EU4 - Dev Diary - September 17th

[tobias.mb]

Clicking 'Play' will pop up a window that asks you whether you want to play Ironman or not

Can this be turned off? Because clicking it every time I start a new game will get annoying very quickly. Maybe a checkbox "don't show this dialogue again"?

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.

I'm just throwing in an Idea here, and I don't know if it is possible but maybe make the terrain modifiers multiplicative instead of additive? The way it is now, after 20 development terrain hardly matters anymore compared to the current development modifier.
I feel like developing the shetlands should always be 20% more expensive than developing London (at the same dev. level) and not just flat 10 points more expensive

Revanchism increases tax income, fort defense, manpower recovery speed and morale substantially

If I make a peacedeal with the warleader, where I take provinces from secondary participants, who gets revanchism? I assume it is the one who actually lost the provinces?
You alrready said, if taking 100% WS worth provinces from non co-beligerents, they still only get 50% revanchism. But what about other modifiers, that change the warscore cost of provinces? I'm thinking of NIs like Bohemia or aristocratic Ideas, but also diplomatic Ideas.

 

[Reyfou]

I think Revanchism should only trigger if you lose a war to a rival...

 

[Zoob]

Can this be turned off? Because clicking it every time I start a new game will get annoying very quickly. Maybe a checkbox "don't show this dialogue again"?

Oh Jesus Christ

 

[FieldMedic]

I'm a bit concerned the revanchism is going to make France even more indestructible. They already seem to resurrect from near death at an alarming rate. Otherwise I think it's an interesting idea.

 

[TheDungen]

Albania for the win!

Yeah there should probably be some drawback for having any culture larger than yoru primary culture. Like massivly increased separatism.

 

[TheDungen]

I'm a bit concerned the revanchism is going to make France even more indestructible. They already seem to resurrect from near death at an alarming rate. Otherwise I think it's an interesting idea.

Perhaps but it'll also make anyone they like pummeling more indestructible.

 

[Cymsdale]

We're changing Ironman to be quarterly.

A small step in the right direction.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If you're willing to give up large tracts of core territory for a temporary modifier I don't think you're playing terribly optimally.

You might want to tie it to province war score, and not just any war score then, lest rich players effectively buy revanchism using ducats, forced trade power, etc.

 

[Zander]

You might want to tie it to province war score, and not just any war score then, lest rich players effectively buy revanchism using ducats, forced trade power, etc.

Yeah, his phrasing in that reply made me wonder if that was already the case and just not made clear in the original post.

 

[TheDungen]

You might want to tie it to province war score, and not just any war score then, lest rich players effectively buy revanchism using ducats, forced trade power, etc.

Gee because gold becomming more useful would be such a tragedy. Also I seem to remember there beign some revanchism based on economic reparations after ww1.

 

[Chief Iacid]

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

Here's a suggestion: The cost reduction for the capital based on your country's total development would only apply for the initial capital the nation starts with. If the capital gets moved, it's changed to a flat 10%. Of course, this means that you'll have to keep track of whether the capital is an initial or "moved" capital.

 

[Quaade]

At first I had an issue with your development improvements since I misread it and thought it was province development so the benefit would still be most for OPM however the other issue that persist, a balance between improving a large empire and smaller nations is still off since smaller nations have more points to spare to upgrade even bad terrain. I´m not supporting it to be equal, since playing a smaller nation should have it´s benefits and should be able to advande inwards better than an empire. But it begs to differ, that empires were able to invest vastly into even bad provinces because they needed to or felt like it. I do suppose they´re not cheated since the increased cost of smaller nations is held up against the empires more provinces that could be developed for less.

But still, it makes little sense that empire has no way to improve bad terrain better than smaller nations with less people to move there or less money to invest into this. For gameplay reasons I kinda understands it, but is this the sole reason PDX?

Revanchism sounds kinda okay, while I´m still reserved on that one. It gives me, the player a better reason to keep playing when I´m suffering from a defeat. But please, improve the AI to be more active instead at the least. What good does revanchism do to Mamluks against Ottomans, when they simply sit there and wait for them to grow. Otto already has other benefits over Mamluks like tech group and ideas, but seeing Mamluks not attacking Otto or Qara or south even when they are at their weakest is terrible.

It´s not that AI is never aggressive, but simply having them react to their elected rivals instead of simply watching them grow since they would know their rival is getting more power, yet even when chance presents itself to expand diplomatically or militaristic they do nothing (would also help them later when different rivals are elected into expanding outside their natural borders, instead of just being content with it).

My main issue with revanchism is, that what good does it to the AI when it does nothing to improve it´s situation? In the case of Mamluks and Otto, they already lost one war and several provinces to them due to not being able to fight them, would good does getting manpower recovery and a tax income boost, compared to the loss of provinces when they keep waiting until Otto does it all over again?

Also, less provinces in peace-deal would make dogpiling and the use of this revanchism better, since losing 3-5 provinces to one enemy wouldn´t count for much but being dogpiled and losing 6-10 not so bad compared to now where you effectively can take 8-12 provinces in each war and that´s not counting if you get dogpiled by another war, which for most nations would leave them annexed or having 3-5 provinces left.

 

[Zander]

I feel like one thing the system could use is a discount to larger nations developing their capital. That would help reflect the fact that historically these tended to become more central over time. However, some thought would have to go into how to prevent capital moves being used to exploit this system: perhaps some kind of cooldown/timer on the discount.

Hey, that's a really good idea, they should implement that.

 

[Ciccillo Rre]

Honestly I don't like that whenever a new game starts, one has to choose whether to play Ironman or not. Another boring click when I just want to start a new game.

Revanchism is going to be great though.

 

[Wizzington]

You might want to tie it to province war score, and not just any war score then, lest rich players effectively buy revanchism using ducats, forced trade power, etc.

Core province warscore, yes.

 

[LemonMonk]

As said a few times before, the extra click before playing (Ironman change) will become annoying.

It's like the starting screen they added for CK2. Now when I want a new game I press load and then start a new game, just to avoid it.

 

[Wizzington]

As said a few times before, the extra click before playing (Ironman change) will become annoying.

It's like the starting screen they added for CK2. Now when I want a new game I press load and then start a new game, just to avoid it.

It's one click per new campaign started. I think you'll live.

 

[Golladan]

Here's a suggestion: The cost reduction for the capital based on your country's total development would only apply for the initial capital the nation starts with. If the capital gets moved, it's changed to a flat 10%. Of course, this means that you'll have to keep track of whether the capital is an initial or "moved" capital.

That would only mess up with all those nations that have their capital moved via events, decisions, province loss, etc.

 

[SolSys]

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.

Is it me or have we read a totally different dev-diary?
In all the counter-arguments you made the moving cost will be similar to what it is now; so what's your point again?

 

[Chief Iacid]

That would only mess up with all those nations that have their capital moved via events, decisions, province loss, etc.

Maybe we could exclude such forced or events movements, so that the capital is still considered to be "initial" after that move.