Or it is the result of the tone the forums have taken since the territory changes (missionaries+corruption) were announced. Angry customers are not very fun to interact with, whether their anger is justified or not.
EU4 - Development Diary - 28th of August 2018
- Thread starter DDRJake
- Start date
-
Crusader Kings III Available Now!
The realm rejoices as Paradox Interactive announces the launch of Crusader Kings III, the latest entry in the publisher’s grand strategy role-playing game franchise. Advisors may now jockey for positions of influence and adversaries should save their schemes for another day, because on this day Crusader Kings III can be purchased on Steam, the Paradox Store, and other major online retailers.
This thread is more than 5 months old.
It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose. If you feel it is necessary to make a new reply, you can still do so though.
Or it is the result of the tone the forums have taken since the territory changes (missionaries+corruption) were announced. Angry customers are not very fun to interact with, whether their anger is justified or not.
The tone changed after there was no further communication after the announcement.
Its a joke that we had to delve into some unrelated story just to find out wether conversions would require full cores or just stated land.
Guess ill just neglect-play the next angry customer on the other side of the register.
If i ignore him long enough he'll just leave?
Last edited:
Isn't it already so that you can't make trade companies in the continent of your capital?
With regard to the missionaries then I'll probably end modding it out, or if that's impossible then raise state limits considerably. I don't really play ironman anyway, and it ruins my immersion not to be able to religiously convert sparsely populated land just because it doesn't happen to be considered integral to my country.
Man, have you read the Dharma manual?
Code:
Trade Company Investment
By setting up a trade company in foreign lands, colonial nations are already giving up a
few other things. Trade company provinces do not provide manpower, and cannot be a
part of States. Therefore the economic benefit of expanding your trade company beyond a
rich city may not be enough to persuade the cautious player to take the risk for ready cash.
You now have the ability to upgrade your trade company provinces with unique
structures designed to strengthen both the trade company’s value and your empire’s
overall strength, while also giving bonuses to native provinces in the area. There are
five categories with two investments that can be built in areas controlled by trade
companies. There’s also a unique one per category that can be built once per trade
region.Therefore the economic benefit of expanding your trade company beyond a rich city may not be enough to persuade the cautious player to take the risk for ready cash.
Like, does ANYONE in Paradox use trade companies at all??? I'm the most cautious (coward) player this side of the Equator and I still set them up asap.
No, that number was entirely based off of Asia's trade company count alone - there are 12 trade companies that are at least partially in Asia (Malacca, Moluccas, and Philippines all have some provinces in Oceania, though you would need to spend absolutely insane amounts of monarch points developing those provinces to ever hope to get the merchants for those companies using only those provinces), plus 3 more that are in Africa. 3-6 European trade companies still puts Asia far behind. The nodes I'd recommend are English Channel, Sevilla, North Sea, Bordeaux, Champagne, White Sea, Novgorod, Baltic Sea, Lubeck, Rhineland, Saxony, and one of the following Wien, Krakow, or boot all of either Moluccas or Philippines into Oceania (and maybe make Australia its own continent so that the handful of Oceania starts can still form colonial nations).
Yeah, the fact that the trade company modifier is additive instead of multiplicative and completely nullifies wrong culture/religion makes them completely obliterate territories in terms of value. There is literally no reason to not blob though a trade company charter as hard as possible, save for the limits of your ability to core the land.
Ah my mistake then. Out of interest though why the focus on Northern Europe? I feel like if someone were to set up trade companies in Europe, the Mediterranean would be a higher priority than the Baltic or the white sea? Presumably they'd either be coming in through the eastern Mediterranean or around africa (if they were coming from Asia) or From the Atlantic (if they were coming from america) - so their focus would be on the regions relevant to america (the north sea, Bordeaux, the English channel and Seville, maybe Lubeck), the regions the west africa trade goes to (Bordeaux, English Channel, Seville again) or the Mediterranean (Genoa, Venice, Ragussa, maybe Constantinople).
As I previously mentioned, it might be sensible to make certain North African Regions count as a different continent specifically for Trade companies (and presumably colonial regions, though it's not technically relevant); having some parts of Asia count as being in Oceania for trade company purposes might likewise make sense? Idk; actually working through the specifics of the idea might just be something for the Dev.s to do though..
Basically because north/northwest Europe is most of the colonizers (eg. AI Netherlands/Dutch minors and Denmark take Exploration/Expansion Ideas, while Genoa and Tuscany do not), and thus the nations that would be contesting the African and Asian trade company charters, so it puts them at risk of a similar fate to what they're most likely to subject others to. Also, holding the whole Mediterranean has been a common imperial goal for Mediterranean nations and Tunis dumping part of their precious new Mare Nostrum into trade company hands seems weird, though that could be averted by treating North Africa as part of Europe for the purposes of trade companies. Also, I did make certain to include the nodes that Ivory Coast feeds into were included, as well as the nodes that the New World tends to directly or indirectly feed into. White Sea, Baltic Sea, Saxony, Champaign, Rhineland and Novgorod are mostly because they fairly directly feed into those same nodes (and also because Novogorod is a major node for a primary colonizer of the Far East).
I'd be tempted to consider (a) having a trade company in every non-colonial non-inland node and (b) bringing back Distant Overseas, ie you can only have a trade company in a node if (i) the note is far enough from your capital ("far enough" to be defined in terms of trade range, but a fixed limit that it has to be beyond) and (ii) there is not a continuous land connection through your own provinces from your capital to any province in the node. You'd probably want some sort of special rule for island capitals, or else it's a giant buff for GB and Japan. My suggestion is that if your capital is on an island (ie anything other than the Americas, Australia and Afro-Euroasia landmass) then it should be treated for the purpose of calculating overseas status as being the closest province you control on the mainland of the continent your capital is on (ie for GB, usually somewhere in France, for Japan usually somewhere in Korea).
That would even out trade companies between European, Asian and African capitals, would allow for countries with a capital at one end of Asia to have TCs at the other end (e.g. an Anatolian state that formed Rûm could have a TC in China without having to move its capital to Constantinople), would stop some of the more egregious abuses (capital in Socotra and getting TCs right across India).
It would allow nations in the Americas to turn almost the entire Old World into TCs, as a compensation for not getting CNs (other than in Australia).
And the option to form TCs in Europe in a game where an Asian power became dominant would be fun.
That would even out trade companies between European, Asian and African capitals, would allow for countries with a capital at one end of Asia to have TCs at the other end (e.g. an Anatolian state that formed Rûm could have a TC in China without having to move its capital to Constantinople), would stop some of the more egregious abuses (capital in Socotra and getting TCs right across India).
It would allow nations in the Americas to turn almost the entire Old World into TCs, as a compensation for not getting CNs (other than in Australia).
And the option to form TCs in Europe in a game where an Asian power became dominant would be fun.
No, but if the customer was actively trying to get me fired I might not want to hang out with them on my own time.
Most companies just have community managers on their forums. Here we get to interact with the lead developers on a regular basis. This is not in their job description - they do it because they want to and because they care about the community.
Yeah, I feel like people are being a little too passionate about this.
If the immediate reaction wasn't screaming and yelling, maybe they would actually have given a satisfaction.
Devs are not in costumer service, they really have no obligation to be here in the forums.
Community managers are more like it, but for the time being they can only attempt to damage control and pass on the feedback to devs, but a change at this point is very unlikely, so even them being here for that purpose is pointless for now.
"At this point"?
The big changes everyone is arguing about were announced 6 weeks ago.
Thats how long there has been no real comunication about this.
You could make that argument if their presence here was a rare sight, a one-of thing.
But its not. Several of them are seen regularly. Just not in the last 6 weeks. The only thing we got was: "We expected this to be unpopular."
The immediate reaction was angry yelling.
If people had held their horses a bit and waited for an answer instead of immediate anger, maybe they would have actualy come.
And the community manager tried to damage control on that same thread, but the most they can do is say "we are hearing your feedback, thank you".
No point in repeating that for six weeks.
And yet the devs post dev-diaries to advertise upcoming changes. But when the community cries out in anger against said change... ::sound of crickets chirping:: Funny that.
Transactions work both ways. If they offer a product that I want then I'll consider buying said product. Well, when Dharma rolls out I will roll back to 1.25! I will not even consider buying any more DLC. If you don't like it then you can blame capitalism because that's how it works. It's quite clear that paradox has decided that they're plowing ahead despite the community being very clear on how we feel about this. Next time how about they actually listen to the players and deliver what they want.
At the very least they can give us a way to mod-out of the changes to missionaries. Or if there is a way, tell us so! The silence is deafening.
Why would they need to listen the community?And yet the devs post dev-diaries to advertise upcoming changes. But when the community cries out in anger against said change... ::sound of crickets chirping:: Funny that.
Transactions work both ways. If they offer a product that I want then I'll consider buying said product. Well, when Dharma rolls out I will roll back to 1.25! I will not even consider buying any more DLC. If you don't like it then you can blame capitalism because that's how it works. It's quite clear that paradox has decided that they're plowing ahead despite the community being very clear on how we feel about this. Next time how about they actually listen to the players and deliver what they want.
At the very least they can give us a way to mod-out of the changes to missionaries. Or if there is a way, tell us so! The silence is deafening.
Thats the main problem in my opinion, they always push their changes and show that they want to converse with the community. Paradox always try to show it as a main strength of themself. But now they shut down and barely react.
Over the past few years, we have gained a certain expectation of communication, but now it stops all of a sudden when there is a negative change, thats the problem. If you want to communicate and tell us about popular changes, than you should also be ready to talk when you want to do a negative change.
Why exclude inland nodes? The North India Charter already in the game is 100% inland
Honestly, what really breaks them is the 0% autonomy floor. If they kept the 75% autonomy from territories they'd still be worth it and also relatively balanced, even with the new buildings. Then they could have -50% Sailor/Tax/Manpower additive multipliers and let the new buildings make up for them. I mean, they'd clearly be still stronger than non-TC territories (+100% Production Efficiency, +30% Goods Produced and +100% Trade Power lmao), but we would not be in this mess.
Last edited:
There might be other ways too, but if all else fails then upping the amount of states you get from each of the tech levels given states is a way to go. Not perfect, far from it, but preferable to the full blow of the missionaries change in my opinion.At the very least they can give us a way to mod-out of the changes to missionaries. Or if there is a way, tell us so! The silence is deafening.
Would also solve part of the problem with the TC change.
Also I realised another problem with the missionaries change. Say you have blobbed in Europe when the reformation hits and are above your states limit. Centres of reformation is now gonna convert provinces in your territories and you'll have no way of converting them back...
STOP! COOKIE TIME