EU4 - Dev Diary - September 17th

[Latheloi]

Not sure about Revanchism!

Would seem to discourage humiliating or alliance breaking (etc) if it is warscore based.

Would relating just to lost territory make more sense? Or just reducing the amount of revanchism gained from non-territory losing peace terms?

Also, would having a counter-balance of slowing the rate that countries reduce war exhaustion when they have high revanchism

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

Could probably do it by not giving the capital development discount until the province has been capital for a while. Say 50 years. Maybe reduce it to 25 years if you are moving capital to a province with a higher total development.

 

[PhroX]

Hmm...wonder what culture the Ottomans are in the screenshot in the OP. 'Cos they appear to be able to change the culture of a Turkish province....

 

[123e55]

Ironman

can't you guys put a saving frequency option? please?
if yearly is too much , then half year. The ironman is just quite unplayable for me.

 

[zsImmortal]

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.

Finally, no more games starting non-ironman while being ticked ironman. Thank you.

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

Any chance we get to see the Mughals once in a while now? As in, are the Timurids no longer a joke/no longer nomads since they weren't actually nomads in 1444?

 

[Darkath]

In the sample picture you gave. If France now take back its provinces from Spain in another war, will Spain gain revanchism too or is it limited to some provinces based on accepted culture, religion, autonomy or other ?

Yup taking cores back shouldn't give the enemy Revanchism IMO.

 

[DominusNovus]

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.

I actually think its not an unreasonable path of development. Nations once defeated in war rarely went down a death spiral as happens in the game, and often bounced back pretty vigorously. Almost revanchist, you might say.

More importantly, it should help to slow down blobbing a bit, though making it more difficult to rule a blob would go a ways towards helping, as well.

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

Barros, could you please link to time stamps in the videos when referring to important points? Having to go through 30 minutes of video is a bit cumbersome

I am sorry but I don´t have the means to do so (severe lack of time).

 

[TheDungen]

We're also looking at ways to address the situation where for example, Scotland ends up exiled on the Shetland Isles and turns them into an implausible sprawling metropolis, so stay tuned.

You also need to change the tags in cases like that, for an example a norway that loses norway and just remains on iceland should stop being norway.

Not entirely sure I like the sound of revanschism. If too strong it will only increase rigidity in the game mechanics, meaning a constant yoyo effect. If properly balanced, maybe okay

Yoyo? You mean like reality when frand and germany (or it's predeseccors) have been bouncing alsace back and forth for the last millenia?

 

[Kinniken]

I see there's a new alert in form of a hand pointing to 3 points? What's that?

Looks like an alert for an available slider change to me

 

[josh127]

Okay, well, I'm not going to change the design for an extreme edge case exploit of the overseas mechanic. Sorry.

I really don't agree with the "why" on Barros argument, but I do agree with his argument. The problem that I see though is that the issue at hand is a development exploit, but the "fix" being given is to raise the price of moving the capital. This impacts other valid reasons you might want to move the capital. Maybe you want to collect trade somewhere else, maybe you want to be in a richer region or get overseas provinces to be non-overseas. Maybe you just want the capital in a safer place. There's plenty of valid reasons to move the capital that shouldn't require punishment for a possible exploit.

Instead, why not make it so that the capital bonus decreases over time the longer you're in a position. Say it's 50 years and every year gives an additional 1% discount, or it simply gets no discount until it hits 50 years. If you want to make exceptions for game start or a capital that gets lost in a war, that's fine too, but the point is that the "fix" would then only impact the feature being exploited.

 

[Pancakes997]

This patch is going to be glorious! Glorious I say!

 

[TheDungen]

All in all I like these changes, especially the revanchism thing, anything that inhibits blobbing is great. As for it being exploitable, they can either design the game to be fun when played as they intend or cater to rules lawyers, I prefer the former, if that means that the exploiters get away with it then so be it. People who uses the console also gets away with it, and quite frankly I don't care.

As for the development change it's nice but considering military expansion and coring is already a better use of monarch points this may be adding to that problem. Playing tall seems less feasible. My solution is this, decrease the overall costs of development so that developing aprovince to a development level (from suposed scratch) costs about 10% less than coring a province of the same value. And then add a modifier where either war exaustion or being at war or having a peace treaty increases development costs up to those 10%. That way the nations who expand by development and colonisation has an advantage when it comes to developing compared to those who conquer.
That and make more ways to turn gold into monarch points.

As for capital movement, there has been some nice suggestions here like having the decreased development cost tick up over time, and having it be cheaper to move to a more developed province.
I say do it all, tone your version down a bit AND have it tick up. Plus it being somewhat cheaper if you're moving from a less developed province to a more developed one.

 

[Wizzington]

can't you guys put a saving frequency option? please?
if yearly is too much , then half year. The ironman is just quite unplayable for me.

We're changing Ironman to be quarterly.

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

This is basically an exploit, so why should it be cared about.

Like I said before an increase of 500 points won´t invalidate that strategy but there are other circumstances where moving the capital overseas is worth it, at a point where you still might be struggling and you have to pay extra adm because of something unrelated with overseas development. It does not make sense unless the developers want to hit, yet again on gameplay seen as OP.

 

[radiatoren]

Hmm...wonder what culture the Ottomans are in the screenshot in the OP. 'Cos they appear to be able to change the culture of a Turkish province....

I would love it, if you can convert between different cultures to be able to manipulate the accepted culture threshold a bit better. Now, you either end up with too much of your own culture or you simply end up with a lot of cultures you can never get above the threshold. Thus, cultural threshold is of limited use at a certain point in the game.

 

[Zargar]

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

Easy, make it so the cost is something in the lines of ( 1 + (current capital province development - target province development) / some number) * (normal cost of moving capital) so if both provinces have the same development then its cheap to move it if not then it's expensive.

 

[aono]

This turns out not to be the case. The glorious British Empire has a full set of +3 advisors and may also be above 50% PP; OPM Scotland might not even be able to afford a full set of +1s.

Well, I should admit you're right - British Empire will have +2 to each mp. But will it solve disbalance, including that BE will need to core that all provinces?..

 

[TheDungen]

I would love it, if you can convert between different cultures to be able to manipulate the accepted culture threshold a bit better. Now, you either end up with too much of your own culture or you simply end up with a lot of cultures you can never get above the threshold. Thus, cultural threshold is of limited use at a certain point in the game.

I always figured it should be 10% of the number of provinces of your primary culture rather than 10% of your total number of provinces.

 

[zersetzung]

It is so nice, that you are still constantly working on EU4. Not only DLC's for cash but also deeper changes of the gameplay. The changes sounds good.

But im still not happy with the fort system. I like the idea but the movement is illogical. And im really hoping for new achievements especially some with a very high difficulty.

 

[Kinniken]

I always figured it should be 10% of the number of provinces of your primary culture rather than 10% of your total number of provinces.

Albania for the win!