EU4 - Dev Diary - September 17th

[fred.erick]

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.

Yeah, I was just throwing numbers around. I actually like how converting religion / culture / etc. takes time. Would prefer if development of provinces had a cooldown period, like you've said.
The period can be tied to the development modifier, so if you have -20% on development cost, the cooldown time can be lower too. In theory, of course

 

[LibertyComrade]

Are there any plans for Revanchism to be diminished in anyway if the country engages in an offensive war? It's one thing to more quickly recover and be able to defend yourself after a decisive loss to avoid a "death spiral", but would seem odd to use such a bonus to actual reclaim or even claim new territory, etc.

 

[Em Ay Ef]

a question regarding 1.14: are you considering bringing the French subjects back to life, even in a limited manner (say, with events like the League of Public Weal to keep France in check)? considering how much will have changed between 1.12 and 1.14 in terms of diploannexation cost and overall balance, now may be a good time to revisit this issue, while ever since the removal of her vassals France feels somewhat flavorless, particularly so when compared to Burgundy's PU galore.

 

[Da Soth]

I don't like Revanchism

I guess it will be nice in multi to prevent a player drowning in the spiral of defeat but for the solo I do not like the idea that what you don't kill, you make it harder.

I also imagine the "ping pong wars" between empires ...

 

[Tiax]

I'm disappointed in the development changes. The problems with the development system are fundamental, and these types of little patches around the edges are not enough to fix them. Not only that, these hackish fixes leak into other systems - we get a hack for capital development, and then that requires a hack for capital movement, which impacts all the other times you might want to move your capital for non-development reasons. What arbitrary hack will we get for mega-shetlands, and what other systems will it negatively impact?

 

[Nikolaj-11]

If you're willing to give up large tracts of core territory for a temporary modifier I don't think you're playing terribly optimally.

Just to be clear then, Revachism is based off territory loss only or warscore overall. Or both?

If you fabricate claims everywhere and make a -100% watscore peace deal annuling all claims in all countries possible wouldn't that be a way to abuse it if it is only based in total warscore deal cost?

Don't actually know if you can do this, just curious.

 

[WSnova]

Rubberbanding AI Ewwwww.

Why not make it so that all wars are not about absolutely destroying your opponent? I mean, right now AI plays out the war until it has nothing left. Limited wars should be a thing.

This only helps blobs be more stable(and they were already too stable) and at worst it would be a midly annoying thing for a player

Sounds good for MP though.

The capitalchanging is. weird, dunno why all the restrictions in the 1st place. Capitals and places with potential should have bigger modifiers as to make it worth it to develop them more than other places.

 

[Metz]

Will Revanchism be as strong if you lose territories away from home, such as in Africa or Asia?

 

[Beanicus]

Perhaps revanchism could be a scalable thing in some way? The more development a nation has, then the lesser its effect? This would help smaller nations whilst making sure really large blobs don't feel too stable, which I think is the major worry people have.

 

[KrupPato]

Wiz, why don't you create ad advisor for reduce development cost?

 

[browd]

On the capital move/development abuse issue, isn't the only problematic situation where you have used the capital discount to improve that province and then move your capital to another province and do it again? In that case, isn't an appropriate solution to include in the cost of the capital move a "clawback" of some or all of the discount you previously obtained? If you never improved your capital, no change to the cost of moving your capital (since you haven't abused anything). If however, you sank a bunch of MIL points into your capital, obtaining, say, an aggregate discount of 245 MIL points over the course of the game, then moving your capital would require both the regular ADM cost of the move plus MIL points equal to 50%/80%/100% (or perhaps even 110%, to really deter abuse) of the 245 MIL point discount obtained up to that point in time.

 

[Nikolaj-11]

A new poland strategy will be to improve Krakow to all heavens and then take the free change to Warsaw late game and improve that.

 

[myrsl0ken]

Over all some very nice stuff. I have one comment: Couldn't the extra cost for moving capital only apply if you move to a smaller province? It would prevent basically all exploits and still "feel" reasonable to all of us immersion hippies.

 

[Atomix26]

Idea to prevent exiled metropolises:

Tie the cost of improving a province to your trade income relative to your development, such that important centers of trade in important nodes can become the metropolises that they should be.

This reflects the ease of obtaining materials and capital for development.

This puts the sprawling metropolises where they should be, on the important centers of trade, while enabling a form of economic warfare, where removing competitors upstream gives a tangible benefit beyond simple income.

 

[Sexual Velociraptor]

Some of these complaints make me laugh.

I'm happy with all of these changes, although I was hoping that large Empires could gain random development in the capital based on increasing development. (Like every 50 development your capital gains 1 random upgrade.)

Something not tied to Monarch Points basically.

 

[isamurai]

Nice! So hyped for the hordes update!

 

[Wagonlitz]

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).

There should be exemptions for the capital being threatened in war too; after all that was the reason for the Portuguese to move it to Brazil and when the war was over they went back to Lisbon.

I do not like the idea that what you don't kill, you make it harder.

That actually is historical---in some cases at least. Take for instance Denmark Sweden. After we won the Kalmar war in ~1611 we demanded huge amounts of gold from the Swedes---these severe cuts then allowed to Swedes to make reforms which otherwise wouldn't have been possible. Reforms which then played a major role in our defeat in 1645 and 1658.

 

[zeonc]

I think that Revanchism should works only in case of loss with provinces with accepted culture (as a side effect this could also increase the importance of the change of culture button).

 

[klandri]

Why not make development cost a bit of gold too?
That would stop the Albania and exiled Scotland to always become the largest cities and large empires would actually have something to do with their money, making Paris and Constantinople the largest cities.

 

[Wagonlitz]

I think that Revanchism should works only in case of loss with provinces with accepted culture (as a side effect this could also increase the importance of the change of culture button).

We don't need anything which makes change culture more important. It already is really ahistorical. Slaughtering the local population and replacing it with your own didn't really happen in this time frame.