EU4 - Dev Diary - October 1st 2015

[BRK]

Agree with Trin's post. That's exactly what India was like, at the time, and many of these varna-based cliques exerted a powerful influence on the administration. It was the powerful and wealthy Vaishya guilds -many of which had levies of their own- that fuelled rapid expansion of the Chola state, as well as the spread of Jainism in the later medieval period. Brahmadeyas -land grants to brahmin families- lent the ruling dynasty a great deal of legitimacy, prestige, and were regularly undertaken and recorded on copperplate inscriptions to ensure the king stayed on good terms with the priestly class.

If I'm not wrong, this was implemented in one of the two most popular mods for EUIV, and worked pretty well. My only concern would be with societal change, and a means of dismantling internal factions should, say, the government type undergo a drastic change. I wouldn't want to have to spend all my time appeasing obsolete, archaic power-hungry aristocrats in a communist-ruled utopia.

 

[joe9594]

Not too many communists 1444-1821

 

[horngeek]

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

Well, at present that reduction only happens when it's peacetime.

Hrm. Part of me wants to suggest that Autonomy goes up more per month if a ruler with awful legitimacy goes to war...

 

[grommile]

Should regencies cause autonomy to increase in every province (except maybe the capital)?

Regency does not need to be made worse, modbannit.

 

[TheDungen]

Regency does not need to be made worse, modbannit.

??? Regency isn't that bad in EU4.

 

[grommile]

??? Regency isn't that bad in EU4.

Yes it is. It stops me declaring war, without offering me any genuinely interesting gameplay in return, and is thus the worst thing.

 

[TheDungen]

Yes it is. It stops me declaring war, without offering me any genuinely interesting gameplay in return, and is thus the worst thing.

It's one of the hardships faced by nations in these times. And it lets you of easy, you don't risk getting overthrown, nor do you risk your regency council messing up your laws like in CK2.

Not all periods of history were intresting. And that the game caters to a gameplay where you are always declaring war is increadibly grating. It's why we end up with blobs.

 

[grommile]

It's one of the hardships faced by nations in these times. And it lets you of easy, you don't risk getting overthrown,

That's not a risk. I'm the country, not the king.

Not all periods of history were intresting.

This isn't history. This is a game. If you take away interesting gameplay for reasons that I cannot control and which are not a result of the actions of other players (AI or meat), you have to give me other interesting gameplay.

And that the game caters to a gameplay where you are always declaring war is increadibly grating. It's why we end up with blobs.

There are already other reasons why I should not declare war at certain times. There is no need for a situation where I cannot declare war even if I have full manpower, two thousand ducats in the bank, three strong allies, and a claim on a friendless heathen OPM.

 

[Ober]

Whether regency blocking warring can be explained or not, blocking players from making risky or even straight out mad moves is never good really. What if I, The Player(TM) want to risk, have a go, be the madman I wanna be, living on the edge, thug life, this kind of business.

Especially now with Estates and yet another dawn of possibilities, declaring war under regencies could become a thing at last. It should have its own risks, it should be more costly, dangerous even - hell yes! But being simply banned from doing something just because is never good

Again, I strongly hope Estates will provide us with ways to flesh out regencies and solve all kinds of problems attached to them.

 

[TheDungen]

That's not a risk. I'm the country, not the king.

And being overthrown means civil war.

This isn't history. This is a game. If you take away interesting gameplay for reasons that I cannot control and which are not a result of the actions of other players (AI or meat), you have to give me other interesting gameplay.

Sure they could and should, you should have the intresting gameplay of keeping the country from dissolwing entirly during a regency. But making regencies no diffrent from the rest of the playtime would be a mistake.
And if history doesn't even matter to you then go play total war. Myself I'm glad there are more slow paced realsitic games for those of us who appreciate such things.

There are already other reasons why I should not declare war at certain times. There is no need for a situation where I cannot declare war even if I have full manpower, two thousand ducats in the bank, three strong allies, and a claim on a friendless heathen OPM.

Not nearly enough, the fact that you can even ever have full manpower says something. As I said the game is far to blobby as is.

 

[Will Steel]

Regency does not need to be made worse, modbannit.

I was talking about that in a historical perspective. There are few regencies in history where local governors and lords have not become more bold, and taken some more powers for themselves at the expense of their underage/unwell ruler, during regencies.

And that would be rather accurately represented by slight autonomy increase, especially in certain types of monarchies.

 

[DC123456789]

Is there any historical reason for regencies not being able to declare war? Maybe they could remove that and add in a local autonomy malus instead.

 

[Clownie]

Is there any historical reason for regencies not being able to declare war? Maybe they could remove that and add in a local autonomy malus instead.

There isn't. Regents both could and did declare wars. Paradox doesn't care, though. On the release of El Dorado, they had to implement regency DoWs so nahuatl players' games wouldn't abruptly end because of regencies, and accidentally made it so every religion could do it. I posted a thread saying that was great, and then it got hot"fixed".

 

[Will Steel]

Regencies being unable to declare war is a gameplay handicap for challenge rather than history though. In real life regents declared and fought wars just like anyone else.

 

[Latheloi]

Would be quite cool if you were allowed to use specific CBs during regency, provided factions had sufficient influence - and if using those CBs gave them more influence, and winning said wars increased influence further (and losing gave a big hit to influence, and boost to other factions).
For example:
Nobility: Reconquest, Imperial Liberation, Insult, dishonoured call, nationalism, crush the revolution
Burghers: Conquest (only on trade provinces), trade war, trade conflict, cancelled loan, colonialism, trade war, trade protection
Clergy: Religious league, crush the revolution, excommunication, religious liberation, cleansing of heresy, DoTF, religious unity

Could also include a loyalty decrease if NOT using one of those CBs if manpower was 90% or above.

That would certainly add some interesting Regency mechanics!

 

[Chief of Staff]

If anything, at least any countries constitutional monarchy should be free to declare war even during the regency. Constitutional monarchy would imply ministers being responsible to the parliament, whether aristocracy dominates the body or not, and that they would understandably not be deterred by regency from declaring war whenever they feel necessary. The fact that Britain continued to pursue the war with France despite the Regency during George III's reign underlines that, despite war not having started with that regency. The Lord Liverpool, the British prime minister from 1812 to 1827, would not agree with the idea that he can't declare war during a regency.

 

[grommile]

And being overthrown means civil war.

Well, sure, if they tore the game down to its foundations and started over, that could be interesting.

But really, if I want to fight civil wars, I can just go play CK2. (Been doing that recently, actually.) In the meantime, when I play EU4, I play Milan.

And if history doesn't even matter to you then go play total war.

I've only ever bought one TW game (the original Shogun); it had precisely the inverse of the game structure I find engaging, since it has a turn-based strategic side and a real-time tactical side.

Myself I'm glad there are more slow paced realsitic games for those of us who appreciate such things.

Indeed. Perhaps you should tell us what they are, since EU4 is neither slow-paced nor realistic.

 

[TheDungen]

Well, sure, if they tore the game down to its foundations and started over, that could be interesting.

But really, if I want to fight civil wars, I can just go play CK2. (Been doing that recently, actually.) In the meantime, when I play EU4, I play Milan.

The game has a civil war mechanic

I've only ever bought one TW game (the original Shogun); it had precisely the inverse of the game structure I find engaging, since it has a turn-based strategic side and a real-time tactical side.
That

Indeed. Perhaps you should tell us what they are, since EU4 is neither slow-paced nor realistic.

It's is compared to the total war games. In fact it is comperared to any grandstrategy games out there except others made by paradox.

Is there any historical reason for regencies not being able to declare war? Maybe they could remove that and add in a local autonomy malus instead.

I'd say it was generally rarer for countries to go to war durign a regency but not unheard of. Sure there could be more realistic and intresting penatlies out there. For an example change the no wars during regency to -1 stab for going to war during a regency and increased chances of disasters.

 

[grommile]

The game has a civil war mechanic

Not in any useful sense. EU4's Civil War disaster involves rebels and events and - if you're actually competent to deal with it - is something of a blessing in disguise, since it gets your legitimacy out of the toilet far faster than passive legitimacy gain ever could.

 

[TheDungen]

Not in any useful sense. EU4's Civil War disaster involves rebels and events and - if you're actually competent to deal with it - is something of a blessing in disguise, since it gets your legitimacy out of the toilet far faster than passive legitimacy gain ever could.

That just means that it's a bad system not that it's not represented.