So there are several major dynamics of the era that are not currently (well) represented in game, here are a few stabs at some simple things that would add depth to the game and increase historical accuracy:
1. Development shifts on conversion. Under just about no circumstances in EUIV is it worth it to have heretic or heathen provinces over converted ones. It takes very, very little to make the transient costs of operating a missionary worth it to increase religious unity, decrease RR (in several ways normally), and remove other penalties. Historically, conversion efforts of this era had major implications on the economies being converted. France, for instance, lost huge numbers of skilled artisans when the Huguenots were "convinced" to embrace Catholicism. In counterpoint, those states who welcomed the religious emigres developed substantially (e.g. The Palatinate). Similar sorts of dynamics were observed with the expulsion of the Moors, the expulsion of the Salzburgers, etc. Many monarchs actively courted heretics to either settle in their lands or to have the ability to practice their faith in peace in order to bolster the economy/military.
In game terms, there should be some loss of development (particularly manpower) for converting a province. Some of this loss should result in free development for nearby states of the displaced faith or of tolerant states in the area.
2. No peace beyond the line. Historically, one of the reasons that colonization was slower was that states like Spain would actively interfere with colonization attempts (e.g. Fort Caroline). This occurred outside of normal war and made the Caribbean very difficult for commercial exploitation. Currently, only the ToT mechanism does anything close to this.
In game terms, a dominant colonial power should have the power to declare "No peace beyond the line" and burn enemy colonies. This should give a CB and be expensive (possibly limiting colonial growth outside of areas of dominance), but a large part of geopolitics centered on these sorts of efforts that fell well short of war.
It would be a stretch, but being able to negotiate some sort of "you settle there, I'll settle here" agreement would be nice. Either as a strictly punitive "here's a peace term, keep your protestant colonies out" or as a more flexible negotiation this would much better reflect history.
3. Missionaries to the natives. All Christian denominations and some of the Islamic ones as well often sent their missionaries to pagan tribes in Africa, northern Asia, and the New World. This was done out of religious zeal, but had practical effects on tribal relations, trade, and colonization. Missionary work was a huge systematic effort that currently resides only in events.
In game terms, sending missionaries on state sponsored missions should result in giving pagan AIs a chance to convert to the religion of the sending state. This should provide: fervor, church power, patriarch authority, piety, and papal influence as appropriate. Additionally, co-religionists among the primitives should result in increased trade power/income.
4. Heiresses. Female heirs and rulers are basically inferior versions of male heirs and rulers currently; they do nothing to change the diplomatic landscape. Brittany, Scotland, Burgundy, etc. saw rapid changes in fortune when the ruling line was reduced to just female heirs. A female heir should allow a new diplomacy option where states try to secure the heir's realm for themselves via a joint heir and personal union. This can be done through relations, bribery, and concessions (which a perfidious state, like England, might just pocket) or through force of arms (e.g. the Rough Wooing, Treaty of Sable). There was also the risk of a male heir being born and the contesting of these sorts of unions.
In game terms, female heirs should have a mechanic not unlike elective monarchies where foreign powers with royal marriages can jockey for a PU. However there should be some events that drive this to fail (e.g. the birth of a prince who supplants the princess). Ideally there would also be a CB that allows a forced RM with high progress towards the PU.
5. Development destruction. The 30 Years War and other prolonged, active conflicts did no merely burn off some money and manpower, but actively reduced economic output from the long term trend lines. From France in Napoleonic Iberia to Tilley in the HRE, there should be some form of war that actively de-develops land.
In game terms I could see this going one of two ways easily - if a province and the fort in whose ZOC it resides is fully looted 5 times in 10 years, further looting begins to strip off development. Alternatively, development reduction could be a peace term that is taken to weaken the enemy without having to break off ancient cores or take rebel spawning land yourself (also the game really needs more things to weaken enemies that doesn't burn through monarch power).
I think all of these are things the AI can handle without too much new code and all should add strategic depth for the human.
1. Development shifts on conversion. Under just about no circumstances in EUIV is it worth it to have heretic or heathen provinces over converted ones. It takes very, very little to make the transient costs of operating a missionary worth it to increase religious unity, decrease RR (in several ways normally), and remove other penalties. Historically, conversion efforts of this era had major implications on the economies being converted. France, for instance, lost huge numbers of skilled artisans when the Huguenots were "convinced" to embrace Catholicism. In counterpoint, those states who welcomed the religious emigres developed substantially (e.g. The Palatinate). Similar sorts of dynamics were observed with the expulsion of the Moors, the expulsion of the Salzburgers, etc. Many monarchs actively courted heretics to either settle in their lands or to have the ability to practice their faith in peace in order to bolster the economy/military.
In game terms, there should be some loss of development (particularly manpower) for converting a province. Some of this loss should result in free development for nearby states of the displaced faith or of tolerant states in the area.
2. No peace beyond the line. Historically, one of the reasons that colonization was slower was that states like Spain would actively interfere with colonization attempts (e.g. Fort Caroline). This occurred outside of normal war and made the Caribbean very difficult for commercial exploitation. Currently, only the ToT mechanism does anything close to this.
In game terms, a dominant colonial power should have the power to declare "No peace beyond the line" and burn enemy colonies. This should give a CB and be expensive (possibly limiting colonial growth outside of areas of dominance), but a large part of geopolitics centered on these sorts of efforts that fell well short of war.
It would be a stretch, but being able to negotiate some sort of "you settle there, I'll settle here" agreement would be nice. Either as a strictly punitive "here's a peace term, keep your protestant colonies out" or as a more flexible negotiation this would much better reflect history.
3. Missionaries to the natives. All Christian denominations and some of the Islamic ones as well often sent their missionaries to pagan tribes in Africa, northern Asia, and the New World. This was done out of religious zeal, but had practical effects on tribal relations, trade, and colonization. Missionary work was a huge systematic effort that currently resides only in events.
In game terms, sending missionaries on state sponsored missions should result in giving pagan AIs a chance to convert to the religion of the sending state. This should provide: fervor, church power, patriarch authority, piety, and papal influence as appropriate. Additionally, co-religionists among the primitives should result in increased trade power/income.
4. Heiresses. Female heirs and rulers are basically inferior versions of male heirs and rulers currently; they do nothing to change the diplomatic landscape. Brittany, Scotland, Burgundy, etc. saw rapid changes in fortune when the ruling line was reduced to just female heirs. A female heir should allow a new diplomacy option where states try to secure the heir's realm for themselves via a joint heir and personal union. This can be done through relations, bribery, and concessions (which a perfidious state, like England, might just pocket) or through force of arms (e.g. the Rough Wooing, Treaty of Sable). There was also the risk of a male heir being born and the contesting of these sorts of unions.
In game terms, female heirs should have a mechanic not unlike elective monarchies where foreign powers with royal marriages can jockey for a PU. However there should be some events that drive this to fail (e.g. the birth of a prince who supplants the princess). Ideally there would also be a CB that allows a forced RM with high progress towards the PU.
5. Development destruction. The 30 Years War and other prolonged, active conflicts did no merely burn off some money and manpower, but actively reduced economic output from the long term trend lines. From France in Napoleonic Iberia to Tilley in the HRE, there should be some form of war that actively de-develops land.
In game terms I could see this going one of two ways easily - if a province and the fort in whose ZOC it resides is fully looted 5 times in 10 years, further looting begins to strip off development. Alternatively, development reduction could be a peace term that is taken to weaken the enemy without having to break off ancient cores or take rebel spawning land yourself (also the game really needs more things to weaken enemies that doesn't burn through monarch power).
I think all of these are things the AI can handle without too much new code and all should add strategic depth for the human.
- 14
- 1
Upvote
0
