EU4 - Development Diary - 20th of October 2020

[AlleyTheToaster]

Only if you're specifically forming Shi'ite Safavid Persia. I would actually argue that a Zoroastrian Persia should get a separate "Eranshar" tag, since several of the missions and events surrounding Persia assume or require you to be Shia (one mission specifically about the Shrines of Najaf and Kerbala).

But also who wanna play not as OPM? Besides, you can always convert to different religion. Paradox games all about creating your own history and lore. But if it's not OPM, for me it's not an option. Where's the challenge? Ajan? Just steam role whole asia. Timmies? Eh... Sistan? That's better. Just saying, just in my view, playin as big countries is no fun, too easy. Except when you wanna World Conquest, otherwise tiny nations or OPMs the only real option. Right now playing as Mogadishu, the only right nation to unify the Eastern Africa. Well, Also Pate is, if you wanna promote Ibadism too.

I mean, everybody plays how they want. and I obviously kinda joke and tease people. But also I do think small countries are way more fun.

 

[Kalderus]

But also who wanna play not as OPM? Besides, you can always convert to different religion. Paradox games all about creating your own history and lore. But if it's not OPM, for me it's not an option. Where's the challenge? Ajan? Just steam role whole asia. Timmies? Eh... Sistan? That's better. Just saying, just in my view, playin as big countries is no fun, too easy. Except when you wanna World Conquest, otherwise tiny nations or OPMs the only real option. Right now playing as Mogadishu, the only right nation to unify the Eastern Africa. Well, Also Pate is, if you wanna promote Ibadism too.

I mean, everybody plays how they want. and I obviously kinda joke and tease people. But also I do think small countries are way more fun.

I completely agree with you for single player campaigns, and although the game shouldn't specifically be balanced around multiplayer, there should be some balance aspects/options fine tuned for it.

 

[AlleyTheToaster]

I completely agree with you for single player campaigns, and although the game shouldn't specifically be balanced around multiplayer, there should be some balance aspects/options fine tuned for it.

Ah yeah, I even forgot it has MP.

 

[lcnielsen]

Only if you're specifically forming Shi'ite Safavid Persia. I would actually argue that a Zoroastrian Persia should get a separate "Eranshar" tag, since several of the missions and events surrounding Persia assume or require you to be Shia (one mission specifically about the Shrines of Najaf and Kerbala).

and while we're at it, the "Persia" tag should be renamed "Iran" since this is what all rulers from the Ilkhan Ghazan on called their realm.

 

[AlleyTheToaster]

and while we're at it, the "Persia" tag should be renamed "Iran" since this is what all rulers from the Ilkhan Ghazan on called their realm.

But not English tho. There's a mod that renames all tags to their native names. But imo in English vanilla they should stay the way Westerners called those countries.

 

[lcnielsen]

But not English tho. There's a mod that renames all tags to their native names. But imo in English vanilla they should stay the way Westerners called those countries.

So the Mongol Empire should be "Tartaria"? Ottomans should be "Turkey"? I'm fine with some flexibility (e.g. the Mughals called their realm Hindustan, but it makes sense to have separate tags) but there's no good reason to use "Persia" over "Iran" here. Both are immediately recognizable - certainly more so to the averagee westerner than "Bharat" is, I doubt most people are even aware that this is the official name of India.

 

[Kalderus]

As nice as it is to see some Zoroastrian features finally, as others have mentioned, the bonuses certainly are considerably weak and underwhelming when compared to other religion choices. Specifically, having no military bonuses whatsoever will likely deter players from even considering the switch from Shia/Sunni either for optimizing their SP campaign, or for being competitive in MP. The argument that "Persia has military national ideas" is also seemingly bunk too, since as others have stated, balancing a religion's bonuses around national ideas of specific tags simply unbalances them in comparison to other religions with no similar tag-based balances.

I agree that it would be boring to make all religions in the game too "samey" and generic/equal, but what I and others are asking for is simply balance, particularly military bonus-wise for the multiplayer meta, which also balances single player too, since it puts the player and AI on the same starting playing field. If these bonuses stand as is, converting to Zoroastrian will not only remain considerably difficult (as far as spawning and waiting for zealot rebels to occupy provinces), but also a nerf in comparison to existing choices.

Balance-wise, it would seem to make sense to provide players with a stronger incentive to consider going through the painful process of converting, rather than simply a minor construction cost-reduction and reduced corruption. Shia by default receives a 5% morale bonus (with a temporary possibility for 5% more w/ mysticism), and Orthodox can receive 5% discipline with the icon.

Part of the problem really is giving any religion specific military bonuses in the first place, a problem in the entire base game design. It never made sense to me why an Orthodox army should magically be more disciplined, or a Shi'ite army fight with greater morale, solely on the basis of their faith alone. Because of this power creep, there's an inherent problem where players in a competitive environment will pursue gamey methods to convert to the "meta" religion, and only do otherwise for roleplay.

As someone who enjoys roleplaying, it's somewhat frustrating to have such choices be a nerf compared to the "meta/powergame" ones.

On another subject though, the argument that Zoroastrianism didn't practice proselytization, and thus shouldn't get an additional missionary seems bunk too. Others have pointed out that this describes Parsis, who agreed to not spread their religion in exchange for local protection, but this certainly did not describe the Sassanids. Court Mobeds like Kartir certainly promoted conversions/spreading their faith, and I recall reading about considerable Sassanian efforts to promote conversions in Armenia and the Caucuses (not entirely successful, but attempted nontheless).

Finally, a question no one seems to have asked is: Will Zoroastrianism and Sikhism be allowed to become Defenders of their Faith, or will this still only be locked to Christian and Islamic faiths? If this isn't changing, it seems like another balance issue. Perhaps there could be specific challenges to overcome in order be able to become DOTF, but locking players out entirely always seemed like a balance problem.

TLDR: -Please considerable giving Zoroastrianism even a small military bonus, for balance reasons
-Please consider at least giving players the option pursue an expansionist conversion/proselytization strategy with Zoroastrianism, rather than relying on the specific policy of Parsis.

 

[lcnielsen]

Others have pointed out that this describes Parsis, who agreed to not spread their religion in exchange for local protection, but this certainly did not describe the Sassanids

Sort of, this is a notion dating to the Qissah-e Sanjan, composed during the reign of Akbar (so quite late), and to a lesser extent the earlier Sanskrit Slokas. From a more historicist point of view, the reason Parsis did not proselytize in the early modern era is that at a certain point they made up a quite wealthy minority with a kind of internal social safety net and a strong relationship with foreign traders, and allowing "outside" people to take part of this would not be to their benefit.

One should be careful about taking conventional Parsi ideas about their history at face value - they are often very ideologically loaded.

and I recall reading about considerable Sassanian efforts to promote conversions in Armenia and the Caucuses (not entirely successful, but attempted nontheless).

Yes Armenians were originally regarded as Eran rather than Aneran, and their conversion to Christianity was regarded as troubling - especially since the original ruling dynasty was Arsacid. Eventually though the Sasanians were forced to relent in exchange for getting Armenian support in their dynastic struggles troubled by Hepthalite interference.

 

[Shahanshah Rober]

Those Zoroastrian bonuses seem very weak compared to Coptic ones.

I just found this new mod from steam workshop released this week, it looks better IMHO

Steam Workshop::Zoroastrian Persian Flavour Mod

steamcommunity.com

 

[Leifson28]

so is this update released or what? didnt getr eny updates on it recently

 

[VoidEmperor]

so is this update released or what? didnt getr eny updates on it recently

If you'd be paying attention you'd know it's not released. No Dev diaries came out mid December to mid January because of Christmas. Bt there have been 3 since then. The last one was "Draft Transport Ships".

 

[Agnarok]

I hope that content of this devdiary will be present in the new patch. Will it be?

 

[grotaclas]

I hope that content of this devdiary will be present in the new patch. Will it be?

It is very likely that it will be either in the free patch or in the Leviathan DLC. Groogy mentioned in this weeks feature stream that they will talk about the Zoroastrianism mechanics in the next feature stream on monday. So at least that part will be in the game. But of course it is possible that it has been modified since the dev diary.

 

[PrussicAcid]

Keep in mind that everything you see is very much work in progress, you’ll see a lot of my very temporary coder art.

Indeed, we saw them.

But... 20th of October 2020!? I don't want to blame here, I just need to understand how it happened.
It can't have been done on purpose.