the subject's own FL, minimum of +1 + 10% from vassals, +20% from marches.


End Game Tags:

Preventing weird country formations, like Ottomans to Byzantium or Minghals or England to Mughals to Shan to Mughals to Japan is something we're historically not very good at. It generally involves a lot of different file changes and something usually gets overlooked. In script as of 1.26 we now have a scope known as "End game tags" which will prevent most cases of such nations forming other nations (Holy Roman Empire, Rome and Papal States are so special they trump this list, eg: Byzantium can for Rome, Italy can form Holy Roman Empire...).

The current list is:

Mughals
Ottomans
Byzantium
Rome
Holy Roman Empire
Rum
Qing
Russia
Commonwealth
Japan
Yuan
Hindustan
Bharat
Arabia
Papal States
Spain
Great Britain
Italy
Germany
Ming

That's the bulkier of the balance changes. As usual, there will be more nuanced changes in the fine details to come along in the full Changelog, which we will be sharing closer to release.

We are well aware that balance changes can get people worked up and are seldom without contention. I have very fond memories of forums around the the 1.12 release. Remain civil when expressing your feelings over your favourite balance changes as, although I endeavour to explain why we make changes, there are as many opinions as eyeballs in the world. Thanks for your time.

And if Balance Changes are not your cup of tea, let's have a look at some of the other National Idea changes brought along in the 1.26 Update. We'll look over at the Bengal region, where there is now a distinction between The Bangal Sultinate, and the Bengali Minors in the area.

I love U.png


Bengal Sultanate ideas
start =
infantry_power = 0.1
global_manpower_modifier = 0.15

bonus
backrow_artillery_damage = 0.15


bng_combat_piracy =
trade_efficiency = 0.1

"Pirates have infested the waters of the Bay of Bengal for too long. We must protect traders en route to our ports by discovering and eliminating pirate havens along the Arakan coast."

bng_habshi_generals =
army_tradition = 0.5

"Abyssinian slave-soldiers purchased in Arab markets play a significant role as elite infantry soldiers. Those that excel as leaders shall be given greater levels of command, while those who demonstrate exceptional loyalty shall make up the palace guard."

bng_clearing_the_delta =
development_cost = -0.1

"The Bengal Delta contains an immense expanse of potentially very profitable land that goes unexploited due to thick forestation. We must subsidize efforts to clear the forests to make way for new farmlands, cities, and trading posts."


bng_attract_sufis =
idea_cost = -0.1

"Sufis have long been innovators of Islamic thought as well as wise councilors. If we wish to be a leading voice in the future of the Islamic world, we must patronize Sufi lodges and convince the wisest among their order to settle in our domain."

bng_conquest_of_the_gangetic_plain =
leader_land_shock = 1

"To our west are the fertile and populated lands of the Indo-Gangetic Plain. The Sultans of Bengal have long coveted its great cities and vast wealth, but only now as a new and ambitious crop of generals rise to power is our ambition likely to become a reality. We must do all we can to ready our forces for the coming conquest."

bng_rupees =
global_tax_modifier = 0.1

"The lack of a widely adopted standardized currency is stunting the development of Indian commerce. As one of the foremost economic powers in the subcontinent, we are well placed to begin the minting of a new silver coinage with standard weights, which we shall call the rupee."

bng_bengali_industrialization =
global_trade_goods_size_modifier = 0.1

"Bengal is uniquely situated in India to begin a revolution unlike any seen before. We stand poised to exploit new developments in our already world-class textile and shipbuilding industries. Let us begin an industrial revolution!"


Bengali Minors ideas =
start =
merchants = 1
infantry_power = 0.1
}

bonus =
prestige = 1
}


hindu_sufi_syncretism =
religious_unity = 0.5

"Beyond the eastern frontiers of the Islamic world, came Sufi mystics to settle land grants or to commune with nature in Bengal, intermingling with the Hindu population. Cooperation led to extensive land reclamations in forested and marshy areas and helped to introduce new syncretic forms of music, painting, dancing and sculpture reflected in the temples and shrines constructed during this period."

ganges_brahmaputra_confluence =
trade_efficiency = 0.1

"The mighty Ganges and Brahmaputra have traveled far to intermingle and spread out into the Bengal Delta, funneling trade and commerce in its wake. For thousands of years the area around the delta has been a natural place for the easy exchange of goods and ideas."

rice_fields =
global_manpower_modifier = 0.2

"We Bengalis are primarily rice eaters, and the rainfall and soil in the area lends itself to massive surplus rice production, with the mighty silt laden rivers and monsoon allowing for three separate growing and harvest seasons a year."

mustard_oil_ilish_mach =
war_exhaustion_cost = -0.10

"Wars may torch the granaries and markets. The weather may wither or crush the crops in the fields. Elephants and ants may try to eat what we have planted. Give us a little oil, however, and our fish-laden rivers will give us the food we Bengalis desire most!"

jute_production =
#production_efficiency = 0.1

"Native to our region, Jute is a long, soft, shiny vegetable fiber that can be spun into coarse, strong rope, matting or thread. In high demand for its resilience and relatively light weight, we can benefit from its cultivation and production."

opium_fields =
global_tax_modifier = 0.1

"What's that? People will give us gold and silver for our flowers!? The opium of our region is highly prized and easily grown, commanding twice the price of any other opium in the world. Let the trade begin!"

bengali_renaissance =
global_institution_spread = 0.1

"The Bengal Renaissance that took place in this region was a reaction to the encounter and impact of Europeans arriving for not only commerce, but for study, art and scholarship. The Bengal Renaissance blended together Hindu teachings from the past with Western education, politics and law, as well as a re-casting of Bengali culture. This led to a flourishing of the arts and sciences."

And if neither Balance changes nor National Ideas are your thing, well, swing by next week, where we'll talk about that new image you keep seeing in the buildings interface is. There are still a fair few dev diaries to come before Dharma is due to hit the shelves.
 

Attachments

  • Trade n stuff.png
    Trade n stuff.png
    3,9 MB · Views: 2.156
Last edited:
No because you already lose liberty desire from actions that would do that which would hit you with a double whammy. The trust is to make it beneficial to keep a loyal marsh around for longer and letting it grow.

That's a lot of water. HOMM 3 fortress faction 4life.

More seriously, even at 100 trust unless this modifier is vastly juiced in how it lowers LD keeping vassals/marches around isn't appealing, even less so because the DLC mechanics to give subjects movement directions don't work (neither does the attach command). Feeding an inefficient march that is doubly inefficient with unit composition and spending is not an appealing scenario even before they ignore your orders or don't actually move simultaneously to attached units, killing the leading stack.

It tickles our fancy because it makes the game harder and requires us to find other means to grow stronger.

That statement is unfortunately not consistent with reality most likely.

Seems pretty realistic to me. Territories are areas that you only have weak control of so you can't easily do things such as expel people of other religions, ban them from owning land or confiscate all their possessions unless they convert.

Selectively applied realism is not coherent rationale.

I don't understand all these people in the thread. You are so happy that ''expansion just got harder'' by gaining corruption for non-statified land, but when you can't convert them (WHICH LITERALLY MAKES EXPANSION HARDER AS WELL) it's suddenly a problem? The "expansion gets harder by this change" argument does not hold up in this case.

Not that I particularly enjoy the design rationale of either change, but a major distinguishing factor is user input QoL. The most popular strategy games by sales have actively disregarded end user experience for ~decade now (leading me to call it a doormat market). Given the devs themselves can't tell me where my units can move wrt ZoC rules by looking at a screenshot and the UI has lied to players for years (bug reported and ignored, many times), EU 4 is objectively no exception.

To illustrate in the case of conversions, converting all the provinces you take was already literally several thousand inputs per game if you did a one tag or close. Without further information the projected player input count will increase substantially, likely hundreds to thousands more to accomplish the same thing. From a QoL perspective that would be a nightmare...but remember this is the same game that gave us one-at-time "grant province" that requires constantly picking from a drop down menu...as a DLC feature, and removed the "full annex" option never to replace it due to issues with it, creating the ultimate pixel hunt to annex colonial overlords etc.

Nothing new under the sun and whatnot, but it's not welcome to add more sheer #extra inputs beyond necessary to a game that literally has tens of thousands of such if you play the full timeline.

So 131-141 max states. IDK how many states are in the game, but with over 4000 provinces I'd guess somewhere in the 1000s, if you discount trade company land and colonial probably still near enough 1000 or so. So I'll be at 100 corruption for pretty much all of the game. Yay! 100% cost to all power costs, 50% extra autonomy everywhere. Thank you, just what I wanted out a "balance" change.

At least you get the -20 unrest :/. I suppose we could just throw gobs of territory on client states and get them corrupted, LD won't really be a problem with them getting corruption spanked. Chain annex at the end FTW.

Running the math I don't think you can core > 15000 development at 100 corruption over the last 100-150 years. You need more ADM and DIP month than you can produce with +5 advisers so we'll have to find a way to hold that down.

My guess is that Humanist + Mulsim will be the new meta for a WC in 1.26, since muslims can deal with the extra corruption through the "Enforce Faithful Adherence" and use the Dhimmi for extra heathen tolerance. After all, with the nerf to religious, what other religion can deal with these new balance changes?

Fetish, Hindu, and bizarrely Confucian would be candidates. Confucian is pretty bad right now, but if you absolutely shackle the religion game suddenly its unique abilities are stronger in comparison. Hindu and Fetish have enough tolerance to ignore conversions already in 1.25, though Hindu needs a policy or high legitimacy to do so.
 
can't say I'm really thrilled about the whole states & territories thing. You're slowly making playing tall the only viable way to play since it is (yet another) nerf to blobbing. I don't consider that a good thing in a sandbox game
 
I don't really get why playing big gets nerfed patch after patch.
I also don't get people who play tall and think it's nice to ruin other people's playstyle.
You can complain about the game being way to easy, having to much money and all but did you consider it might be because of the way you play the game?

I tried playing tall a few times with certain limits to force myself not to blob but these games turn into speed 4 games while roflstomping everyone due to the immense money and monarch points you have while playing tall. In the late game I always find a way around my own rules to play big anyway and at least have a challenge.
For those playing tall, can you suggest something to do while speed 4 running the game and wait while barely anything happens? Maybe some stream of someone WCing while playing tedious on speed 1?

And for the missionary: why? Might as well remove religious ideas for good now, was already way worse than humanist since Deus Vult got stomped to the back. There is no realistic reason to do this.

And then the End game tags: why do you take out lots of fun? You don't have to do these shenannighans streamers tend to have fun with. As a less experienced player, doing some of those funny tags switches is really satisfying, don't take this away to make up for your spaghetti code.

I have a few suggestions for next patch:
Max OE = 100%
Monthly change for stab hit, chance = OE %
Must improve development at least once a month, else you will get a tech penalty
Remove CCR from administrative
Change max mercenary FL to max mercenary manpower
Have monthly 50% chance per state to get 1 development while at 100% prosperity

This should at least cover the next patch regarding the playing big nerf and buffing playing tall part.
 
At least you get the -20 unrest :/. I suppose we could just throw gobs of territory on client states and get them corrupted, LD won't really be a problem with them getting corruption spanked. Chain annex at the end FTW.

Running the math I don't think you can core > 15000 development at 100 corruption over the last 100-150 years. You need more ADM and DIP month than you can produce with +5 advisers so we'll have to find a way to hold that down.

I did the math wrong, misunderstood Groogy's comment to mean you can only reduce corruption by 0.8 by money, when he meant the malus from territories is maxed at 0.8.
So we just pay the malus up to 40 territories over limit, after that it no longer adds. Meaning it can be reduced just by paying all game for 0.8 corruption per month. Still will be hard when you add unbalanced research and overextension to the 0.8, but might be managable.
I still think it's a bad way to nerf expansion though.
 
At least you get the -20 unrest :/. I suppose we could just throw gobs of territory on client states and get them corrupted, LD won't really be a problem with them getting corruption spanked. Chain annex at the end FTW.

Running the math I don't think you can core > 15000 development at 100 corruption over the last 100-150 years. You need more ADM and DIP month than you can produce with +5 advisers so we'll have to find a way to hold that down.

Since corruption from state/territory is capped at 0.8 per year it probably won't make a huge difference. It will be a nuisance at best, reinforcing strategies like capital shifts and only going for TC land in initial conquests at worst. I'm actually amazed Paradox hasn't offered a new way to reduce corruption for Dharma owners. Remember income nerfs in 1.25 but giving RB owners coal so they could still swim in cash like Scrooge McDuck? I do :mad:


This should at least cover the next patch regarding the playing big nerf and buffing playing tall part.

The really bad part is that tall play hasn't been buffed directly, it was just a nerf to conquest heavy games :rolleyes:
 
I don't really get why playing big gets nerfed patch after patch.
I also don't get people who play tall and think it's nice to ruin other people's playstyle.
You can complain about the game being way to easy, having to much money and all but did you consider it might be because of the way you play the game?

I tried playing tall a few times with certain limits to force myself not to blob but these games turn into speed 4 games while roflstomping everyone due to the immense money and monarch points you have while playing tall. In the late game I always find a way around my own rules to play big anyway and at least have a challenge.
For those playing tall, can you suggest something to do while speed 4 running the game and wait while barely anything happens? Maybe some stream of someone WCing while playing tedious on speed 1?

And for the missionary: why? Might as well remove religious ideas for good now, was already way worse than humanist since Deus Vult got stomped to the back. There is no realistic reason to do this.

And then the End game tags: why do you take out lots of fun? You don't have to do these shenannighans streamers tend to have fun with. As a less experienced player, doing some of those funny tags switches is really satisfying, don't take this away to make up for your spaghetti code.

I have a few suggestions for next patch:
Max OE = 100%
Monthly change for stab hit, chance = OE %
Must improve development at least once a month, else you will get a tech penalty
Remove CCR from administrative
Change max mercenary FL to max mercenary manpower
Have monthly 50% chance per state to get 1 development while at 100% prosperity

This should at least cover the next patch regarding the playing big nerf and buffing playing tall part.

Nice suggestions, especially the monthly stab hit % = OE % part. One way to improve that would be to list the stab hit % as equal to OE% in the patch notes but have the actual stab hit % be something like 5% higher. Then deny or stay silent when players complain until someone collects a large enough sample over several patches and make a thread with the evidence. Then fix it 5 patches later.
 
I said months ago that I would not post in this forum again but after seeing this DD I must open an exception (I simply like EU IV way too much to remain silent)

Good morning all! What would Tuesday be without an EU4 dev diary? Tragic, I say
The only tragedy IMO is the proposed balance changes. I could elaborate and write a gigantic wall of text as to why these changes (including some that affect the policies) are bad but instead I will say this: the proposed changes reduce the strategically valid options (which railroad the game and reduce its replay ability), increase the very unfun whack-a-mole (fighting brain-dead disloyal vassals and even more rebels) and incentivize doing nothing for very extended periods of time which ofc makes the game boring (...) The corruption changes will bring the game much closer to what we had when 1.16 was released; at least until one can conquer exclusively TC land or after centuries of speed 5 finally have sufficient states to not be a gigantic PITA to expand in non-TC land. These changes would not be as terrible if the AI was not in such abysmal state and the LD balance was reasonable (IMO having vassals is not a valid option for ppl that do not enjoy beating up disloyal vassals over and over again due to a very unreasonable LD balance). It is also nigh-on impossible to role play in this game because the AI always fraks things up due to, again, being too bloody stupid.


Ironically when ppl asked me if I was excited about the next expansion I always said yes and that this expansion seemed to be one of the best, that would bring more of the stuff that made EU IV so great; stuff that from my POV would increase its strategic depth... and then I see this DD. TBH (and blunt) these changes will probably ruin it for me because I can´t stand rebels and brain-dead vassals and I can only play so many games as an Humanist-Hindu country. Oh well
 
Last edited:
I agree fully with Flurryworry on this. I understand the mindset behind limiting religious conversion, but it's unrealistic to say that Rennaisance empires didn't try to convert the religion of remote provinces. This particular portion of the update is literally a punishment to those who play wide, which is a shame, because I was REALLY stoked to get this EP because of all the good things it has!

I suggested before, and I will suggest again, that religious conversion in non-state territories should be slower or affected (in the way of Events and what-not) in some way or another. It's simply unrealistic that the Papal States would tolerate non-Catholics under its direct control!

I don't buy realism arguments against the change to missionaries, in fact the realism argument goes the other way. The Turks occupied the Balkans for centuries, the Balkans remain majority Christian. The English occupied Ireland for centuries, Ireland remains majority Catholic today. With the current game rules, it's unrealistic how easy it is to both convert and culture flip hostile provinces.

Granted England is likely to state and convert Ireland and the Ottomans are likely to state and convert most of the Balkans, but I won't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I want a meta where players controlling massive empires have to deal with religious minorities.

I would be sympathetic to the idea of converting, through events, a minority of an unaccepted culture. Just as some Irish were converted to Protestant.

The Papal States were always a medium to small sized, culturally homogeneous state in central Italy. Asserting that if the Papal States directly controlled a vast empire, they would not tolerate heretic or heathen subjects is an unlikely counterfactual. It seems to me that a Papal Empire realistically wouldn't immolate itself by demanding strict religious conversion, in the way we are used to exterminating all non true faith provinces in game now. The most pious Caliphs didn't exterminate all infidels.
 
I don't buy realism arguments against the change to missionaries, in fact the realism argument goes the other way. The Turks occupied the Balkans for centuries, the Balkans remain majority Christian. The English occupied Ireland for centuries, Ireland remains majority Catholic today. With the current game rules, it's unrealistic how easy it is to both convert and culture flip hostile provinces.

Granted England is likely to state and convert Ireland and the Ottomans are likely to state and convert most of the Balkans, but I won't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I want a meta where players controlling massive empires have to deal with religious minorities.

I would be sympathetic to the idea of converting, through events, a minority of an unaccepted culture. Just as some Irish were converted to Protestant.

The Papal States were always a medium to small sized, culturally homogeneous state in central Italy. Asserting that if the Papal States directly controlled a vast empire, they would not tolerate heretic or heathen subjects is an unlikely counterfactual. It seems to me that a Papal Empire realistically wouldn't immolate itself by demanding strict religious conversion, in the way we are used to exterminating all non true faith provinces in game now. The most pious Caliphs didn't exterminate all infidels.

The early Spanish Hapsburgs essentially attempted to do this with their empire, and it ultimately played a fairly major role in the decline of the Spanish Empire in the 17th century. Converting a large empire shouldn't necessarily be impossible, but I do agree that it should be rather difficult.
 
First, keep in mind this is a DLC feature. Secondly, I don't think so. I actually fear the opposite. It now makes little sense for Russia to colonize Siberia. It's a lot of 1/1/1 provinces and low-value territories, bringing you closer and closer to loads of free corruption. By 1710 when the age bonus finally kicks in (if you own the DLC) it probably just offsets a lot of corruption you've already been suffering for 100 years. Or of course you play a-historically and don't colonize at all. Expanding into Europe and towards India is just so much more lucrative that willfully incurring corruption for Siberian land seems like a bad deal.

Well, on the other hand it was quite easy for the player to control all of Siberia by 1550 if they do things right, whilst Russia took over 200 years to fully colonise the region. Russia is long overdue for a nerf following 3rd Rome anyways.
The most concerning thing for me is just Russia's colour, its completely indistinguishable from the Ottomans during wartime and looks ugly to boot. Perhaps swap its colour with Ryzan, considering that Ryzan's colour is so similar to Muscovy and Great Horde to begin with?
 
Seen this from somewhere else:
EU 4 have around 720 areas. You can control at most 86 as Russia at the very ending. Assmue new world + trade company region have 300 areas, you still have to control 440 areas, of which 170 is waived from corruption. For the remaining 270 areas, you will receive 5.4 corruption per year. If you remember that paying full amount of money can only reduce 1 corruption per year, you will realize that no matter what happens, as long as you are playing a non-HRE world conquest, you will reach 100 corruption eventually, which means
+100% ALL POWER COST
50% MINIMUM AUTONOMY
-20 unrest
Hmm, seems I'm playing as Ming in v 1.5.1 again.

I know paradox wants to slow down people from rush WCs, but these are only for those high level gamers. EU 4 is born for expansion, is designed for expansion. Expansion is almost the only way that I enjoy the game, to see a small nation gradually growing into a world dominating beast. You may slow players down, you may put more obstacles, but the states change seems nerfed too much. I would prefer if you adjust the corruption system, to allow player receive at most -5 yearly from paying huge amount of money, at least make player being able to avoid the upcoming corruption disaster. AI nations may have a small advantage on this corruption debuff.

I also request you to think twice before you nerf out poor missionaries. Maybe you can increase the difficulties or increase the cost, but stopping missionaries from entering around 80% of the old world seems ridiculous. Don't forget we still have achievements like one faith.

I hope PDS staff can read through this and evaluate the adjustments carefully. There are still much time before 1.26 for balance changes.
 
Seen this from somewhere else:
EU 4 have around 720 areas. You can control at most 86 as Russia at the very ending. Assmue new world + trade company region have 300 areas, you still have to control 440 areas, of which 170 is waived from corruption. For the remaining 270 areas, you will receive 5.4 corruption per year. If you remember that paying full amount of money can only reduce 1 corruption per year, you will realize that no matter what happens, as long as you are playing a non-HRE world conquest, you will reach 100 corruption eventually, which means
+100% ALL POWER COST
50% MINIMUM AUTONOMY
-20 unrest
Hmm, seems I'm playing as Ming in v 1.5.1 again.

I know paradox wants to slow down people from rush WCs, but these are only for those high level gamers. EU 4 is born for expansion, is designed for expansion. Expansion is almost the only way that I enjoy the game, to see a small nation gradually growing into a world dominating beast. You may slow players down, you may put more obstacles, but the states change seems nerfed too much. I would prefer if you adjust the corruption system, to allow player receive at most -5 yearly from paying huge amount of money, at least make player being able to avoid the upcoming corruption disaster. AI nations may have a small advantage on this corruption debuff.

I also request you to think twice before you nerf out poor missionaries. Maybe you can increase the difficulties or increase the cost, but stopping missionaries from entering around 80% of the old world seems ridiculous. Don't forget we still have achievements like one faith.

I hope PDS staff can read through this and evaluate the adjustments carefully. There are still much time before 1.26 for balance changes.
No it's capped at 0.8 in Normal and higher difficulty.
 
I don't buy realism arguments against the change to missionaries, in fact the realism argument goes the other way. The Turks occupied the Balkans for centuries, the Balkans remain majority Christian. The English occupied Ireland for centuries, Ireland remains majority Catholic today. With the current game rules, it's unrealistic how easy it is to both convert and culture flip hostile provinces.

Granted England is likely to state and convert Ireland and the Ottomans are likely to state and convert most of the Balkans, but I won't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I want a meta where players controlling massive empires have to deal with religious minorities.

I would be sympathetic to the idea of converting, through events, a minority of an unaccepted culture. Just as some Irish were converted to Protestant.

The Papal States were always a medium to small sized, culturally homogeneous state in central Italy. Asserting that if the Papal States directly controlled a vast empire, they would not tolerate heretic or heathen subjects is an unlikely counterfactual. It seems to me that a Papal Empire realistically wouldn't immolate itself by demanding strict religious conversion, in the way we are used to exterminating all non true faith provinces in game now. The most pious Caliphs didn't exterminate all infidels.

There's no coherent realism argument on either side. Inconsistently and arbitrarily applied standards are a bane. The main consideration is what happens when people actually play the game.

Too often, the game itself shows evidence that this is a forgotten priority somehow. No matter the reason for it, an implementation that creates thousands of extra rote inputs should be something that is extremely penalized in someone's thought space prior to putting in the game.
 
Ironically when ppl asked me if I was excited about the next expansion I always said yes and that this expansion seemed to be one of the best, that would bring more of the stuff that made EU IV so great; stuff that from my POV would increase its strategic depth... and then I see this DD. TBH (and blunt) these changes will probably ruin it for me because I can´t stand rebels and brain-dead vassals and I can only play so many games as an Humanist-Hindu country. Oh well

Exactly how I feel as well. Everything looked so great. First of all India was in dire need of an update so I was quite happy they chose this region. They did listen to the community and included estates in the base game. They did listen to the community regarding concerns of feature bloat and mostly reworked existing mechanics instead of adding new ones. Reworked governments and policies will allow us to shape our nation more to our individual playstyles, adding strategic options. They added monsoons as a new weather mechanic, weather also being something a lot of people wanted to play a more important role in the game. They added new formable nations in India which was quite lacking in this regard. The map and trade node changes looked (and still do look of course) excellent.

A minor concern was the introduction of Investments for TCs but since everything else looked great I somehow thought we would later on see some balance changes to TCs. Yeah well, then this "balance" DD came :( Why Paradox, why?
 
First, I wish people stop saying that this is a buff to tall playing. This patch don't touch tall playing AT ALL.

I don't really get why playing big gets nerfed patch after patch.

Mmh, because it is too good?

Really, playing wide as the game is now is not only the most powerful, but is also the easiest and more fun strategy in the game

The only reason to play tall is for the personal challenge, when you fell the game is too easy, or for the "roleplaying", which is basically the same thing, but the most efficient way to play EU4 with the actual rules is to conquer, conquer and conquer again (expecially TC regions). You always gain from it and you have barely, if any, reasons to not do it.

OTOH there are no real reason in game to play tall, there is nothing that you can do tall that you can't do (probably better) playing wide.

There is no real benefit to develop a province above 30, the costs outweight the gains, and the 5 (or 6 in some terrain) slot for buildings are more then enough for 99% of the situations.

And when in a strategy game (or any game) you have a choice that is always the best one, well, I think that is bad for the game, but maybe it is just me.

p.s. Yes, I now you can play tall, and you can become powerful playing it, but it is never to most efficient strategy, not for the whole duration for the game, and it is hardly the most fun/interesting. If late game tend to be boring playing wide, where at least you have the continual wars to keep you busy, it must be excrucianting in a tall game.

Really, the best way to nerf wide playing would be buff tall playing, add thing possible only playing tall, make long period of peace more benefical, give provinces some bonus that activate at some level of development, make more powerful buildings that need level of development of need more slots, or other buildings as prerequisite to make slots more importants, etc, so that choosing to develop rather then conquering is actually a choice.