EU4 - Dev Diary - September 17th

[LastSalian]

Revanchism
In EU4, a common problem for countries is ending up in a negative cycle, or 'death spiral'. What we mean by this is that a country gets attacked, has its armies wiped out and loses territory. Afterwards, it takes them a long time to regaintheir manpower and armies, during which neighbours will pounce or rebels rise up, and they never quite recover. As a way to try and address this and give countries a chance to rebound, we've introduced a mechanic we call 'Revanchism'.

Wait, you've already made truce timers 5 - 15 years because of the same alleged problem. And increased coring and diplo-annexation costs.

I would greatly welcome this change, though, because unlike truce timers and increased expansions costs, it encourages a faster game phase. However, it's weird you had already tried 2 solutions for the same thing, and come up with a new one again.

 

[saegoto]

what if

war: spain vs france
spain loses 100% ws and break the truce 1 day after, having these big revanchism bonuses? isn't morale bonus op?

 

[ZoGoNDragoN]

Somebody suggested development cooldown mechanism in suggestion forum. I think it is worth a look. Both capital bonus and development cooldown might achieve more realistic province power balance.

 

[ecrurudesby]

>Wait for 1.13.1
>it's released the day I go on holiday
>play a dozen or so hours
>see a couple of dev diaries for 1.14 that I quite like
>stop and wait for 1.14

and so on, in perpetuum.

 

[Philadelphus]

We're also planning to add an achievements browser in-game that lets you see which achievements you qualify for in the particular game you are playing, and what trigger conditions you need to satisfy to unlock them. No more wiki-browsing and guesswork required!

Ooh, that'll be great! I love trying to get at least one new achievement with every campaign, this'll be so useful to see which additional ones I could go for as well.

The Revanchism idea sounds pretty interesting as well, looking forward to how that works out.

 

[Metz]

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.

Then perhaps if your capital is occupied, your second most developed province should be the provisional capital, like how Chinon became the provisional capital for the French ruler during the 100 Years War once Paris was no longer under his control. However, the capital transfer to Brazil was the court moving over to Brazil for safety and ruling from there. It doesn't really have to be represented but it would be nice to have such options.

 

[doktorstick]

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

Let's take a real world example of Bonn, West Germany. The bureaucrats hated how hum-drum boring it was there, and when the wall came down, Germany was quick to relocate the capital to Berlin. Let's say for the purposes of this example, Bonn was low-development and Berlin was high-development. Now, if you had this center of culture and social life move back to Bonn, the bureaucrats would not be happy.

Low -> High : Bureaucrats rejoice, efficiencies of government
High -> Low: Bureaucrats peeved, inefficiencies of government

Now, you could go all crazy with the types of malus's you could add (e.g., envoy travel time since they live elsewhere than Bonn, and they have to make the trip to the capital out of necessity). But in the interest of simplicity, these inefficiencies apply to the development bonus. In fact, people don't like penalties and maluses so you could even present it as "You get a BONUS! if you don't move your capital, or move it to a higher-developed province". What's left unsaid is you don't get the bonus if you move it to a lower developed province.

Regardless, whether you have a status effect or not for the malus, after so many years (20? 50? IRL, Bonn was capital for 41 years and after all that time, they still didn't like living there) it goes away and they get the bonus.

 

[Lord Lambert]

We're changing Ironman to be quarterly.

Now remove the lucky nations requirement and I might consider playing my first Ironman campaign in over 1600 hours.

 

[Kwami]

Now remove the lucky nations requirement and I might consider playing my first Ironman campaign in over 1600 hours.

Per a previous @Wiz post in this very thread, you can now play Ironman with whatever settings you want. You can't always get achievements, though.

 

[Lord Lambert]

Per a previous @Wiz post in this very thread, you can now play Ironman with whatever settings you want. You can't always get achievements, though.

I guess I will never get a single achievement then, because I refuse to play with that garbage on.

 

[TheDungen]

Maybe read up on the history of Poland. The idea of a nation amorphously morphing across the land due to war is very historical. I kicked England out of England, leaving them with only colonial provinces. Although this never happened in real life, I can't think of anything more flavour-rich than that happening in a game.

And you got one example of that happening in real life.

 

[Suzaku]

Why not base it on the development of the current capital. For example a captial with a development of 6 moving to 30 development shouldn't cost much, but moving from 30 to x development should cost a heavy price.

 

[TheDungen]

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...

Each province is worth more warscore to a smaller nation. Also overseas is worth less and so on.

 

[funguide]

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.

For all that we will have to wait for the next DLC. I just want a quick solution to make the game more enjoyable with a patch dammit

 

[Mirashhh]

@Wiz New alert icons? Revanchism?Steppe Hordes?Oh... I can't wait

 

[TheDungen]

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

It's not a good comparision it's the only good comparision, what else would you compare it to? Star Wars?

 

[TheDungen]

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.

I'd rather we do away with the mana system alltogether and instead do everything we currently do with mana with gold, and the monarch stats of the monarch (and his advisors) increase the effects of the gold spent.

 

[mudcrabmerchant]

Are there any plans to allow us to easily de-Ironman a save?

 

[Wizzington]

I'd rather we do away with the mana system alltogether and instead do everything we currently do with mana with gold, and the monarch stats of the monarch (and his advisors) increase the effects of the gold spent.

I hope your aim isn't realism because what you've proposed is far less realistic than 'mana'.

 

[alpaca]

I hope your aim isn't realism because what you've proposed is far less realistic than 'mana'.

It's also essentially how EU3 worked

Edit: Sorry, I seem to be stalking you. I should avoid answering your posts in the future, but you always seem to be posting just when I'm online today, so that I get an alert.