EU4 - Dev Diary - January 7th 2016

[MiniaAr]

One question regarding the Estates removal on conquest.

Does this impact autonomy as well. Let's say I conquered back a core of mine, but the province had an ennemy estates on it. Will I have 0% autonomy there (Estates reset and not autonomy on cores conquest), or 25% because estate was there. I understand the Estates removal on conquest, but I think the second option should be applied, as a compromise between gameplay and history. Indeed, this will mean that the effect of the presence of an Estate on a province are still to be dealt with by the conqueror, who can however give the province to whichever estate he wants.

To clarify my point, what I suggest is that after a conquest of a province owned by an estate, autonomy will be:

• Conquest of a province the conquering nation does not have a claim on: +75%
• Conquest of a province the conquering nation has a claim on: +65%
• Reconquest of a province the conquering nation has a core in: +25%

In effect +25% of what it would have been without an estate. This won't create Influence spikes on conquest, while still taking into account an Estate influence on a province even after conquest.

 

[maitrecarotte]

Any chance for warnings when estate intercations become avaliable again? At least for those that allow requesting things. It is really tedious to constantly check every single one to see when can I request something again.

 

[HorathDrak]

This is great news, I approve of all the changes! Thanks for the continual support of the game!

 

[I'm gaming]

When a foreign monarch holds the throne, there is now a small chance that another country of that dynasty will get a CB to enforce a union on the elective monarchy.

"another country"? Then, if Austria, which is the only country has Hasburg dynasty, wins election of Polish thone, then it can't get CB?

 

[witchveil]

Pretty early in the day for a dev diary to be posted but I welcome the changes, just hoping for Fort ZoC to be tweaked a little in this forthcoming patch then I'll be completely happy and start playing EU4 again.

 

[Boodas]

When a foreign monarch holds the throne, there is now a small chance that another country of that dynasty will get a CB to enforce a union on the elective monarchy.

1. Play Muscovy/Russia

2. Support heir to throne.

3. Enforce Union

4. Russia now rules all of eastern Europe.

 

[semaphore]

Pretty early in the day for a dev diary to be posted but I welcome the changes, just hoping for Fort ZoC to be tweaked a little in this forthcoming patch then I'll be completely happy and start playing EU4 again.

I don't really have a problem with forts personally (though I understand the frustration) but it with this design it seems nigh impossible to completely iron out every weird pathing. For that reason, sometimes I really think it'd be a lot easier if forts only blocks passage through their own province, without having a ZoC.

Failing that, I hope they will consider putting information like which fort is blocking your movement in the tooltips.

 

[Krebsig]

I really like this proposed shift towards more internal features. Many people show interest in deeper dynastic mechanics, more possibilities to show off the cultural side of your empire (monuments, curating arts, more depth for the culture system, etc.) and many other aspects. If this means Eu4 gets some nice Ck2 or Vicky mechanics I am all for it

 

[Boodas]

"another country"? Then, if Austria, which is the only country has Hasburg dynasty, wins election of Polish thone, then it can't get CB?

I believe you are reading it wrong. Austria can get a union CB over Poland (with the Hapsburgs ruling) not the other way around as that would be too overpowered.

 

[Wizzington]

1. Play Muscovy/Russia

2. Support heir to throne.

3. Enforce Union

4. Russia now rules all of eastern Europe.

Assuming you're lucky enough to get a claim, yes. And assuming you can even get heir on throne, which is no trivial matter without an alliance and decent dip rep.

 

[Subbak]

Good DD, although I'm sad Merchant Republics stay estate-less. Why can't Venice and Novgorod play with everyone else's toys.
Especially since unless it's been fixed, Novgorod-formed Russia still gets Cossacks-related events.

"another country"? Then, if Austria, which is the only country has Hasburg dynasty, wins election of Polish thone, then it can't get CB?

I assume it's "another" as "any county that is not Poland with that dynasty".
So if Austria puts a Basburg on the throne, both Austria and Hungary can possibly get the CB.

 

[Axe99]

Cheers for the DD Wiz (and good early morning, were you having breakfast with Johan?!) . Those estate changes sound pretty good, and a big fan of the diplo changes as well - not being critical of the first implementation mind, it's the kind of thing that always takes a bit of working through. One thing that might be helpful if the interactions with the estates were a bit more 'one off' rather than a 'remember to check back in 10/20 years for the money/MPs'. Don't have a suggestion of how to do it though, sorry can't be more useful, and still think current system is good.

 

[oblio-]

Yay, dev diaries are back!

Regarding Estates, I hope you continue the way you started, where in-game actions affect various components (for example piety influencing Ulema loyalty).

I'm hoping for fewer pop ups and a more natural interaction with Estates. For example building a lot of light ships and having them protect trade nodes should increase Burghers loyalty (as you are protecting their trade).

 

[lolciokuba]

Great set of changes! It's so refreshing to see you guys improving this game so long after the release!

 

[PAnZuRiEL]

As such, we're going to change Loyatly to adopt a model more like prestige, where loyalty is a permanent value with no modifiers that decays slowly towards a middle point of 50, with the decay being faster the further from 50 it is. The disloyal threshold was changed to 40, while the loyal threshold remains at 60. The non-temporary modifiers for loyalty (such as high piety for the Ulema) were changed to modifiers on the decay speed, so disloyal nobles will cease being disloyal faster if the monarch has high legitimacy, for example.

Won't this cause problems? In the game currently, if you have a modifier to prestige decay, it applies the same whether your prestige is positive or negative -- it actually harms you to have -1% prestige decay if your prestige is negative.

Also, will there be scope for ideas such as "+1 Nobility loyalty"? That seems like it would be fitting as an Aristocratic Idea.

 

[oblio-]

1. Play Muscovy/Russia

2. Support heir to throne.

3. Enforce Union

4. Russia now rules all of eastern Europe.

Or you get Administrative and core Poland, like a man!

 

[Wizzington]

Won't this cause problems? In the game currently, if you have a modifier to prestige decay, it applies the same whether your prestige is positive or negative -- it actually harms you to have -1% prestige decay if your prestige is negative.

Also, will there be scope for ideas such as "+1 Nobility loyalty"? That seems like it would be fitting as an Aristocratic Idea.

It doesn't work like that - high piety for Ulema will decay high loyalty slower and recover low loyalty faster (I'm also quite sure prestige decay doesn't work like that anymore either).

Certain idea groups will influence decay as well, such as aristocratic for nobility.

 

[MiniaAr]

Wiz, What about my +25% autonomy proposal for conquered provinces with an Estate (combined with Estate removal)? Will it work like this in 1.15 or is this something you might consider?

 

[Wizzington]

Wiz, What about my +25% autonomy proposal for conquered provinces with an Estate (combined with Estate removal)? Will it work like this in 1.15 or is this something you might consider?

Sounds like a recipe for 'if I am about to lose provinces I should put estates in them all to mess with the conqueror'.

 

[loup99]

Looks like some good changes are incoming with the 1.15! Thank you for the diary.