EUIV - Development Diary - 14th of January 2020

[Dwaen]

Cant wait! Any release date?

 

[BohemiaPrince]

Bohemia IS powerful, in relative strength it's at least as powerful as it was before 50 years of interregnum and civil war, who ch it really shouldn't be after that period. Bohemia was a powerful kingdom at one point but in 1444 it's a hollowed out shell.



That's totally ahistorical though yes Bohemia was the seat of emperors but that is before the interregnum, after it and after a long and bloody civil war the wealth and power that made emperors chose it as their seat of power (note none of the emperors who ruled from Bohemia were native Czechs or even German bohemians) lies in ashes.
I wouldn't mind seeing stuff for Bohemia but it got to start by recognizing where they are at, perhaps their lowest point in all of their history.

Bohemia during the reign of George of Poděbrady was doing very well https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiří_z_Poděbrad. And he was elected by the nobility and was one of the best rulers of Bohemia and he wanted to unite Europe for the Turks first. Prague considered the cradle of alchemy. There is a cloud of things that could be done there for Czechs as events (Jan Amos Comenius).

 

[Meka66]

@Meka66 Groogy said to @ you for this:

When the knights form Jerusalem, they lose monastic order reform and get Crusader State. But by doing this they will also lose the t5 reforms that are exclusive to monastic orders like lord of the sea. Is it possible to change it so forming jerusalem as the knights lets you keep these reforms? it feels like theocratic jerusalem is intended to still be a monastic order, so it shouldnt lose it logically, and from a playing prospective it would feel terrible to lose out the unique gov mechanics just by forming the intended target formation of your country

That's a fair point. A special exception could be made for Jerusalem.

 

[darlock]

Cant wait! Any release date?

Yea, I think we're all hoping for a release date. Any news?
(Sorry if it's already in one of the 29 pages of comments, but I didn't see it in the actual DD post.)

 

[Blobhemian]

Good thing then that @neondt purged that modifier from wherever he could find it then

I understand why players hate the modifier, but doesn't it serve as a deterrent for the AI? Will there be any new mechanism that will make countries not exactly desirable for direct conquest? I think it was doing it's job pretty well by protecting some nations that would otherwise get always immediately devoured by their neigbours. In the case of Bohemia it was quite unnecessary though. The country is already too safe thanks to its HRE protection, stability, gold mine, geography and power within HRE. It's very rare to see Bohemia get dogpiled. But what about the Caucasian Christians or Africans bordering Spain/Portugal?

I am tired of seeing Blobhemia.

You gonna take that back!

 

[Beagá]

That's a partition of Poland problem imo.

Poland always falls apart it's just never neat like it was historically.

It´s been a year since I´ve played EU 4, is that an issue? How frequent is polish failure? Maybe do something about too many rebels, they really crippled Poland and Lithuania from what I remember.

 

[lolada]

It´s been a year since I´ve played EU 4, is that an issue? How frequent is polish failure? Maybe do something about too many rebels, they really crippled Poland and Lithuania from what I remember.

They sometimes do well, not too rarely... so its not too bad. With some of the recent changes Ottomans are way more aggressive towards europe and Hungary (due to missions and claims probably.. not sure if trade node changes have something with this) and they clash with poland more often and ruin them. Ottomans are way too strong currently.. they often ruin Austria.. or siege France and kick them out of war. Big buff for them was change of Janissary mechanics (they were made into special unit).. so they don't lose their army bonuses like they did before. Main culprit for weak France.. Austria or Poland is terrible AI that can't defend.. Interestingly, Ottos are fat from the getgo so they have mutliple stacks and in general defend much better than any other nation.
Muscovy was also buffed too much with Russian DLC and vassal swarm so that is also bad for Poland.

 

[kochobiskvit]

No dev diary today?

 

[Lightwell]

No dev diary today?

IIRC, It's coming in early Feb.

 

[TheDungen]

Bohemia during the reign of George of Poděbrady was doing very well https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiří_z_Poděbrad. And he was elected by the nobility and was one of the best rulers of Bohemia and he wanted to unite Europe for the Turks first. Prague considered the cradle of alchemy. There is a cloud of things that could be done there for Czechs as events (Jan Amos Comenius).

Rebuilding well is not the same as being a superpower ready to pounce on the rest of the HRE.

 

[holyvigil]

Rebuilding well is not the same as being a superpower ready to pounce on the rest of the HRE.

Do they become a superpower more than once in a hundred games?

They usually become a regional power if the german majors and Poland fail but never have I seen them become a super power that has taken on the whole HRE.

 

[Jamm6]

One of the things i really liked about this is that it makes so courthouses and others actually have a purpouse instead of being meaningless money sinks

 

[xrws31]

The new rules for where you can create Trade Companies are as follows:

• Province religion must be of a different religious group than the owning nation
• Province must be considered overseas both from nation and any subjects of nation, not including tributaries.
• Province must not be part of the HRE

So.... wait.

If as Great Britain I have Orissa as a vassal..... I can't create any TC's anywhere in Asia?

What? Might as well just remove TC's from the game all together.

 

[adin85]

I'm not, I love Bohemia. Seriously though we've gone given them quite some content, but don't think we've neither buffed nor nerfed them. They're a good "what if Austria wasn't emperor" country for the player.

Podebrad has too big stats. . I hope this content is about Utraquism and Bohemian game of thrones in 15-16 century.

Can you do something about Hungary. Each time I'm playing in the Europe. I see that They have all the time Bankruptcy.

 

[rngpower]

Btw the link in game launcher for this dev diary says Feb 14

 

[Aldinth]

This is a very nice set of improvements, great job. I just wanted to ask about naval AI - is there any work ongoing to fix the lack of involvement from your allies/vassals that do not have the land route to your war? Will England ever become a viable ally, instead of just sitting on the British Isles and watching the continent burn? Will Japanese daimyos land in China to support their shogun's fight with Ming?

 

[Canute VII]

@Groogy Look, I don't know, but I feel that "weight towards governing capacity" and "local autonomy" should be the same thing like two sides of the same coin.

So states weight 100% towards gov capcacity and have 0% min LA. Territories weight 25% towards gov capacity and have (in 1.29 at least) 75% min LA.

There even already is a value called "effective autonomy" which is the autonomy weighted development in your nation, which could be taken to count against the gov capacity.

In the end what is "local autonomy"? It's the development of your provinces that you do not or cannot administer centrally and therefore you also can't draw ressources from it. But you also do not need to "govern" it, because the locals do it for you. That's the point, right. You only need to govern all what is centrally administered, i.e. 100%-LA.

Now, you may say, this is all only theoretical, but to me it also has an impact on gameplay, because now I will have to juggle with and keep track of two values that are quite similar but also suffciently different in the details while not meaning different things to me. If that make sense.

I also wonder how this all will interact with "estates and crown land"? Will there be an interaction between crown land controlled by estates and local autonomy?

I would also question why Trade company provinces have a weight towards governing capacity of 50% (instead of 25% just as territories), only to get that canceled out by an idea in the expansion idea group. I mean, why not just give trade companies a 25% weight and not have that idea in the expansion group?

Well, I have no good solution here... just wanted to voice my concern and ask if this can be consolidated into one thing somehow.

I am looking a bit towards if I can make the Min Autonomy in Territories a bit more of a relevant and interesting feature. What we want is that you have to make decisions on not only where you expand, what you conquer but also how you organize that development you just gobbled up.

Anyway, how about something like this (and sorry, this post is a bit disorganized...)?:

• minimum local autonomy is no more, instead the value acts as a resting point (equilibrium) with a decay modifier (i.e. similar to prestige where the resting point is at 0 and then there's "decay" in that prestige tends upwards if it's below 0 and downwards if it's >0). So if a territory had 75% local autonomy we could still forcefully decrease it by 25% to 50%, but it would trend upwards to 75% again afterwards (modified by other sources of LA reduction/increase).
• So for example we could still have a 75% local autonomy (and maybe 25% weight towards gov capacity) in trade companies and territories, but expanson idea group could give -0.05 (or whatever) monthly autonomy reduction in trade companies (while admin group gives it in states/territories).
• With estates you could then say for example that a newly conquered province gets [estate influence]% local autonomy. Say estate influence is 60%, then a newly conquered province would get 60% local autonomy but depending on if it's made into a state or a territory, LA would trend downwards to 0% or upwards to 75%.
• Maybe for territories/trade companies the resting point should then be adjusted to 100% (instead of 75%/80%/90% min. LA or whatever). Ofc I don't know exact numbers nor have I tested anything like this.
• Estate influence then could be worked into a second resting point for the LA calculation: say you have a state, resting point for a state is 0% LA. You also have estates, estate influence is say 50%. Province LA is 25%. Now state quilibrium and estate equlibrium pull into different directions, so in the end LA stays at 25% (without intervention). Now say LA is 40%, then the pull by state equilibium (towards 0% LA) will be greater than the pull by estate equilibrium (towards 50% LA), so it tends towards 25% again. Etc.
• How to deal with Government buildings then? That's difficult because they reduce local autonomy, which means, the province gets a higher weight towards governing capacity.... Tricky! So instead of reducing the province weight towards governing capacity (like in your current design), the gov buildings directly increase governing capacity by x% of province development? E.g. we take a 20 dev province in a state, i.e 100% weight towards gov capacity. Current design: have 200 gov capacity, build a courthouse, get a reduction of the province weight to 50% (I don't know the number, so this is just for illlustration) -> instead of 20 dev, only 10 dev count towards the gov capacity limit of 200. My design: build a courthouse, get a 50% times province development increase of the gov capacity (I'm just assuming now that the province is at 0% LA) -> new gov capacity will be 210. So if gov capacity was 200 and sum of province weight was 250, then building this courthouse would give in the current design: 240/200=120% and in my design 250/210=119% (i.e. reasonably similar values).
• All this ofc also means that we could increase LA in territories to 100% and these provinces then would have 0% weight towards gov capacity. Makes at least some sense, I believe? We also wouldn't get anything out of this province and would actively destroy absolutisms (provided that still works like that in 1.30).
• "Building a courthouse in a 20 dev territory with 100% local autonomy then would give +10 governing capacity?" you say. Well, maybe yes, I don't see why not, honestly. But if it's broken somehow then include local autonomy in the amount of gov capacity the courthose gives. So in this case it would give 0 gov capacity, because the province is at 100% LA. IF the province was at 80% LA, then the courthouse would give 50% (from courthouse) * 20% (from 100% - LA) * 20 (province development) = 2 governing capacity.

This has been longer than anticipated. I'm very sorry

 

[Stekovtun]

Can you make possible to mod government names without checksum changing?

 

[addemczuk]

But did you consider buffing other underdog naval nation? Please consider buffing Norway, it is meant to be naval power.

 

[Sete]

But did you consider buffing other underdog naval nation? Please consider buffing Norway, it is meant to be naval power.

Portugal, that is supposed to be THE naval power until half the 16th century at least, got a underwhelming navy buff. Dont expect much.

Since someone disagrees, i shall provide sauce.

(...) but little research has been given to the sixteenth century Portuguese navy as a coherent organisation.It is regarded as part of the Indian enterprise but it was also an Atlantic and European force. The Navy of the House of Aviz was a pioneer in several respects and in the early 16th century it may have been the most advanced operational force of its kind.

Warfare at Sea , 1500-1650 : Maritime conflicts and the Transformation of Europe
Jan Glete.