EU4 - Dev Diary - September 17th

[hashinshin]

Fair points, I was more thinking of the mid to late game, when the world is pretty much divided between humans (depending on your game maybe 1600+). In the early game, it's not viable to flip so many provinces, since they are a large share of your land base. I'm also (unspokenly) assuming you are not playing with randoms who are out to troll you. Like I said, there could always be a betrayal, but would you really backstab your best buddy, larges neighbour *and* forsake a very beneficial agreement for generating Revanchism?
Depending on the final numbers, this is just a simple math problem. If you flip provinces that give you 15,000 manpower, you'd get 1,500 per year or 22,500 in 15 years. If your base manpower is something like 120,000, ie 12,000 per year then a +50% recovery decaying linearly over 20 years gives you 58,500 over the course of just the first 15 years. Hell yeah, I'd take that! If the tax increase is on the same level, it is actually beneficial to not keep the provinces but to give them back. There is no trust needed, just self-interest! And I can't even calculate the morale bonus because we have no numbers, but it will be very very potent since it directly increases your combat strength relative to your enemies, which is otherwise pretty much out of your influence apart from taking certain ideas and keeping your prestige high. And Revanchism goes on top of perfect combat stats too, giving you the absolute edge against the whole world!

The way my MP games go it would be borderline irresponsible to let all the AI get wiped out. While players will always work together to take out AI, players will also work together to ensure AI lives to keep other players from expanding. For example: In my previous game Me (brandenburg) Russia and the Ottomans formed a triple alliance to take down the commonwealth. The commonwealth had grown stronger than a single player (due to a bunch of reasons that I won't get in to right now) and it's general AI dickishness had inspired a triple alliance to finally beat them down. The Papal states and Switzerland though promptly allied the commonwealth and formed their own triple alliance to keep us from expanding in to them.

Also, we've coined the phrase Bohemian Backstab. At some point in the game Bohemia will perform their famed backstab in spectacular fashion. You gotta play around the Bohemian Backstab.

Either way, I imagine if you're talking late late game then this might be a viable tactic, but late game has a whole slew of issues anyway (wars taking 50 years due to every fort needing 2 years of sieging.)

 

[Lee Saxon]

Can we get a change to "your vassals get Unlawful Territory demands even if you're allied with the emperor, and will accept those demands even if they have claims" in 1.14?

 

[Johan]

There's one thing that is not mentioned here as its not 100% finished yet, but it is connected alot with revanchism in multiplayer.

There is now an option called 'restrict nation ruining', which stops a human from doing certain things while having revanchism. Like trucebreaking, selling provinces, send gifts, etc..

Losing 99 WS of core provinces in mid-late game is hugely stupid, as it takes some time to actually get the WS up to 99 for the other in the first place, causing rather bad results for the one wanting a shortterm boost.. It would have been far better to not fight the war in the first place.

 

[Gringovoir]

I am always turning off CS as I don't want other nations to increase development. Then when I need to dump military MPs I turn it on without unpausing, spend MP and reload again without CS. Cumbersome and speaks bad of the design, but I'll live (development costing money and MPs would have been so much more logical though).

Another weird thing is that I think currently ticking IA score is different for games with CS and without as there are free cities in CS. Any plans to equalize the IA progress?

 

[Atlantians]

Oh Great Wiz, what plans are there to rework the Culture mechanics in the game?
What about the way cultures are accepted?

Would it be possible to change the 'accepted culture' mechanic to allow a player to make a particular culture more acceptable by using MP?

Maybe like annexation or coring, you can invest DIP and ADM MP to 'bring a culture into acceptance'? Or lower the threshold?
Or perhaps maybe a building can be used to lower the threshold? Like an 'arts center' or some kind of tourist attraction or the like?

Currently the only way to do this in a precise way, is to invest large amounts of MP in developing provinces in the desired culture provinces in order to raise their Development up to 20%.

This works, but is a bit of a work around rather than an intentional redesign of the Culture mechanic.
And that workaround does not work for cultures like Albanian, who only have one province which itself is very hard to develop.

What say you, oh Great and powerful Wiz?

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

I am always turning off CS as I don't want other nations to increase development. Then when I need to dump military MPs I turn it on without unpausing, spend MP and reload again without CS. Cumbersome and speaks bad of the design, but I'll live (development costing money and MPs would have been so much more logical though).

Another weird thing is that I think currently ticking IA score is different for games with CS and without as there are free cities in CS. Any plans to equalize the IA progress?

So just to be sure, you deliberately set your game up so you can spend MPs on development, but not anybody else, and you say this "speaks bad of the design"? That sounds more like an exploit to me.

 

[Gringovoir]

So just to be sure, you deliberately set your game up so you can spend MPs on development, but not anybody else, and you say this "speaks bad of the design"? That sounds more like an exploit to me.

Exactly. Not having another uses of military MPs, unrealistic development increases from AI in combination with too high coring costs and the need to work around it by my tactic is bad design.

 

[Atlantians]

I have noticed the AI spending MP on Development in irrational ways.

I took a province that was a grain province and the AI had dumped their MP into developing production. In a grain province.

 

[SchwarzerKaiser]

It would also be nice if you could finally fix the diplomat bug where you are notified one month too late that he can't increase relations with a nation anymore. Especially now that you've removed the relation improvement upon sending the diplomat to another nation, it is really annoying if you're essentially wasting a month of relation improvement (especially when the nations in question are colonial nations that are far away and your diplomat needs more than 30 days to return).

 

[bbqftw]

That's all for today. Next week we'll be talking about the Steppes and the Nomads that inhabit them.

uh oh...

 

[Wagonlitz]

Sure.
You said the culture convert button is equivalent to the nazi's rounding up and exterminating people.

Because that is practically what happens when you press the in game convert culture button.

In this time period that's not true at all. In fact the only comparison to that is Christopher Columbus working the entire native populations to death on the Caribbean islands - which he was tried and convicted of genocide.

You are talking in history; not in game here. And I agree that in history there are very few examples of such genocides. The biggest (pre 20th century) probably is what Ghengis Khan did though that is outside the time frame.
But we are talking in game here and like so many other things the culture convert button doesn't simulate how things actually happened.

The culture convert button is more an effort to make the populations adopt your culture. Only giving patronage to those who speak your language.outlawing the native language. Banning ethnic clothing and festivals. Intermarrying. Sending elites off to school in your culture. Etc....
Sometimes its harsh with penalties, other times its through incentives.

No. That would be more like the settlement policies of EU3; which too were ahistorical, but at least more rooted in history given how it happened in the same way in Scania after the Swedish conquest.
Though cultural conversion of a large stretch of land pretty much never happened in this time frame---bar the land being almost empty due to diseases.

No what happens with that button is pretty much rounding people up and eliminating them. How else do you think you can make a province go from say French to German in 2 years? It is not possible to assimilate the population that fast at all. No what happens is that you send in settlers from the mother country and dispose of the locals in some way. Now they could be expelled, but since they don't show up anywhere they aren't. Instead it must be assumed they for the most part are rounded up and killed. There is simply no other way you can e.g. convert most of Poland to German in 5 years. Forced assimilation takes way longer: Scania was under military rule fr 60 years after the conquest and it took decades before Danish books stopped being printed there---let alone until Danish stopped being spoken. And that is between two really close languages/cultures.

 

[zukodark]

Because that is practically what happens when you press the in game convert culture button.

You are talking in history; not in game here. And I agree that in history there are very few examples of such genocides. The biggest (pre 20th century) probably is what Ghengis Khan did though that is outside the time frame.
But we are talking in game here and like so many other things the culture convert button doesn't simulate how things actually happened.

No. That would be more like the settlement policies of EU3; which too were ahistorical, but at least more rooted in history given how it happened in the same way in Scania after the Swedish conquest.
Though cultural conversion of a large stretch of land pretty much never happened in this time frame---bar the land being almost empty due to diseases.

No what happens with that button is pretty much rounding people up and eliminating them. How else do you think you can make a province go from say French to German in 2 years? It is not possible to assimilate the population that fast at all. No what happens is that you send in settlers from the mother country and dispose of the locals in some way. Now they could be expelled, but since they don't show up anywhere they aren't. Instead it must be assumed they for the most part are rounded up and killed. There is simply no other way you can e.g. convert most of Poland to German in 5 years. Forced assimilation takes way longer: Scania was under military rule fr 60 years after the conquest and it took decades before Danish books stopped being printed there---let alone until Danish stopped being spoken. And that is between two really close languages/cultures.

If you were eliminating them, wouldn't it have costed military points? Wouldn't the development go down? You also have to think what you need for it work. It has to be a core, your religion, and to not have separatism. Also their primary nation cannot exist. I'd think that a province without separatism, that is your core, and your religion, already had adopted some of your culture and language. What you are doing is spreading your own culture and language to them, so that is a bigger part of them than their old ways. Not necessarily making them completely forget their old ways. There is no "culture percentage" in eu4. And have you seen how much time it takes to convert a province? 10 months per development. 2,5 years to convert a minimum development province. 16 years for a 20 development province. After how the mechanic actually work, I'd think the culture convert button actually converts the population to your culture. It isn't exactly a misleading name. If it was genocide, it wouldn't be important whether the were your religion or not.

 

[User4035]

Because that is practically what happens when you press the in game convert culture button.

You are talking in history; not in game here. And I agree that in history there are very few examples of such genocides. The biggest (pre 20th century) probably is what Ghengis Khan did though that is outside the time frame.
But we are talking in game here and like so many other things the culture convert button doesn't simulate how things actually happened.

No. That would be more like the settlement policies of EU3; which too were ahistorical, but at least more rooted in history given how it happened in the same way in Scania after the Swedish conquest.
Though cultural conversion of a large stretch of land pretty much never happened in this time frame---bar the land being almost empty due to diseases.

No what happens with that button is pretty much rounding people up and eliminating them. How else do you think you can make a province go from say French to German in 2 years? It is not possible to assimilate the population that fast at all. No what happens is that you send in settlers from the mother country and dispose of the locals in some way. Now they could be expelled, but since they don't show up anywhere they aren't. Instead it must be assumed they for the most part are rounded up and killed. There is simply no other way you can e.g. convert most of Poland to German in 5 years. Forced assimilation takes way longer: Scania was under military rule fr 60 years after the conquest and it took decades before Danish books stopped being printed there---let alone until Danish stopped being spoken. And that is between two really close languages/cultures.

Yet again why EU5 should have population.

 

[chrnno]

Because that is practically what happens when you press the in game convert culture button.

You are talking in history; not in game here. And I agree that in history there are very few examples of such genocides. The biggest (pre 20th century) probably is what Ghengis Khan did though that is outside the time frame.
But we are talking in game here and like so many other things the culture convert button doesn't simulate how things actually happened.

No. That would be more like the settlement policies of EU3; which too were ahistorical, but at least more rooted in history given how it happened in the same way in Scania after the Swedish conquest.
Though cultural conversion of a large stretch of land pretty much never happened in this time frame---bar the land being almost empty due to diseases.

No what happens with that button is pretty much rounding people up and eliminating them. How else do you think you can make a province go from say French to German in 2 years? It is not possible to assimilate the population that fast at all. No what happens is that you send in settlers from the mother country and dispose of the locals in some way. Now they could be expelled, but since they don't show up anywhere they aren't. Instead it must be assumed they for the most part are rounded up and killed. There is simply no other way you can e.g. convert most of Poland to German in 5 years. Forced assimilation takes way longer: Scania was under military rule fr 60 years after the conquest and it took decades before Danish books stopped being printed there---let alone until Danish stopped being spoken. And that is between two really close languages/cultures.

What happens when you press the button is a countdown and then the culture of the province magically changes to yours. That's all. Arbitrary game mechanic is arbitrary and relates to nothing whatsoever.

 

[Scottx105]

Revanchism sounds cool, but make sure its not too strong. I can just imagine Byzantium only just winning against Ottomans (tried playing it this patch, ridiculously hard now as even getting PLU alliance is near impossible unless you get rival ottomans plus dip rep +1 with iron man on normal difficulty) and then in 10 years being attacked (cant remember peace time length, I think its 10 years so take this with a pinch of salt) by an OP army with greater moral, manpower, money ect.

 

[redsimonDE]

Ironman and Achievements Rework
A much requested feature since the release of EU4 has been the ability to use Ironman along with mods, which hasn't been generally possible due to the fact that Ironman acted as a test for whether you were playing an unmodified game, and thus whether you could get achievements. In 1.14 we've reworked this so that achievements and ironman have been decoupled, and playing ironman is always possible regardless of what mods you might be running. Ironman will still be required for achievements, and you'll still only get achievements if you are playing an unmodified game. 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. It will also show you whether your game qualifies for achievements, and if not, why not. 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!

Please add this to CKII, it is much needed there as well.

 

[grisamentum]

especially in the early modern era where so much depended on the ruler and a few people around him/her.

Is this an appeal to historical realism?

Since we're entertaining the topic, it's worth noting that one of the defining and notable features of the game's era was the END of exactly what you're saying - and relatively early. Administration as a profession, bureaucracy, and the law as a profession had already begun to emerge in the 13th century. Obviously this happened faster in some places (like England) than others.

One of the most annoying things about MP has always been that there's no shift away from "personal MP" towards modern administrative systems - even though that was a defining feature of the era.

 

[Balesir]

Since we're entertaining the topic, it's worth noting that one of the defining and notable features of the game's era was the END of exactly what you're saying - and relatively early. Administration as a profession, bureaucracy, and the law as a profession had already begun to emerge in the 13th century. Obviously this happened faster in some places (like England) than others.

One of the most annoying things about MP has always been that there's no shift away from "personal MP" towards modern administrative systems - even though that was a defining feature of the era.

I would agree with something of a gradual shift as the game goes on - policies that generate ongoing MPs, say, alongside a more pronounced inflation in MP costs as the game progresses - but I'm far from convinced that this period saw the end of the effects of monarchial influence on the development of the state.A reduction, possibly, but certainly not an end. The influence of the later Georges on the parliamentary and governmental policy in Britain was still very pronounced. Royal patronage and direct influence was still an immense factor in the development of the realm, affecting everything from the selection of crown officers to the shaping of political debate, the formation of governments and the success or otherwise of social movements and fashions.

 

[firesoul]

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'. Revanchism goes from 0-100%, and is gained when a country is defeated in war and stripped of territory, with the amount of revanchism depending on how much was lost. 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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(history)

I'm not sure I approve of this Revanchism. Countries taking serious damage to tax, manpower etc as a result of wars is historical, and losing a war can really doom a country to be destroyed and partitioned by all its neighbours.

 

[grommile]

I'm not sure I approve of this Revanchism. Countries taking serious damage to tax, manpower etc as a result of wars is historical, and losing a war can really doom a country to be destroyed and partitioned by all its neighbours.

Death spirals make for engaging history, but horrible gameplay.