EU4 - Dev Diary - September 17th

[TheDungen]

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

How so? The government invests money in making things happen, and how well it turns out is dependent on how competent the government is in the field that investment is made. Would be a perfect opportunity to diffrentiate between government types, a absolute monarch would be more free in deciding his actions himself but would be totally dependant on his own stats while a constitutional monarch would be much more limited in his action but have the benefit of beign able to delegate tasks to people with the proper competense.
True and absolute monarch could delegate too but to a lesser extent as machiavelli puts it "A skilled prince listens to his advisors and heeds their advice if it's good but he's never seen following the advice of others" (Paraphrasing rather than quoting here).

Granted some things wouldn't be directly drivne by gold, for an example tech should be something that gradually ticks up (or even event driven, with a mean time to happen and certain triggers to be possible, similar to the inventions in vic or how I interpret the tech handlign of stellaris) as depending on the development in your capital with development being afected by policies implemented by spending gold.

 

[TheDungen]

Hushhhhh! WIz hates when MP are called 'mana'.

I noticed. I wouldnät have used the term if I knew it was such a touchy subject.

 

[Chief Iacid]

You'll be able to play whatever settings you want in Ironman as of 1.14, but achievements will still require historical lucky.

The original post of this thread phrased it differently, so had me believe that achievements now also were possible without lucky nations turned on. For those of us that have lucky nations firmly turned off, I guess we will remain without achievements. For ever.

 

[Chief Iacid]

Is it possible to edit which nations should be lucky? If so, one might perhaps be able to edit them out, and still have lucky nations officially turned on?

 

[LastSalian]

Because not only are you making your opponent lose territory, you're gaining it for yourself.

And once you have that territory it becomes easier to get more territory. And once you have more it becomes easier to get more, and more, and more...

EU4 is shying away entirely from internal politics for the sake of simplicity, so it has to opt to make it REALLY difficult to snowball out of control, because once the cow is out the pen you can't get it back in.

Not sure why exactly you replied that. I'm actually welcoming the new revanchism mechanic, because unlike the increased truce timers and expansion costs, it promotes a faster game phase. And it's weird this is the third time they try to fix the same alleged problem. It's like they are following a patch strategy, rather than a thoughtful approach.

 

[Lord Lambert]

The original post of this thread phrased it differently, so had me believe that achievements now also were possible without lucky nations turned on. For those of us that have lucky nations firmly turned off, I guess we will remain without achievements. For ever.

1478 hours here, 0 achievements. Looks like its going to stay that way too.

 

[faern]

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

The game already keeps track on how many times each individual province has been developed so why not base it off of that instead of total development?
That would prevent abuse, but still keep the cost to move your capital like it is now even if you are a large nation.


Regarding Revanchism any player abuse or potential AI blobbing after a war could be prevented by reducing revanchism not only over time, but also when you conquer provinces.
E.g. Lose 100% WS and later conquer 100% WS means your down to 0 revanchism again.

 

[mudcrabmerchant]

You mean more control over your monarch's stats? I disagree with that, it's bad enough that we as players are near omnipotent (within our country) immortal and almost omniscient, there got to be some way to represent bad monarchs.

It's stupid to leave the single most important resource in the game completely out of the player's control.

Bad monarchs, in history, would actually often be replaced/rendered irrelevant by capable ministers. Something which could provide the player an interesting choice AND help alleviate the tedium brought on by low-point monarchs.

 

[Oscaretti]

Again, why? Why would you ever use the terrible Ironman mode if you're not going for achievements?

I've been asked for this feature for a long time. That's because I'm a compulsive cheater, and if given a chance I'll cheat. That's why I need Ironman keeping me in check when I play with mods

 

[Shaaaq]

I would like to see the game encourage countries to move capitals to trade centers/large/prestigious (ok last one is a bit unrealistic for implementation) like if serbian empire owned Rome or Constantinople they would probably want that to be their capital if their capital was similar in development.

Revanchism sounds amazing though and completely fitting.
Perhaps there could be events that occur when Revanchism is high to boost army moral (equivalent to Joan of Arc?) instead of having a static modifier; to give the gameplay feel of a nation that is resurgent.

Revanchism sounds disgusting. So a nation that gets utterly curbstomped gets the chance to conjure tens of thousands of men out of the air for no reason, whereas a nation who grinds themselves down to zero manpower and earns a white peace has a long slow recovery?

Sounds like it will now be optimal to just cop a big loss immediately if you think you're outmatched, rather than fight tooth and nail to win.

Sounds pretty realistic for expanding nations to run out of manpower; after all they need to garrison cities and try to exert control over the region.
From a gameplay perspective it hopefully will make crushing France, PLC or other large rivals more difficult (after all the PLC degraded over a very long period).

 

[Gaussia]

From what does Constantinopel recives the 135% Development bonus from (it has 34 Development).

 

[Wizzington]

Hushhhhh! WIz hates when MP are called 'mana'.

It's not so much that I hate it, more that it emanates sad edginess, like someone laughing at their own Chuck Norris joke in 2015.

 

[joerd9]

Lovely changes. Especially Revanchism should theoretically add some resilience to some nations.

 

[joe9594]

From what does Constantinopel recives the 135% Development bonus from (it has 34 Development).

That sounds about right. Starting at 10 development you get 3% cost per level then starting at 20 you get another 3 on top then again at 30. So at 34 it is 10*3 from 9 to 19, 10*6 from 19-29 and then 5*9 from 29-34.

 

[Meroni]

Looks promising, but would rather then the Revanchism, rebels, deppending on what kind, join the country with their military troops, when they "win".

 

[tuareg109]

It's not so much that I hate it, more that it emanates sad edginess, like someone laughing at their own Chuck Norris joke in 2015.

If realism isn't a valid argument, why does the fact that people see that monarch points are literally mana bother you so much?

 

[Wizzington]

If realism isn't a valid argument, why does the fact that people see that monarch points are literally mana bother you so much?

Listen, don't worry, you're allowed to double over with laughter every time you hear the name Chuck Norris. I promise I won't take away your dank memes.

 

[ringhloth]

It's stupid to leave the single most important resource in the game completely out of the player's control.

Bad monarchs, in history, would actually often be replaced/rendered irrelevant by capable ministers. Something which could provide the player an interesting choice AND help alleviate the tedium brought on by low-point monarchs.

There are plenty of ways you can effectively increase your monarch point gain. I forget the exact math, but I'm pretty sure you can get at least another 9 or 10 effective extra admin points a month solely based on player actions.

 

[Wizzington]

How so? The government invests money in making things happen, and how well it turns out is dependent on how competent the government is in the field that investment is made. Would be a perfect opportunity to diffrentiate between government types, a absolute monarch would be more free in deciding his actions himself but would be totally dependant on his own stats while a constitutional monarch would be much more limited in his action but have the benefit of beign able to delegate tasks to people with the proper competense.
True and absolute monarch could delegate too but to a lesser extent as machiavelli puts it "A skilled prince listens to his advisors and heeds their advice if it's good but he's never seen following the advice of others" (Paraphrasing rather than quoting here).

Granted some things wouldn't be directly drivne by gold, for an example tech should be something that gradually ticks up (or even event driven, with a mean time to happen and certain triggers to be possible, similar to the inventions in vic or how I interpret the tech handlign of stellaris) as depending on the development in your capital with development being afected by policies implemented by spending gold.

Because if administration of a country was as simple as spending more money on whatever you need to improve, we'd all be living in perfect utopias by now. Not to mention the very simple issue that if money is the base driving force in the game, you run into the issue of countries with money growing their income exponentially, leading to rampant snowballing. The monarch power system, while a major abstraction, does simulate the fact that the ability of a country to administer its territory does not automatically grow linearly with size, especially in the early modern era where so much depended on the ruler and a few people around him/her.

 

[tuareg109]

Listen, don't worry, you're allowed to double over with laughter every time you hear the name Chuck Norris. I promise I won't take away your dank memes.

I know that, fans of historical games that we are, we take a certain interest in history. But this fixation with 5 year old memes is getting depressing. An idea though: since you've already lifted mana from fantasy games, you can take a page out of Witcher 3's book and feature advanced AI and dynamic gameplay.