EU4 - Dev Diary - October 1st 2015

[TheDarkMaster]

This, sir, was a perfect reply. I salute you. I hope estates will be well adapted to the real situations of India and other nations outside fo Europe, and I am sure you'll be able to do it.

As is common knowledge, everything in India differs from dynasty to dynasty and empire to empire. Mughals for one suppressed the clergy (both Muslim and Hindu) as much as they could, only allowing them to build temples and mosques on behalf of the state and ran (and maintained) almost every religious institution as a part of the state. Maratha Peshwas displayed full characteristics of nobility, especially after Peshwa Baji Rao I, remaining Brahmins only in name. There is Mewar, whose entire strength was the nobility. Regional variations.

Hopefully we'll get to use some of those things in our games, in the form of interactions or national decisions. Such as giving increased freedoms to churches or tax exemptions for various benefits and drawbacks.

 

[harvesarmy]

So with estates are we going to get some sort of EIC defection system? Eg. Below a certain loyalty and above a certain trade power provinces revolt, or defect?

 

[Zhetone]

So with estates are we going to get some sort of EIC defection system? Eg. Below a certain loyalty and above a certain trade power provinces revolt, or defect?

It would be interesting if merchants had to much power, if when they're dissatisfied, it can give rival powers claim to coastal provinces, and with nobles maybe border provinces.

 

[Clownie]

It would be interesting if merchants had to much power, if when they're dissatisfied, it can give rival powers claim to coastal provinces, and with nobles maybe border provinces.

Or just straight up defect and give your rival a free core.

 

[Metz]

In India will the castes be treated as estates?

 

[DC123456789]

In India will the castes be treated as estates?

It sounds like that's the plan:

Estates are factions but the fact that the same ones exist (under different names) worldwide does not mean that they behave exactly the same worldwide. It's perfectly possible for some estates to be outright weaker or stronger in certain regions, cultures or religions (for instance the priests will be a lot more loyal to the state if there's a protestant state church but have more power in a Catholic state regardless of how much land they hold).
This means that it's possible for the nobility to be the overwhelmingly most important Estate in a Hindu state for instance and for the other estates to expect less favors of the monarch there than they would in a christian realm.

That said and with all due respect I'm not sure I agree that the historical side of it is quite as simple as you make it in your post either. Leaving aside the few Brahmin dynasties that did exist in this era (as I agree they where far from significant and estates aren't about the ruler personally anyway). A Hindu ruler is expected to make large land grants to the Brahmin communities and most in this era certainly did so. This is especially true of the Vijayangara empire and their patronization of many Hindu temples, most notably the great temple city of Tirupati which was a major land holder in the area with over 170 villages granted to it by the Vijayanagara rulers to support it economically (along with regular direct payments of money and other contributions). While it was the largest it was far from unique, we have many such documented land grants all over the empire (not to mention from the many empires that preceded them over the centuries).
During the first half of the empire's existence they also made good use of Brahmins not only as scribes and administrators but as commander of forts. Later rulers, most notably Rama Raya, would reverse this and start to grant these important duties to his kinsmen and to other nobles of the warrior castes, ultimately leading up to the situation after Talikota where the various Nayakas had so much power that they could quite simply abandon the empire and go their own ways.
Similarly the Gajapatis in Orissa placed enormous importance on their cooperation with the priestly castes and indeed controlled large parts of their realms with the help of the Jagannath cult, something that was very important to them as an upstart usurper dynasty in an area which had some very strong and old noble houses who'se loyalty they could not necessarily rely on in itself. The Gajapati empire, shortlived as it was, would've been impossible without the priests of Jagannath who expected to be granted large properties and influence for their support.
Much later on we have the Brahmin Peshwas in the Maratha lands who certainly held both much influence and power and made good use of other Brahmins throughout their administration (something they have in common even with the Muslim states that preceded them in the area). The Peshwas where eventually overcome by aristocrats of the noble castes but they did hold both power and influence in the Maratha enterprise. In fact this even true to a certain extent of the Sultanates that preceded the Marathas in the area.
This is IMO far different from Brahmins being "symbolic figures for ceremonies in terms of actual state management" as a universal rule for this era and it's also IMO fully enough to have them as a faction to be interacted with in the game.

Burghers/Merchants don't expect to be granted land as it is and won't in India either and it's certainly not as easy as above to give examples of political power being granted directly to them but that is not to say that rulers of this time would not have had to interact with them. There are plenty of groups with economic influence in the north in the later part of the game (some even invested in the EIC) or the various rich trading guilds of the Tamil country (who where certainly something of a headache to the Vijayanagara empire).

I'm not saying that caste didn't play a large role in Indian society (which would be pretty ridiculous) I am just saying that to have factions even in countries where the power balance between those factions would be very different from in Europe (which the system can easily accommodate for). And I'm also saying that perhaps we shouldn't view one estate gaining more influence than another as that caste overcoming the other (which again would be ridiculous) but rather as a measure of how much influence they have in the state. As the example of Vijayangara shows rulers of the era did promote the other castes (especially the Brahmins) as a counterweight to relying just on the noble families, and they did make extensive land grants to religious communities. It should be possible to do so in the game even if they don't get to be as powerful as the churches in Europe.
Likewise I believe that a Hindu dynasty unwilling to grant some land to the Temple communities should have a rough time as this was something where expected to do in this era, much like many earlier Indian states had before them.

Just as it is important to keep regions apart it is also IMO important to not engage in treating every new area as entirely exceptional. Pretending that east and west are so fundamentally different as to be nothing alike is honestly more in line with Said's Orientalism than many things that gets labeled as such on these forums from time to time (I know you didn't but I'd still like to say it as I feel it's something that's often overlooked).
Now will the estates actually be adapted well enough for India (and elsewhere) that they still feel logical and make sense? I hope so. It's certainly my ambition, it's also something that might be improved upon in the future if it's decided the local power balance and flavor isn't sufficient for the job.

 

[Zhetone]

Or just straight up defect and give your rival a free core.

I think that'd be a bit OP, especially if you have a regency or a truce or something.

 

[zsImmortal]

Estates are factions but the fact that the same ones exist (under different names) worldwide does not mean that they behave exactly the same worldwide. It's perfectly possible for some estates to be outright weaker or stronger in certain regions, cultures or religions (for instance the priests will be a lot more loyal to the state if there's a protestant state church but have more power in a Catholic state regardless of how much land they hold).
This means that it's possible for the nobility to be the overwhelmingly most important Estate in a Hindu state for instance and for the other estates to expect less favors of the monarch there than they would in a christian realm.

That said and with all due respect I'm not sure I agree that the historical side of it is quite as simple as you make it in your post either. Leaving aside the few Brahmin dynasties that did exist in this era (as I agree they where far from significant and estates aren't about the ruler personally anyway). A Hindu ruler is expected to make large land grants to the Brahmin communities and most in this era certainly did so. This is especially true of the Vijayangara empire and their patronization of many Hindu temples, most notably the great temple city of Tirupati which was a major land holder in the area with over 170 villages granted to it by the Vijayanagara rulers to support it economically (along with regular direct payments of money and other contributions). While it was the largest it was far from unique, we have many such documented land grants all over the empire (not to mention from the many empires that preceded them over the centuries).
During the first half of the empire's existence they also made good use of Brahmins not only as scribes and administrators but as commander of forts. Later rulers, most notably Rama Raya, would reverse this and start to grant these important duties to his kinsmen and to other nobles of the warrior castes, ultimately leading up to the situation after Talikota where the various Nayakas had so much power that they could quite simply abandon the empire and go their own ways.
Similarly the Gajapatis in Orissa placed enormous importance on their cooperation with the priestly castes and indeed controlled large parts of their realms with the help of the Jagannath cult, something that was very important to them as an upstart usurper dynasty in an area which had some very strong and old noble houses who'se loyalty they could not necessarily rely on in itself. The Gajapati empire, shortlived as it was, would've been impossible without the priests of Jagannath who expected to be granted large properties and influence for their support.
Much later on we have the Brahmin Peshwas in the Maratha lands who certainly held both much influence and power and made good use of other Brahmins throughout their administration (something they have in common even with the Muslim states that preceded them in the area). The Peshwas where eventually overcome by aristocrats of the noble castes but they did hold both power and influence in the Maratha enterprise. In fact this even true to a certain extent of the Sultanates that preceded the Marathas in the area.
This is IMO far different from Brahmins being "symbolic figures for ceremonies in terms of actual state management" as a universal rule for this era and it's also IMO fully enough to have them as a faction to be interacted with in the game.

Burghers/Merchants don't expect to be granted land as it is and won't in India either and it's certainly not as easy as above to give examples of political power being granted directly to them but that is not to say that rulers of this time would not have had to interact with them. There are plenty of groups with economic influence in the north in the later part of the game (some even invested in the EIC) or the various rich trading guilds of the Tamil country (who where certainly something of a headache to the Vijayanagara empire).

I'm not saying that caste didn't play a large role in Indian society (which would be pretty ridiculous) I am just saying that to have factions even in countries where the power balance between those factions would be very different from in Europe (which the system can easily accommodate for). And I'm also saying that perhaps we shouldn't view one estate gaining more influence than another as that caste overcoming the other (which again would be ridiculous) but rather as a measure of how much influence they have in the state. As the example of Vijayangara shows rulers of the era did promote the other castes (especially the Brahmins) as a counterweight to relying just on the noble families, and they did make extensive land grants to religious communities. It should be possible to do so in the game even if they don't get to be as powerful as the churches in Europe.
Likewise I believe that a Hindu dynasty unwilling to grant some land to the Temple communities should have a rough time as this was something where expected to do in this era, much like many earlier Indian states had before them.

Just as it is important to keep regions apart it is also IMO important to not engage in treating every new area as entirely exceptional. Pretending that east and west are so fundamentally different as to be nothing alike is honestly more in line with Said's Orientalism than many things that gets labeled as such on these forums from time to time (I know you didn't but I'd still like to say it as I feel it's something that's often overlooked).
Now will the estates actually be adapted well enough for India (and elsewhere) that they still feel logical and make sense? I hope so. It's certainly my ambition, it's also something that might be improved upon in the future if it's decided the local power balance and flavor isn't sufficient for the job.

That sounds great. How do you think estates will be adapted to say steppe hordes? Typical Turkish/Turko-Mongol dynasties (like the Ottomans, Aq Qoyunlu and the Timurids) all had significant succession problems, partially (not too sure how it worked for the Ottomans after Mehmet) due to the steppe culture of 'equal right to inheritance from the father', which was usually applied through apanage.

I think that'd be a bit OP, especially if you have a regency or a truce or something.

Well regency needs to be reviewed imo, but it can be a period of erosion for the central authority and political intrigue, so it wouldn't be out of place.

They could just change so truce would break if another nation accepts the defection.

 

[Phoenix666]

Internal politics YAH!

 

[Martin_Mortyry]

So with estates are we going to get some sort of EIC defection system? Eg. Below a certain loyalty and above a certain trade power provinces revolt, or defect?

That's pretty much what happened with Zaporozhian Sich in 1648. They were dissatisfied with how the Commonwealth had treated them. Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was highly influenced by the nobility and cossacks wanted to be on par with them.

 

[Will Steel]

Well regency needs to be reviewed imo, but it can be a period of erosion for the central authority and political intrigue, so it wouldn't be out of place.

They could just change so truce would break if another nation accepts the defection.

Should regencies cause autonomy to increase in every province (except maybe the capital)? And a low chance of pretenders? That would be realistic considering overly long regencies almost always resulted in either imperial/royal authority losing a lot of control over their subjects, or someone deposing the ruler (usually his own regent).

 

[Mixxer5]

Ok, for the first time since EU4 release- how much for this one?

 

[hamster83]

Very good! I'm looking forward to the next expansion

 

[Adjutant Reflex]

I'm not sure if this has been asked yet, but, will we be able to create custom estates for custom nations? And if not at launch, would you be open to possibly adding that functionality in a future patch? It could be like in a fourth tab or something, where we could select from predefined estates and modify them, or build our own from scratch.

 

[Tyr Alexander]

Hello
Awesome diary
I wonder how will this translate to custom nations and American nations? Will the natives have estates or anything similar? How about Colonies and USA will the have estates or anything similar?

Will the clergy estate be for all religions or just certain ones? Will all government types have estates? Why not add an element that gives you a list of estates at the setup and can choose which ones in your country similar to picking ideas and traditions?

 

[SHADOW-XIII]

Looking forward to new features, would love to see some kind of province auto-development, at the moment development of provinces seems more of the throwaway as technologies always taking priorities (unless too expensive). Would nice to see something developing provinces, either further lowering cost of that, or maybe adding it to facitons - for example. they do develop their provinces when happy

 

[horngeek]

Should regencies cause autonomy to increase in every province (except maybe the capital)? And a low chance of pretenders? That would be realistic considering overly long regencies almost always resulted in either imperial/royal authority losing a lot of control over their subjects, or someone deposing the ruler (usually his own regent).

To a large degree, that's represented by Legitimacy going down in a regency.

The idea that low Legitimacy might cause an increase in autonomy each month has potential, though.

 

[IceTytanFang]

To a large degree, that's represented by Legitimacy going down in a regency.

The idea that low Legitimacy might cause an increase in autonomy each month has potential, though.

Maybe instead of it's current base -.1 local autonomy per month it could be -.1 when at 100 legitimacy and +.1 when at 0

 

[Rip Off Productions]

((I haven't finished reading he entire tread, so I'm sorry if some of these ideas have already come up))

On the subject of Estate and Parliament interactions:
1) Estates should demand that a curtain number of seats be in provinces they control, or at least giving estate provinces seats boosts their loyalty and influence.
2) the "bribes" you pay to Estate controlled seats will usually be boosts to that estate's influence, or debuffs to another estate's loyalty.

 

[wergy]

This will definitely slowing down expansion quite a bit. So I like it
Are you planning to extend the timeline by the way?