EU4 - Dev Diary - September 17th

[TheMeInTeam]

Ah, excellent! I'll be delighted to see how much more you can grind them into the dust. I love a good challenge.

Create a problem, sell the cure (citations: vassals being unannexable at 50 or more liberty desire, development needed for buildings, primitive ship nerf + reform mechanic in DLC). I bet they get power back similar to the foreign core days, so that people will want to buy the DLC to play them at a level they once were by default.

But I could be mistaken. Maybe it'll be like Buddhism where buying the DLC makes them worse hehe. As long as there's still things to do, maybe it will still be fun. If the "challenge" is to player patience not so much.

 

[Daser von Wulf]

Please I need this now in my life PLEASE

 

[User4035]

If the AI didn't refuse to peace out because of "length of war" when they are out numbered and behind Tech then this new feature wouldn't be needed.

Also w
Hen outnumbered and outgunned they keep raising armies and getting their 1stacks wipped.

Maybe they should Redo how the AI manages a war.

 

[nalivayko]

While I like the idea of Revanchism, two things worry me greatly about it.

1) It's scaled to warscore instead of to size of a country. Suppose the Netherlands loses 40% warscore territory. That's a big chunk of their country. Suppose France loses 40% warscore. That's not a lot for France. Yet another EUIV mechanic that makes the blobs blob blobbier.
2) It will be the most use to blobs. Big Blue Blob conquers Sarai. Big Blue Blob cores Sarai. Big Blue Blob loses Sarai. Big Blue Blob now has a bonus.

But I guess the devs dont want this to be for filthy casuals like me because they have a better audience with the world conquest and multiplayer crowds.

A lot of people asked if development would lead to OPM development spam and those questions were ignored...

That's the problem with "core" definition. Remember the cores from earlier EU? They hardly ever changed and represented the true core of your country. Now you conquer a province, spend some admin points and voila, Istria equals Gascogne in the eyes of French monarch.

The current process handles integration of province into your realm. I would suggest a different name for that type of a "core" and return back to earlier core system. You'd still be able to turn a new province into the core, but only after converting religion and changing the culture type (RL e.g. Russian cores in Siberia).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If the AI didn't refuse to peace out because of "length of war" when they are out numbered and behind Tech then this new feature wouldn't be needed.

Also w
Hen outnumbered and outgunned they keep raising armies and getting their 1stacks wipped.

Maybe they should Redo how the AI manages a war.

The AI should never, ever use 1 stacks to attempt to siege provinces that are *adjacent to enemy forces 10:1 them in plain sight*. That's idiot nonsense from the AI, serving no purpose other than to place it further in debt, squander forces that might actually be combined into an army that isn't insta-wiped, and add TREMENDOUS micromanagement tedium to the player.

Things that hurt the AI and add micro for the player are strictly awful. The 1 stack counter-siege is reasonable if there aren't any enemy regiments nearby/in view, but the AI should absolutely not be doing that crap when they're trivially killed. Even other AI will go kill these stacks, it's beyond stupid and worst of all, human players can use it to drain AI's money super fast by leaving a couple unoccupied provinces for the AI to merc out.

 

[Metz]

Wiz, can we expect auto-development of provinces in the future? Maybe through the use of placing magistrate characters? I believe it will be easier and more realistic as well instead of manually developing provinces. Through magistrates you could use a budget slider or also develop manually with monarch points.


Regarding Revanchism: perhaps if the provinces lost are your primary or accepted cultures and religion then it should give you more Revanchism than if you lose a newly acquired province that isn't much like your "home" provinces. This would give a player more reasons to culture convert their provinces.

 

[Gorkfang]

I asked in the previous diary, but it seems you didn't notice. Can we have a beta of 1.14 so that us map modders can get used to the new region system, and have an update ready for 1.14 launch?

 

[funguide]

An easier way to put it: 1 development upgrade in 10 years In essence, a cooldown period for each upgrade with, perhaps, an Economic idea or related policy that decreases that period.

I suggested a while back to tie the development say military development of a province with the military adviser of the nation based on his skill for a period of time, after which he would be available for another development. Also they could revamp the Innovative Idea group to be more development and adviser focused. After all development requires innovation!!!!

 

[nalivayko]

I suggested a while back to tie the development say military development of a province with the military adviser of the nation based on his skill for a period of time, after which he would be available for another development. Also they could revamp the Innovative Idea group to be more development and adviser focused. After all development requires innovation!!!!

Not necessarily. You could be developing a province by using a tried and tested technology. One example: roads. Nothing innovative about them and something that needs to be done to improve infrastructure.

The fact that we "develop" manpower suggests either expanding population size or military settlements or training facilities... again, not necessarily a new thing.

 

[keynes2.0]

That's the problem with "core" definition. Remember the cores from earlier EU? They hardly ever changed and represented the true core of your country. Now you conquer a province, spend some admin points and voila, Istria equals Gascogne in the eyes of French monarch.

The current process handles integration of province into your realm. I would suggest a different name for that type of a "core" and return back to earlier core system. You'd still be able to turn a new province into the core, but only after converting religion and changing the culture type (RL e.g. Russian cores in Siberia).

I would prefer that you should be able to core territory, but it shouldn't be automatic. I suspect the original sin was whoever designed over-extension didn't talk to the designer of coring until after they were both done.

 

[Metz]

I suggested a while back to tie the development say military development of a province with the military adviser of the nation based on his skill for a period of time, after which he would be available for another development. Also they could revamp the Innovative Idea group to be more development and adviser focused. After all development requires innovation!!!!

Innovation in the game refers to liberal ideas I believe. Things that were ahead of time by progressive thinkers.

If anything, it should be the Administrative idea group that helps boost development. We get rid of all those Mercenary ideas in Administrative (why would they be there?) and put them in a group called Mercenaries (which would also give privateer bonuses) and replace Espionage. Espionage actions should be innate in the game already. We should be able to naturally set up spy networks and fund them (by slider) to cause revolts or information leaks.

 

[grommile]

Regarding Revanchism: perhaps if the provinces lost are your primary or accepted cultures and religion then it should give you more Revanchism than if you lose a newly acquired province that isn't much like your "home" provinces. This would give a player more reasons to culture convert their provinces.

Only in circumstances where that player realistically expects to lose a war against someone who wants to take their provinces.

 

[Baindread]

You mean like reality...

It´s never a good comparison when talking about a game.

 

[wingzero890]

Finally a devblog with substance.

 

[Chlodio]

Henry VI was the incompetent grandson of a usurper. Under those conditions, an armed dynastic dispute could plausibly have arisen even in the absence of military defeats by an external power.

Why do you think he was incompetent? His reign faced a lot unfortunate events and his insanity only lasted one year, he clearly isn't the worst ruler of England and clearly more than Charles II of Spain. Making him 0 0 0 is just wrong (Charles II is 1 0 0).

 

[wingzero890]

Did you read the DD? Small countries will actually get LESS development cost reduction than in 1.13.

I will still never click the development button unless I have literally nothing else to spend MP on and am nearing the point cap.

There really should be a meaningful way to mod it in defines for those of us who choose not to play vanilla, like mod it so that it costs money/manpower/etc.

 

[Morik]

So how would you fix the problem of the capital development discount being abusable?

Someone on page 3 sparked this idea for me.

Make the cost to move capital:
- Base cost (pre-patch) if the new location has equal or more development than the old location
- base cost (pre-patch) + adjustment to make you break even if you move it & then develop it up to the old capital's value. (I.e., calculate the total discount that you are going to end up getting and add it to the move cost.) Won't be exact since the discount can change...

Alternative: Disable the discount until the new capital's development it is at least equal to the old capital's development value. (While "the people" still get used to the idea of it being the new capital--the bigger the development gap was, the longer/more development that is going to take.)

 

[Wagonlitz]

To make the way ironman works a bit clearer, we've also reworked the interface so that instead of checking an 'Ironman' box before starting your game, you are now presented with the choice of playing Ironman when you click the 'Play' button for a new game. Clicking 'Play' will pop up a window that asks you whether you want to play Ironman or not, and explains the difference between Ironman and not-Ironman.

Don't really like this pop up thing. What is wrong with a tick box? It is really annoying to have a pop up you need to dismiss before being able to start your game.
Could you perhaps make it possible to disable that popup?

Will modded ironman saves still be encrypted? (That is probably the biggest reason I won't play ironman, since if you get a save corruption you cannot do anything if it is encrypted, but if it isn't you actually might be able to fix the corruption in the save.)

Revanchism increases tax income, fort defense, manpower recovery speed and morale substantially, and lowers unrest and loan interest rates. It ticks down over time, with 100% revanchism (gained from a 100% warscore peace) taking 20 years to be fully lost.

This sounds really really nice. Looking forward to it.

 

[Metz]

Can the capital be moved whenever at whatever time if you pay the price? If so there should be a cool down for moving capital, maybe every 20-25 years? (losing the province during a war is the exception).

 

[mwyeoh]

Hmm, an interesting new mechanic.
Will the Revanchism be capped at 100% (Say an AI is at war with multiple powers and signs peace treaties in close proximity the first of 80% and the second of 60%: Will it be at 100% or 140%)