Hello and Welcome to another development diary for Europa Universalis IV. As it is another one written by me, it might be a bit shorter than you’d like, but I hope the information is interesting enough.

One of the things we wanted to focus on with Leviathan was to strengthen the ability to play “tall”,or in other words, how to become more powerful without necessarily expanding all the time. We talked in an earlier diary about the first of three new features regarding playing tall, Expand Infrastructure, which allowed you to stack multiple manufactories in the same province.

---
Today we’ll be talking about the second of the ‘play tall’ features for Leviathan, as we delve into Concentrate Development.

Concentrate Development is an interaction that is done to either one of your territories or to one of your subjects states or territories.

This will reduce the development in that area by an amount comparable to a horde razing it, and then that development will be distributed to your country.

Fifty percent of that development will be going directly to your capital, while thirty percent will be distributed randomly among stated provinces, while the final twenty percent is lost.

There is a cooldown of 50 years for how often you can do this in an area.

Doing this to one of your subjects will upset them and also increase their liberty desire, so be careful.

There are also two government reforms that makes this loss less painful, as it removes the twenty percent lost, and instead adds that development to the capital.

• The Mandala Reform, available to the chinese techgroup and either dharmic, eastern or muslim religions.
• Siamese Absolutism - which is given from some missions.

Speaking of the Mandala Reform, it's a first tier reform, that besides giving you free development concentration also grants the following.

• +15% Vassal Income
• +1 Vassal Force Limit Bonus
• -33% Governing Capacity

Connected to this, is a new peace treaty called Pillage Capital!
As sometimes you want to grow your power, and weaken your enemy, but you do not want to take on more territory. In that case, just use the new “Pillage Capital”(™) peace treaty, which will concentrate development on their capital state, benefiting you!


Stay tuned for next week, when we will talk more about playing tall, and maybe something about canals.

 

[Methuen of Melnibone]

The Mona Lisa has been in the Louvre, in Paris, since Napoleon stole it. It's never been allowed to leave (i.e. go back to Italy) and is basically an outstanding argument between France and Italy.

A cool little expansion on the new mechanic would be for nations to periodically argue about some avatar for the stolen dev - "France demands Prussia return the crown jewels", etc.

 

[newtlord]

Well, the age objective to get a high-development capital just got a lot easier.

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

No for a lot of wars. It is quite easy to bully tall minors just to steal their dev for free.

Most wars cost a lot of money and manpower, i have never deliberately declared a war without the intent of taking land, vassalizing or forcing a P.U on someone. Circumstancially there are other useful ones such as force conversion in the HRE as the Emperor to gain authority.
Most other CB's such as humiliate rival, trade conflict are simply not worth it. The money you can get from them seldomly compensates the costs of war. The only reason we ever ask for money or trade steering is to fill that rest of available demands after taking the land you want or to peace out a co-beligerent and you know it.

This option will make non-conquest wars definitely worth fighting.

really? Are you serious? How many well balanced features we had on release of last patches and DLCs? Did they look well tested to you? They didnt to me...

Your argument was that the League wars would turn the HRE into ashes. And many people have also expressed this concern about high tag density places getting absolutely nuked.

My argument was that we need to wait and see how this mechanic actually works like.
We have very little information about how this works, and whatever information we have isn't even final either, the devs are testing this as we speak and tweaking some edges.

You don't know how it costs in a warscore. Could be 30, but could it could be 100.
You also don't know the requirements,
Can you loot co-beligerents?
Can you loot capitals that do not fully control their Capital's state?
Can you loot capitals that you do not occupy?
Can you loot capitals that were looted by someone else fewer than 50 years ago?
Is there a minimum development required for such a an option to be available? (Like there is a maximum for vassalization)
Is there a maximum development you can have on your capital that stops you from plundering further?
What amount is reduced exactly? What influences this?

There are so many factors you simply do not know, that is impossible to make any prediction on how this will play out.
I understand the concerns over the potential exploits. I'm worried about it too, but its unfair to make such blunt accusations since you don't have the whole data.

This

And why should all ways involve mana?
Isn't the point of a strategy game to have different approaches to tackle the same issue?
I think its a good thing we are finding more creative ways to improve development other than spending mana.

No they arent superior in cost-benefit if you take just cost in mana into consideration.

This is ridiculous, you can't take mana cost as the sole indicator of what is more effective or not.
Conquering provinces comes with several advantages, it's not just a dev boost. It's a strategic move that shifts the map and the reality in the region, it opens up new resources, more building slots, an extra (and different) manufactory and it may have other modifiers such as CoT, terrain modifiers or others. Not to mention it use it has for trade and to deny your enemy the same land. It also gives you far more maneuver during wars, since having a large territory implies your enemy has to move around, sige down more provinces, take attrition and spread out, becoming vulnerable to get hit on their weaker stacks.
Having a small territory is much harder to defend, they will all crash on you like an avalanche and you don't have many tactical options. And also the more land you have, the more land can be developed further.
There are so many other advantages on having a large realm compared to a small one I can't even list them all. But it's incredibly simplistic to assume mana-per-dev cost is all that matters.

And not only that, but plundering the capital only steals dev from a single state, a single state regardless of the size of your enemy.
I don't know how much warscore it costs but it is absolutely certain that the same warscore worth of provinces will give you multiple times more development.
By the late game you can easily get 200-300 development worth of land in a single war. This option will rarely give you over 20-30.

And let's not forget this also gives A.E, so it's not like you can do this to every single HRE minor without getting Coalitioned into oblivion.

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

I honestly find it incredibly funny how most posts in the first 7 pages were complaining about how not worth it this mechanic is, and the last 7 pages were complaining about how broken this mechanic is.

The Duality Of Man

 

[Greene]

So in conclusion is “pillage capital” worth it or I’m better off with taking enemy provinces?

 

[sbadkins4]

All of the people talking about "pillage capital isn't historical!"... seem to have a very tenuous grasp of world history. Draining other nations of their riches and even populations was a huge part of history.

 

[Triplebassist]

Most wars cost a lot of money and manpower, i have never deliberately declared a war without the intent of taking land, vassalizing or forcing a P.U on someone. Circumstancially there are other useful ones such as force conversion in the HRE as the Emperor to gain authority.
Most other CB's such as humiliate rival, trade conflict are simply not worth it. The money you can get from them seldomly compensates the costs of war. The only reason we ever ask for money or trade steering is to fill that rest of available demands after taking the land you want or to peace out a co-beligerent and you know it.

This option will make non-conquest wars definitely worth fighting.


Your argument was that the League wars would turn the HRE into ashes. And many people have also expressed this concern about high tag density places getting absolutely nuked.

My argument was that we need to wait and see how this mechanic actually works like.
We have very little information about how this works, and whatever information we have isn't even final either, the devs are testing this as we speak and tweaking some edges.

You don't know how it costs in a warscore. Could be 30, but could it could be 100.
You also don't know the requirements,
Can you loot co-beligerents?
Can you loot capitals that do not fully control their Capital's state?
Can you loot capitals that you do not occupy?
Can you loot capitals that were looted by someone else fewer than 50 years ago?
Is there a minimum development required for such a an option to be available? (Like there is a maximum for vassalization)
Is there a maximum development you can have on your capital that stops you from plundering further?
What amount is reduced exactly? What influences this?

There are so many factors you simply do not know, that is impossible to make any prediction on how this will play out.
I understand the concerns over the potential exploits. I'm worried about it too, but its unfair to make such blunt accusations since you don't have the whole data.


And why should all ways involve mana?
Isn't the point of a strategy game to have different approaches to tackle the same issue?
I think its a good thing we are finding more creative ways to improve development other than spending mana.


This is ridiculous, you can't take mana cost as the sole indicator of what is more effective or not.
Conquering provinces comes with several advantages, it's not just a dev boost. It's a strategic move that shifts the map and the reality in the region, it opens up new resources, more building slots, an extra (and different) manufactory and it may have other modifiers such as CoT, terrain modifiers or others. Not to mention it use it has for trade and to deny your enemy the same land. It also gives you far more maneuver during wars, since having a large territory implies your enemy has to move around, sige down more provinces, take attrition and spread out, becoming vulnerable to get hit on their weaker stacks.
Having a small territory is much harder to defend, they will all crash on you like an avalanche and you don't have many tactical options. And also the more land you have, the more land can be developed further.
There are so many other advantages on having a large realm compared to a small one I can't even list them all. But it's incredibly simplistic to assume mana-per-dev cost is all that matters.

And not only that, but plundering the capital only steals dev from a single state, a single state regardless of the size of your enemy.
I don't know how much warscore it costs but it is absolutely certain that the same warscore worth of provinces will give you multiple times more development.
By the late game you can easily get 200-300 development worth of land in a single war. This option will rarely give you over 20-30.

And let's not forget this also gives A.E, so it's not like you can do this to every single HRE minor without getting Coalitioned into oblivion.

Good points all, but I think these are still important things to ask. We know that devs have made adjustments based on feedback in the diaries before, so raising potential concerns could catch something early enough in the process that it can be fixed

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

Good points all, but I think these are still important things to ask. We know that devs have made adjustments based on feedback in the diaries before, so raising potential concerns could catch something early enough in the process that it can be fixed

Absolutely

 

[LSF]

Most wars cost a lot of money and manpower, i have never deliberately declared a war without the intent of taking land, vassalizing or forcing a P.U on someone. Circumstancially there are other useful ones such as force conversion in the HRE as the Emperor to gain authority.
Most other CB's such as humiliate rival, trade conflict are simply not worth it. The money you can get from them seldomly compensates the costs of war. The only reason we ever ask for money or trade steering is to fill that rest of available demands after taking the land you want or to peace out a co-beligerent and you know it.

This option will make non-conquest wars definitely worth fighting.


Your argument was that the League wars would turn the HRE into ashes. And many people have also expressed this concern about high tag density places getting absolutely nuked.

My argument was that we need to wait and see how this mechanic actually works like.
We have very little information about how this works, and whatever information we have isn't even final either, the devs are testing this as we speak and tweaking some edges.

You don't know how it costs in a warscore. Could be 30, but could it could be 100.
You also don't know the requirements,
Can you loot co-beligerents?
Can you loot capitals that do not fully control their Capital's state?
Can you loot capitals that you do not occupy?
Can you loot capitals that were looted by someone else fewer than 50 years ago?
Is there a minimum development required for such a an option to be available? (Like there is a maximum for vassalization)
Is there a maximum development you can have on your capital that stops you from plundering further?
What amount is reduced exactly? What influences this?

There are so many factors you simply do not know, that is impossible to make any prediction on how this will play out.
I understand the concerns over the potential exploits. I'm worried about it too, but its unfair to make such blunt accusations since you don't have the whole data.


And why should all ways involve mana?
Isn't the point of a strategy game to have different approaches to tackle the same issue?
I think its a good thing we are finding more creative ways to improve development other than spending mana.


This is ridiculous, you can't take mana cost as the sole indicator of what is more effective or not.
Conquering provinces comes with several advantages, it's not just a dev boost. It's a strategic move that shifts the map and the reality in the region, it opens up new resources, more building slots, an extra (and different) manufactory and it may have other modifiers such as CoT, terrain modifiers or others. Not to mention it use it has for trade and to deny your enemy the same land. It also gives you far more maneuver during wars, since having a large territory implies your enemy has to move around, sige down more provinces, take attrition and spread out, becoming vulnerable to get hit on their weaker stacks.
Having a small territory is much harder to defend, they will all crash on you like an avalanche and you don't have many tactical options. And also the more land you have, the more land can be developed further.
There are so many other advantages on having a large realm compared to a small one I can't even list them all. But it's incredibly simplistic to assume mana-per-dev cost is all that matters.

And not only that, but plundering the capital only steals dev from a single state, a single state regardless of the size of your enemy.
I don't know how much warscore it costs but it is absolutely certain that the same warscore worth of provinces will give you multiple times more development.
By the late game you can easily get 200-300 development worth of land in a single war. This option will rarely give you over 20-30.

And let's not forget this also gives A.E, so it's not like you can do this to every single HRE minor without getting Coalitioned into oblivion.

Mana is not the only resource, but it quite scarce in the beginning, even more depending on the region you chose, maybe with need of deving institutions. Wars cost money and manpower, but taking provinces or stealing dev, both will cost money and manpower. The difference is efficiency, cant deny that.

As someone already mentioned, taking provinces generates separatism, high autonomy, GC, debuffs due to wrong religion and wrong culture...

Stealing dev into capital state does not generate any of those.

The point I made is the feature is a terrible idea unless it has some kind of cost. AE is not enough. Taking provinces also generate AE and stealing dev from a minor or from some distant other-religion tag will probably make you stronger in short-term than taking the province (GC, autonomy, unrest...). If taking the province or stealing dev would both result in coalition, you'd be better to fight off stealing than taking.

Yes we need to see in practice what will happen. Well... sorry if I dont believe PDS will give us a polished feature. It didnt happen in the last YEARS. I doubt it will happen now. It will probably just be another mechanic the AI wont be able to use properly. In other words, just a feature to make human player relatively stronger compared to AI tags.

Of course there will be exploits. It will make WC, One Faith, even One Culture easier. I dont care about that.

It may be abusable in MP. Then it starts to become a concern.

But DEPENDING on how they implement and AI is taught to use, I can imagine a dev map showing many light green spots in a sea of red colour. I hope not.

 

[LSF]

All of the people talking about "pillage capital isn't historical!"... seem to have a very tenuous grasp of world history. Draining other nations of their riches and even populations was a huge part of history.

Just explain to me how pillaging Vijayanagara as France woud increase manpower in Paris... in 19th century...

 

[love sweden]

it is hard to make a mechanic that mostly benefits tall play. It is harder to even agree on what "tall" means and what is the fun factor in it. Rather than just sitting there and make the game a peaceful simulator, they tried to tie the mechanic to war. A few months ago with a different leadership, they tried more peacetime-micromanagment options but it wasn't well received.

DDRJake did nothing to make tall play more fun or interactive. Only thing he achieved was make Russia not want to colonize Siberia due to the corruption costs it brings. People have to learn that putting artificial punishments for conquering provinces does not make tall play more fun unless Schadenfreude about "wide" players finding the game unfun and tedious is what tall players consider fun.

 

[BrotherJonathan]

Don't really know what to make of this particular mechanic, but the new Mandala government is looking really fun and unique.

 

[imvdm]

Just explain to me how pillaging Vijayanagara as France woud increase manpower in Paris... in 19th century...

The wealth and prestige of the conquest and subsequent triumph displayed in Paris triggered a patriotic investment/enlistment wave in the capital...

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

Well... sorry if I dont believe PDS will give us a polished feature.

 

[EarlKonrad]

Just explain to me how pillaging Vijayanagara as France woud increase manpower in Paris... in 19th century...

The average population gets wealthier and have more son, increasing the overall population in Paris, meaning more men of fighting age;

Or, the wealth from pillage is reinvested into better recruitment practices in Paris;

Or, the wealth from pillage attracts men that are looking to make money in the military.

Abstract mechanics can be rationalized after the fact very easily, all you need is the willingness to invent a narrative for them.

 

[svalan_i_dalen]

Lets be honest, there is no real world equivalent to it, Paradox just wanted another button

Stop whining. Buttons are good for selling DLC. It makes the customer feel they get something for their money.

 

[Shiny Dog]

I hope with these two mechanics together, we can get an achievement:

Grand Theft Otto:
Using concentrate development and pillage capital: Have a capital with over 100 development while no province in the North or South German Region has more than 10 (20?).

 

[Zhernoff]

Meh. SP can have as many toys as wanted, not like it makes that much of a difference in difficulty.
Would prefer a button/option to disable this in MP host setting, but I guess it's just another argument for using a mod anyways.

 

[homosapien97]

This feels like it would work well if in the provinces where dev points are stolen from, it decreased the "number of times developed" counter for that province. Otherwise, having your capital looted would permanently damage your ability to increase its development.

 

[deathbypie]

This feels like it would work well if in the provinces where dev points are stolen from, it decreased the "number of times developed" counter for that province. Otherwise, having your capital looted would permanently damage your ability to increase its development.

What counter? Development costs only increase in provinces you develop due to being related to total development - if development drops, so does the number of monarch points needed to increase it.