I like the idea that movign your capital to a more developped province should be less expensive.
- 11
EU4 - Dev Diary - September 17th
- Thread starter Wizzington
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
...How exactly when every 100 development gives you a 5% discount? Tiny states don't even have 100 development, let alone 300 which is the point where the new capital development discount will be higher than than the current discount? Jesus Christ, read what's written at the very least.
- 13
Moving your capital to another continent requires you to only have one province at your home continent, I don't think you'll be rocking 1000 total development at that point.
- 32
- 2
Are there any plans to enable random lucky nations in ironman? I like ironman and going for achievements but seeing the same countries do well every game can get tiring.
- 2
Love the developement changes! It seems like a good solution to me. The achievement UI is gonna be a godsend too.
Question: Will Revanchism be effected by the doubled War Score cost to take provinces from non co-belligerents? For instance, if I seperate peace out an ally for 100% WS, do they get 50% or 100% Revanchism?
Question: Will Revanchism be effected by the doubled War Score cost to take provinces from non co-belligerents? For instance, if I seperate peace out an ally for 100% WS, do they get 50% or 100% Revanchism?
- 2
You'll be able to play whatever settings you want in Ironman as of 1.14, but achievements will still require historical lucky.
- 15
- 3
@Wiz any ETA for the mothball/activate forts button on low resolution computers? And is revanchism linked to cores that exist before 1444? France, Bizantium?
With all due respect, I think you might be underestimating the effects. Looking at the screenshot at hand - I am aware the numbers might change - 50% manpower increase in the early game are huge! Especially if the nation that won this war doesn't get it. This mechanic can lead to the wierd situation that by the time the truce is done, the nation that got trashed in the war will be back up to snuff, while the nation that won (maybe hard-earned, by spending all of its manpower) will still be recovering.
That's very silly. Losing a war does not make your nation stronger. If you guys want to fix the Blood-In-The-Water-Calls-For-Sharks-Effect that sometimes gets nations like France killed in multiple wars, then tweak the AI's peace-deal behaviour. Currently the AI is programmed to fight to the last man, since it will not accept peace deals higher than the current war score, even when being drastically out-numbered, out-teched or out-classed. A player in such a nation would cut their losses and accept and unfavourable peace instead of tanking their economy - pretty much what you want to save the AI from.
So yeah, polishing up on that AI would be the smarter design, instead of just slapping a fat, ahistorical modifier onto things.
- 21
- 7
i doubt that....
if you take lucky nation from muscovy for example the achievment baltic crusader would be to easy...
second part was already answered. No they don't count. No buff for byzantinum and france
- 1
Why not just have increased manpower recovery for all nations coming out of wars or "while at peace"? Manpower is in such short supply these days you'd still want to manage your manpower well during wars, but it would cut down on speed 5 play while you wait an eternity to recover afterward.
- 1
Well, play the Ottos, conquer Asia profiting from cheap coring, sell your Turkish and Greek provinces to a vassal or "lose" them in wars by releasing primary culture tags (for which you now also get Revanchism, I assume), then move your capital to Asia and core Europe cheaply. This saves you a ton of admin points, profiting from the distant overseas modifier twice. At this point, you're rolling in cash, so losing the 500 or so dev from those provinces is not really a deal breaker.
- 13
- 1
- 1
This is basically an exploit, so why should it be cared about.
- 14
- 1
I like Revanchism, not because it benefits me, but because it stops me just continually pounding on Russia or the Ottomans in quick successive wars while they are still recovering. I want to feel like poking the bear will result in me getting my tuckus handed to me ten years later when they're still pissed and back at strength.
One thought though: revanchism should probably impact a nation's willingness to go to war. Maybe I go to war with Otto in order to give them war exhaustion and beat down their armies, specifically to prevent them getting involved in other wars, to stop them honouring alliances, or limit their expansion. Allowing them to rebound quickly from this in order to not be ganked by every neighbour is good, but the 'cost' for this should maybe be a reduction in their willingness to get involved in wars, just to allow us to still wage strategic beat downs.
One thought though: revanchism should probably impact a nation's willingness to go to war. Maybe I go to war with Otto in order to give them war exhaustion and beat down their armies, specifically to prevent them getting involved in other wars, to stop them honouring alliances, or limit their expansion. Allowing them to rebound quickly from this in order to not be ganked by every neighbour is good, but the 'cost' for this should maybe be a reduction in their willingness to get involved in wars, just to allow us to still wage strategic beat downs.
- 1
Those are some goodies!
Revanchism in reality mostly relates to a specific enemy that motivates a future reconquest. Maybe combat-changing bonus like moral could be active only when in battle against x or in the territory of x?
Revanchism in reality mostly relates to a specific enemy that motivates a future reconquest. Maybe combat-changing bonus like moral could be active only when in battle against x or in the territory of x?
- 2
Revanchism sounds dangerously exploitable in MP.
Temporarily ceding territories to an ally to gain an edge over a common threat, etc.
Temporarily ceding territories to an ally to gain an edge over a common threat, etc.
- 2
My suggestion for preventing changing small provinces (i.e Shetlands) into gigantic metropolises is to place a time-based limit on development, for example limit a province to 5 development upgrades in 50 years. London and Paris weren't built in a day, after all.
- 2
- 2