• 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.

EU4 - Development Diary - 1st of November 2016

Hi everyone, and welcome to another development diary for Europa Universalis IV. This time its rather meaty and is about major gameplay changes for the 1.19 patch.

While we were reasonably happy with how Fort and Zone of Control has played out since introduced over a year ago, it has had one major drawback. The rules have so many cases to keep track of that it was practically impossible to make all cases clear to the player. This causes much confusion amongst players, who also had an experience that was not as great as they had hoped while playing.

So now Zone of Control have changed completely. Instead of affecting a province and sometimes blocking passage in adjacent provinces, Zone of Control rules are now area based.

Areas = The same map division that States/Territories are organsied around. And which 1.19 will show thicker borders around.


A Forts is:
  • hostile if it is controlled by someone you are at war with.
  • friendly if it is controlled by you, or by someone on your side in any war, unless you are at war with them (should not happen).
  • neutral otherwise.


An area is:
  • friendly if it has at least one friendly fort and no hostile fort.
  • hostile if it has at least one hostile fort and no friendly fort.
  • contested if it has at least one hostile fort and at least one friendly fort.
  • neutral otherwise.

Zone of Control blocks an army to move between two adjacent provinces if they belong to different areas, one of which is hostile and the other being either hostile or contested.

(Note that movement within areas is never blocked by Zone of Control)

An occupied province without a fort will flip back to its owner's control if there is in the area at least one non-besieged fort controlled by him but no hostile forts.

To ensure an army can always reach the fort that is blocking it from moving and then come back after sieging it down, all armies can ignore Military Access in all non-neutral areas

Rebels never impact hostile rules, and yes, Capital Forts now work like all other forts.

In order to stop the enemy from reaching the interior of your country, you will often need to have one fort in every area.. Even without that though, forts can force the enemy to make detours unless they first siege down some forts.

While doing this, an average country ends up with more forts than before, so maintenance have been halved.

While doing these changes, we have tweaked the map dramatically, adding in lots of wastelands to give natural borders, and also made a big revision to the area setup, so now areas are pretty much all between 3-5 provinces, giving a more even balance.

eu4_131.png





We have added a new peace treaty as well in 1.19, called “End Rivalry”. This peace option force the enemy to remove one of their Rivals. The removed Rival cannot be added again until 15 years after removed.


We play the game quite a lot every week, and read far more on what issues you as players have. So we keep balancing and changing things to make for a greater player experience. In 1.19 we have some rather important changes to how you play the game.

Combat has been changed a bit as well in this patch, as we removed the combat width penalties from terrain, as it made battles last way too long, and was a double defensive bonus combined with diceroll penalties.

Sieging units will no longer get a rivercrossing penalty if a relieving force engages them, even if they did cross a river a few days, months or years earlier.

We have changed the chance to increase colonysize from colonist being placed to instead being a lower the bigger the colony becomes. Previously it was pretty much a no-brainer to keep it as long as possible, as it became better the bigger the colony is. Now íts more of a choice..

Another complaint was the fixed levels of liberty desire that got applied to vassals and marches as they grew past certain arbitrary limits. Now it is scaling by development of the subject so you can always judge impact of their growth.

For those of you that care about score, Great Powers are now likelier to be getting score each month, as they have a default +5 rating in each category. Also maintaining enough forts is now an impact on your military score gain.

Corruption is now not entirely 100% bad, as a country with 100 corruption will now get -20 unrest in their realm.

Courthouse & Town Halls no longer affect unrest but instead reduce state maintainance by 25% and 50% respectively, while their building costs have been halved.

The Casus Belli from Expansion and Exploration Ideagroups did not really work as great as before with the new technology system, so in 1.19 they are getting changed. The Casus Belli themselves are gone..

Exploration Finisher now allows you to fabricate claim on another continent that is in your capital in a colonial region. (Colonial Subjects can do it everywhere in a colonial region.)

Expansion Finisher now allows you to fabricate claims inside any trade company region that is on another continent than your capital. (Without Wealth of Nations, it is any overseas port not in a colonial region, and not in europe.)

At the same time, distance impact on building spy networks have been dropped to 1/10th of before.

For those of you that have Rights of Man, we are now adding even more things. In 1.19, Trade Goods will have a local impact. A Grain Province gives +0.5 Land Force Limit, Iron gives 20% Faster Building Construction & Ivory gives 20% cheaper state maintenance.

We have also improved the “trading in good” - bonus, where some are almost twice as powerful as before, and some have changed completely.

Next week we'll be back talking about all interface improvements for 1.19.
 
  • 239
  • 57
  • 26
Reactions:
Absolutely mind blowing! Can't wait for it to come out.

Wouldn't the removal of combat width penalty prevent what little use of choke-points (specifically mountains) that was in the game? Without it, there's no way for a smaller force to hold a larger one off.

There still isn't. There never will be.

To hold off an army merely 2x your size you need Prussia vs. an enemy with no combat modifiers, defending in good terrain. Anything beyond that is basically going full mil ideas versus someone with none.

We will never see defenses because it's WAY too easy to stack huge amounts of troops in to a battle with the removal of in-combat attrition. Every battle will continue to be "pile in your entire standing army" until battles are made much quicker.

I really wish we'd get both combat attrition and a lot more emphasis on the effects of different terrain (differences in siege time, combat width, general effectiveness of entire unit types or maybe even units belonging to a certain technology type) to make combat a lot more tactical. Likweise, also feel that we need seatile modifiers like "strong currents", etc. to have a similar effect regarding naval battles.
 
  • 18
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Corruption is now not entirely 100% bad, as a country with 100 corruption will now get -20 unrest in their realm.

I asked this on Twitter, but never got a response. How does this make any sense? A corrupt government was far more likely to face unrest and rebellions.
 
  • 37
  • 3
Reactions:
@Johan Was smaller combat width really that bad? It added strategy to combat. If you had a smaller army but with better stats you could win a fight. Now you will get flanked and loose more. What is the real reason to removing it? :(
 
  • 55
  • 2
Reactions:
I really wish we'd get both combat attrition and a lot more emphasis on the effects of different terrain (differences in siege time, combat width, general effectiveness of entire unit types or maybe even units belonging to a certain technology type) to make combat a lot more tactical. Likweise, also feel that we need seatile modifiers like "strong currents", etc. to have a similar effect regarding naval battles.

While personally I'd love to see additions to combat, I suspect the AI would have a major issue with this complexity.
Was combat attrition ever in the game? I don't remember which version I started playing from, but it's been at least 3 years.
Siege time is affected by the terrain.
I'd suggest ideas, but seems like the trend is to make combat have less modifiers, not more.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Then won't Portugal have any safe zone?

For those of you that have Rights of Man, we are now adding even more things. In 1.19, Trade Goods will have a local impact. A Grain Province gives +0.5 Land Force Limit, Iron gives 20% Faster Building Construction & Ivory gives 20% cheaper state maintenance.
+0.5 naval force limit for naval supplies too?
 
  • 22
Reactions:
Cheers for the DD Johan :). While I did like the idea of combat width in a tactical sense, I do think faster battles will work better (as they're not really tactical battles in any event, and it's not as if the armies of the day couldn't all have it at once if they didn't want to (mountain passes and the like aside, but I expect these battles'll still take enough days to feel plausible in terms of not being too short). As @Pawelo342 suggests though, is there a chance this could mess with the balance between large and smaller armies (in effect, buffing the +force limit bonuses by making them relatively more effective than going a smaller army but better quality route?)

For system sounds interesting as well. I kinda liked how it is currently (playing EU4 at the moment), but there's no doubt that system is far more transparent and easier to convoy to players (and as a side bonus, makes fort layout a little more straightforward as well), and sounds like it'll work pretty much just as well.

Not sure about corruption and unrest - feels counterintuitive (like debase the currency - it's lowering the value of the wealth held by everyone, but it raises corruption, so you're robbing everyone and they thank you for it :) Also might work a bit odd with overextension - unless, of course, either mechanic changed).

The changes on those two finishes definitely sound good - am playing a colonial/trade game, and while it still works generally, it does feel a little wonky at times.

All in all, sounds pretty good. Am hugely impressed with how EU4 has grown and evolved over time - it became my most played game ever this week, and it's in no danger of getting put in retirement anytime soon :cool:.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
So... what is the practical difference between contested and hostile? It seems like they behave exactly the same?
 
Combat has been changed a bit as well in this patch, as we removed the combat width penalties from terrain, as it made battles last way too long, and was a double defensive bonus combined with diceroll penalties.

Small nations in rough terrain like Georgia, the Balkan countries or Andean natives are already hopelessly underpowered against major nations. It's not just that they lose, it's that they dont even impose a cost that might act as a disincentive. By making it even easier for majors to crush them with sheer force of numbers you are making a game that is already ridiculously prone to ahistorical blobs now have even more incentive for ahistorical blobbing.
 
  • 43
  • 2
Reactions:
I'm really impressed and amazed by 1.19. Forts/ZOC will be easier to understand and deal with, and the introduction of development as a concept from Common Sense is bringing more and more enhacements to the game. Kudos for that idea!

But what I'm really loving is this:
For those of you that have Rights of Man, we are now adding even more things. In 1.19, Trade Goods will have a local impact. A Grain Province gives +0.5 Land Force Limit, Iron gives 20% Faster Building Construction & Ivory gives 20% cheaper state maintenance.

We have also improved the “trading in good” - bonus, where some are almost twice as powerful as before, and some have changed completely.

Local bonuses are good for specialization, and whatever makes the struggle for controlling trade more of a decisive thing is welcomed to a better representation of this era. I love so much what you're doing with central EU features... like culture revamp since The Cossacks. I'm looking forward to policies... 1.20, maybe?
 
Last edited:
  • 4
Reactions:
Can you add a peace option to cede a province for a limited time? Like how Sweden got Halland from Denmark for 30 years in the Second Treaty of Brömsebro (1645). That could cost 50% province warscore. Then in the next war you can permanently cede it (like in Treaty of Roskilde (1658)). This means you can take a province in 2 wars for 50%+50%=100%. That would be very useful if you don't have enough warscore from the first war! If you are going to add this feature it makes sense to introduce it in the Denmark patch!
 
  • 22
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions:
Some really interesting changes, particularly the fort ZOCs. Will need some getting used to

I would love since you added anotehr peace treaty option to add "Take maps" in the peace treaty as well

I totally agree with this one. It also should not have any restriction like the 'share maps' currently have
 
  • 19
Reactions:
Really like the fort changes. Now you can build sort of forward bases to make sure that certain areas are contested before you go to war. Enemy has a mountain fort? build a fort of your own to make the area contested.

Expansion and Exploration finishers are very lackluster imo.
I don't know if they fix the ease with which native amaerican tags adopt institutions and reform then you will still have the force migration cb on them anyway.
 
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
We have changed the chance to increase colonysize from colonist being placed to instead being a lower the bigger the colony becomes. Previously it was pretty much a no-brainer to keep it as long as possible, as it became better the bigger the colony is. Now íts more of a choice..
Cheers for a very interesting dev diary this week! So in essence the plot of settler chance vs. time has now been inverted? You have a higher chance of attracting settlers early on than later? I take it this is to make it more enticing to remove a colonist before a colony is finished and send him elsewhere, in which case I'll probably be seeing it a lot, as I pretty routinely run more colonies than my colonist number.

Should also make it easier to avoid having a colony wiped out by natives, as you'll have be able to grow fast enough early on to prevent them wiping out the colony completely. Maybe.

Edit: I also like the changes to Courthouses and Town Halls, should make them more useful. And forts, I think I actually understand all the rules mentioned. :)
 
Last edited:
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Good stuff, thanks Johan.

Nice to see the long awaited ZoC rework. Coupled with the addressing of crossing penalties being corrected during siege battles, forts sound like they will be much more tactically useful now without feeling counter intuitive.

Removing combat width penalty based on terrain may be ok, but if they are being removed to avoid duplication with the dice roll penalty, maybe the flat dice roll penalty should be increased by -1 in all cases? I'll wait to play and see how this works, but without this I feel like the significance of laying ambushes and traps in mountain provinces may not work too well for smaller, more quality based armies against larger foes.

Like the change to courthouse bonus, feels more consistent with the real world work of the building.

Not played colonial yet, so will let others discuss changes there.

Love that the trade goods of a province give a specific bonus related to them. Looking forward to seeing how powerful the bonuses are for controlling majority global supply.

All in all, a nice meaty update. Thanks again!
 
  • 3
Reactions: