EU4 - Dev Diary - January 14th 2016

[raikaria]

As usual just look to what was done to transfer of occupation. With that said Hordes will still be somewhat playable with strictly exploitive gameplay like keeping a shitton of OPM enveloped by your borders to farm points, rebel lovers and rp.

1: Not every horde is fortunate enough to have a large enough combination of releaseables and neighboring nations to allow for this. See: Manchurian Hordes; which at most might be able to do this with 3 nations; probobly becoming so large in the process that they cannot sustain the unity anyway.

2: Hordes in mountainous areas will become completely unplayable between the combination of massive rebellion [Either Horde Unity or Razing] and the fact that they have a -25% shock damage in Mountains. Qara and Timurids are most likely completely unplayable in 1.15. If they do not raze they die to Horde Unity. If they raze they die to rebels in mountains anyway.

This is too many nerfs at once. Honestly I'd rather have seen maybe a minor nerf to razing power gain and a nerf to Kazan's national ideas [Move core cost reduction back]. The mountain downside renders two of the most major hordes unplayable.

 

[AlHasanAlbaghdadi]

I love how enemy leader's enthusiasm is represented by a horse's eagerness... simple and practical art

 

[ChildeR]

The autonomy is pretty much unimportant regarding the changes. And as I said in the post on p.1 only decreasing autonomy seems viable, so the LA ignoring from estates will actually be worth less.

If you see increasing LA as not viable, then you also see leaving LA intact as not viable for non-hordes?

Tribes also give -2 unrest if loyal enough.

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

Scenario 2: You don't raze, you tank horde unity and get up to +4 global unrest.

I fixed it for you.

 

[NaveHK]

Amazing! But will 1.14 saves be compitable on 1.15?

 

[Pornek]

If you see increasing LA as not viable, then you also see leaving LA intact as not viable for non-hordes?

Tribes also give -2 unrest if loyal enough.

How does LA for non-hordes matter regarding hordes ?

You wont assign every province to the estate.

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

1: Not every horde is fortunate enough to have a large enough combination of releaseables and neighboring nations to allow for this. See: Manchurian Hordes; which at most might be able to do this with 3 nations; probobly becoming so large in the process that they cannot sustain the unity anyway.

2: Hordes in mountainous areas will become completely unplayable between the combination of massive rebellion [Either Horde Unity or Razing] and the fact that they have a -25% shock damage in Mountains. Qara and Timurids are most likely completely unplayable in 1.15. If they do not raze they die to Horde Unity. If they raze they die to rebels in mountains anyway.

This is too many nerfs at once. Honestly I'd rather have seen maybe a minor nerf to razing power gain and a nerf to Kazan's national ideas [Move core cost reduction back]. The mountain downside renders two of the most major hordes unplayable.

Tbh it is not the end of the world, cause you can for example raze and give the province to a vassal as an early game workaround with that said I mostly agree with you to the point of probably not playing a horde next patch simply because unlike Wiz I can´t stand arcade rebels or having to make 4 fringing clicks per province given to a vassal (we can´t even use transfer of occupation for 3 dev provinces because of reasons).

 

[delpiero1234]

Very nice!

 

[bbqftw]

How does LA for non-hordes matter regarding hordes ?

You wont assign any province to the estate.

fixed

 

[Pornek]

Tbh it is not the end of the world, cause you can for example raze and give the province to a vassal as an early game workaround with that said I mostly agree with you to the point of probably not playing a horde next patch simply because unlike Wiz I can´t stand arcade rebels or having to make 4 fringing clicks per province given to a vassal (we can´t even use transfer of occupation for 3 dev provinces because of reasons).

I did that and for me it made no difference. In fact it was even worse, since my vassal couldnt raze (raze on CD) or didnt, they tanked their unity up to the point I had to babysit my vassal without getting rebel pop-ups. That went as far that I assumed its bugged and made a thread to qq.

Edit: Stop fixing my posts.

 

[Prophet of ReShrek]

A good sounding patch.

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

I did that and for me it made no difference. In fact it was even worse, since my vassal couldnt raze (raze on CD) or didnt, they tanked their unity up to the point I had to babysit my vassal without getting rebel pop-ups. That went as far that I assumed its bugged and made a thread to qq.

Edit: Stop fixing my posts.

They did not program the AI to raze and released the expansion anyway that is not a bug that is something else. Hordes make very poor vassals in this patch so avoid them at all costs unless you like to kill massive amounts of rebels (low horde unity, tribal successions, estates,etc.).

 

[DEEPGAME]

Hey devs,

I strictly against razing nerf if you do not fix horde unity mechanics. The only way is to raze a province, if you add +10 unrest, it is dangerous to raze lots of provinces at the same times then how do a player gain horde unity to reform?

Ok nerf razing but please add something else to horde unity.

 

[ChildeR]

How does LA for non-hordes matter regarding hordes ?

You wont assign every province to the estate.

I mean that raze + LA increase would give the same net unrest as non-hordes (or current hordes for that matter?) have if you neither increase nor decrease unrest. In that situation you IME usually avoid rebels if you have at least some stability or other unrest reduction.

While you may not assign every province to the estate, you also do not need to raze every province. (What will be optimal, I cannot tell yet.)

Also, decrease LA modifier lasts longer than raze unrest or recent rebellion -100, so that may cause multiple rebellions, while you may otherwise get away with 0-1.

 

[tbhayward]

Will the UI addition telling us how much it will cost to core the provinces you're taking include all relevant modifiers? Does it take into account your current war exhaustion when telling you the cost?

 

[Greyhound]

I love those changes!

 

[mursolini]

The autonomy is pretty much unimportant regarding the changes. And as I said in the post on p.1 only decreasing autonomy seems viable, so the LA ignoring from estates will actually be worth less.

Scenario 1: You raze, you get +10 unrest. Even with increasing autonomy the unrest will sit at around +15 from all the modifiers. Rebels will spawn at some point. So decrease it for fast +35 unrest and then -100.
Scenario 2: You don't raze, you tank horde unity and get up to +4 global unrest.
Scenario 3: You raze and return. A. If its a rival you cant sell province, so - lets say 5 new provinces on conquest - you return them via province interaction for -50 prestige and made no progress. B. You sell them and still made no progress.

Both razing and not razing = more rebels. Returning provinces is playing without progressing.
I have a hard time to see any of these changes as fun. Heck I have a hard time seeing any of these changes as thought through OR there are some other changes to rebels/horde unity that havent been mentioned.

Can`t you raze some provinces, while keeping others?

 

[FleetingRain]

the minimum autonomy change doesn't counterbalance the razing unrest change since it doesn't affect starting freshly conquered province autonomy, which is why I thought you hadn't played horde since minimum autonomy change (generally you are competent poster so I assume this is the case)

Yes, it was an oversight I made, I always forget min autonomy is a floor and not an increase.

I'm more annoyed at this +10 unrest not because of the rebels, but because the workaround feels too gamey. Raze province, lower autonomy, return province to another core owner, conquer it again. It won't work all the time because of culture and such but it still doesn't seem something Temujin would do.

I hope that hordes changes will prevent them from becoming Gigantic Monsters like Bukhara..
Also nerfing Lithuania would still be a nice idea.
I think.

Bukhara is a paper tiger, most of their provinces are gigantic steppelands. They're pretty ok in that regard, their real problem is not losing Sibir anymore, no special interaction with Timurids, no Timurid disaster to make them more interested in the southern Uzbek-culture lands, having no NIs, which means they exist only as a quick way out of hordelife to Uzbek... And yeah, Lithuania still needs a nerf. But that's for another thread.

It's annoying because there is a simple and historically accurate answer - Timmies shouldn't have been a horde in the first place.

And this baffles me up to this day. Timurids have clearly been ignored by Paradox since before Art of War. They shouldn't be a horde (much less a kingdom), their NIs feel outdated (specially the +1 Legitimacy rofl), the way they handle the Disintegration is beyond terrible (there aren't even any Mughal cores anymore), Persia spawns in the silliest way possible, all Persian lands start as Shia, for some reason they can form Mughals... there's so much to fix in that region.

 

[Frogbait]

@Wiz

Out of curiosity, why this particular change for hordes? Could always just lower razing power by 50% if it's overseas and make it so you can't release a vassal from provinces under the razing cooldown to address the same problem. I mean, this would probably be a harder nerf, just curious on the logic behind this particular change. If anything seems like a response to the loud minority yelling that razing has no trade offs when it does. Tribe estates are rather a bleh change. Already was better to get rid of them before, why not adjust their penalties to be worth having around?

 

[Chuckzi]

The UI changes look great! But could i suggest that along with the dynastic mapmode, you add a little more transparency in dynastic spread, PU opportunities, and succession war chances?

Specifically, under the "On Monarch death..." mouseover when a nation's monarch has no heir, can we see WHY a foreign noble will succeed to the throne? So it could potentially say "A noble from house von Wittelsbach succeeds to the throne based on Bavaria's 79 prestige." Again, this is something that a player could easily figure out by looking through a few screens, but it would be simpler to see it where it is most relevant.

For that matter, it would be great to have a mouseover when the "On Monarch death..." reads "Succession War between X and Y", which explains why these two powers would be involved. Is it based solely on prestige? Development? Rivalry? As is, its a pretty big unknown from a player/UI perspective, but can have pretty big consequences for gameplay.

Finally, it would be great to have a popup telling you when you are slated to have a succession war, and when you have lost that possibility, and why. For example "My lord, because our prestige has dropped below that of Spain, we no longer have a claim to starting a succession war over Austria."

I'm not a new player, and have 1500 hours, and 108 achievements in EU4. But in my current game I have had quite a bit of confusion over these mechanics. In 2 seperate instances, I have had the text go from "succession war" to "noble from house X" change without any explanation why. I think the commonality has been that each country has gone over 300 development, but I have never read any documentation of that being the case. Again, it would just be nice to understand the root mechanic and have that information easily accessible.


One last request: can we finally get a popup when we become papal controller? It's so important, and it's crazy that you only hear about it when someone else wins.

Anyway, thanks for all the great work on the patches and the game as a whole.