EUIV - Development Diary - 14th of January 2020

[fdr_guy]

@Groogy Sorry for repeating the questions I asked earlier, but I just wanted to compile them all in one place.

Any chance in the future you can make all the administrative benefits of Courthouses/Town Halls apply on a per state basis? Having to build one on every single province instead of picking regional centers, would just feel terrible, and end up being even more of a money-sink than max'ing out on rooting out corruption under current patch. Not to mention the state maintenance and autonomy reduction would end up being redundant. If considering it, please don't nerf it though. -40%/-80% is good.

Secondly, on a completely different note, a nitpick about marines:

Since they have a niche benefit, why not give them a niche drawback, instead of one that'd cripple them in a real fight? Why would a marine be drastically worse than a regular soldier in close quarters combat? Doesn't make sense to me personally.

 

[Piotrzeci]

If expanding too much increases Stab Cost, can you remove Stab Cost penalty from overextension? It's weird for the same modifier to be on two similar mechanics.

 

[Me_]

That would allow Mamluks to have Trade Companies in Arabia.

It could be "different continent and superregion" and then introduce superregions in problematic points, e.g. a Middle-East one covering North-East Africa, Arabia and Levant.

 

[Athel404]

Will the Jerusalem government reform "Crusader State" be compatible with monastic order reforms? I wouldn't want to form Jerusalem as the knights and lose my cool naval reforms, but it's not clear from the description of the reforms.

 

[Skyfus]

If you're focusing on government reforms, does that mean you'll fix Mamluks losing the Mamluk government when they form Arabia? It's been a gripe of mine since Dharma came out, especially since when when CoC came out there was a lot of emphasis on Arabia keeping/adopting that unique government on formation

 

[adin85]

I was asking many time if are u going to do sth about unstable Lithuania and pityfull missions of Poland ( especialy "break the russ" the swedish one and ahistorical balcan missions. There is so much historical data to make something good) I was getting answer that yes and u have a lot for PLC. If im not blind i saw this
Legislative Sejm

• Available for nation with Elective Monarchy
• +1 Monarch Admin Power

Integrated Sejmiks

• Available for nation with Elective Monarchy
• -5 Years of Nationalism

Well at least Elective monachy wont the as shit as it used to be. But anyway im dissapointed.

Integrated Sejmiks it's quite powerful. You can have with other bonuses -20 Years of Separatism. Another thing better have something than nothing. Just wait.

 

[AlazkanAssassin]

Just tell us WHEN!

 

[diceyy]

Is russia getting a new age ability for age of revolutions?

 

[Groogy]

If you're focusing on government reforms, does that mean you'll fix Mamluks losing the Mamluk government when they form Arabia? It's been a gripe of mine since Dharma came out, especially since when when CoC came out there was a lot of emphasis on Arabia keeping/adopting that unique government on formation

A quick search and I couldn't find it in our database. If it hasn't already been reported then please report that in the bug report forum.

 

[SamuraiLordofWii]

I read the dev diary and i like a lot of the changes but there is one part about the naval change which confuse me a bit :
-Blockades no longer have the Goods Produced or Trade Power maluses.

Wouldent it be better to keep them in on top to the new mechanic of looting ? To make navys relevant you need them to influence the nation a lot and also the course of wars so by making naval blockates as hurtfull as it can be would help this goal since a player would for sure invest into his navy when a blockade is hurting there income that much so you would acctualy invest into a navy to prevent it or at least build the new buldings to make sure blockading is hurtfull for the other side.

Since currently you can ignore the naval game when you are a mainland europe or mainland asia /africa nation even with a lot of coast since blockades dont really hurt and only when you go colonizing you might need ships to protected it. I think that wont change much since the looting wont affect a runing economy as much when your blockade dont reduce the income generation. A nation can be currently fully occupied and still generate income and looting itself never seem to be the cause of colaps for the other side but rather the smaller loan capblity which force a player into bancrupcy. Maybe that could be added to blockades too

My idea on blockades : Keep and maybe increase Goods Produced and Trade Power maluses also the devastation, looting and maybe for a fully costal blockate reduce the amount of loans. This would make naval blockading a usefull tool.
@Groogy @Johan

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

I'll have to say that i am disapointed with the Portuguese ideas rework. Sure they are not terrible anymore, but they still make very little sense from either a historical or gameplay point of view.
Lets analyze the new bonuses:
Naval:
sunk_ship_morale_hit_recieved = -0.33
disengagement_chance = 0.05
These ideas don't really help their navy to perform better, instead its more of two "losing less" bonuses, which i simply fail to understand the reason behind them since Portugal wasn't exactly renowned for being able to take a severe hit and keep on fighting, in fact usually after experiencing a large defeat it translated into a significant blow to their power projecting cappabilites, such as the cases of Alcacér Quibir and the Gravelines (A commun trait among smaller nations with no reserves to replenish their losses).
Land:
defensiveness = 0.1
artillery_power = 0.1
These do make sense from a historical perspective, in fact, the idea name is about a real historical institution. However I just think that including a 1790's institution as an idea that will innevitably be unlocked in the mid 1500's makes no sense. And from a gameplay perspective an artillery bonus as the last idea is clearly a mid-late game benefit, and i don't know how much i need to stress this but Portugal's peak of power was in the very early game, from game start to the mid 1500's only. Gameplay wise they are the exact opposite of real life, their start is very weak and then eventually become strong, in reality they started very strong but started to decline quickly.

They also didn't adress other issues such as Bandeirantes being a +1 Merchant (They were absolutely not merchant by any definition of the word), the Afonsine ordinances being a goods produced modifier, when in reality it was little more than the king being allowed to apply justice in the nobility's holdings and Trade Efficiency making absolutely no sense due to the glaring inneficiency of the Portuguese trade apparatus, such as their Antwerpen trade center going bankrupt in 1549 and the Casa da India going bankrupt by 1560, despite this being during the territorial peak of the empire and there not being any European competition in the spice trade yet...

Well, to be fair at least its better than nothing.

 

[Groogy]

Any chance in the future you can make all the administrative benefits of Courthouses/Town Halls apply on a per state basis?

Right now it is per province because it was implemented just a few days ago. I have though not yet decided if I want to move it to per state, it depends on how economy looks in our automated tests.

Since they have a niche benefit, why not give them a niche drawback, instead of one that'd cripple them in a real fight? Why would a marine be drastically worse than a regular soldier in close quarters combat? Doesn't make sense to me personally.

Numbers are always WIP until it is released

 

[BoomKidneyShot]

That would allow Mamluks to have Trade Companies in Arabia.

What about being able to create TC provinces more than X Regions away from the capital Region?

For example, how about if TC provinces had to be more than 2 regions away from the capital? In the case of the Mamluks, they wouldn't be able to TC Arabia, Horn of Africa, North Africa, East Africa, Iberia, Sub-Saharan Africa, the Levant/Mesopotamia, Anatolia, and western Iran, but could TC any other region.

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

A few questions come to mind:

1. Why would/should a colonial occupier care about this heathen HRE? I control this province now, what this false Emperor claims doesn't matter. See the Qing for something along those lines occurring IRL.
2. What's to stop me from moving my capital (and by being careful with vassals, this wouldn't be too hard to engineer in at least a few cases) to islands such as Maldives, Rhodes, Madagascar, or Great Britain/Ireland? Now almost everything is overseas.
3. Why should subjects matter? The EIC controlled land alongside Indian vassals of the UK, didn't it?

 

[akngn]

Any chance in the future you can make all the administrative benefits of Courthouses/Town Halls apply on a per state basis?

Or at least give us an easier way to remove buildings. Deleting docks, shipyards and temples to open slots for manifactories is so annoying. Now I have to this with courthouses too.

 

[Stepkick]

"Province must be considered overseas both from nation and any subjects of nation, not including tributaries."

Doesn't take much vision to see how this single point undoes the entirety of the change. When on a World Conquest or a contiguous land empire like the Mongols, you can no longer have Trade Companies, therefore you can no longer have extra merchants. The whole reason trade companies were so good is for the extra merchants, and the territorial corruption reduction.
Also forget about Golden Horde strategies to take India and have trade companies to save the abysmal horde economy, now we can enjoy being bankrupt all the time. *Golf clap*

If you are telling me it took you months to come up with that, then I really pity you. I instantly understood the downside while reading the limitations for the first time.

Also can't have trade companies in same religion province? So basically you can't trade with someone of the same religion as you? So I guess Europe didn't have Trade Companies in the Southern half of Africa.
No offense but this is beyond retarded logic. Very disappointing!

Here is a pointer for you ..... if you are planning to add limitations to the game, that isn't a problem.
Limitations are easy to add, like the territorial corruption, like the states, like the religious maintenance, many other crappy mechanics that destroyed the base game were born out of poorly implemented limitations. I would recommend you think twice maybe thrice if need be before adding limitations.

Absolutely disappointing!

 

[Najenda]

this patch in a nutshell : before of this patch we added too many mission to hordes, now we have to kill them

 

[fr-rein]

Will there be a flavour for TCs/colonies that belong to Monastic Orders/Theocracies? I mean, they are obviously focused on the religion more than trade and propagation of the "True Faith" would be more important to them. Such kind of thing exists for Islam, so why not use similar mechanics for Theocracies of other religions?

 

[Badesumofu]

"Province must be considered overseas both from nation and any subjects of nation, not including tributaries."

Doesn't take much vision to see how this single point undoes the entirety of the change. When on a World Conquest or a contiguous land empire like the Mongols, you can no longer have Trade Companies, therefore you can no longer have extra merchants. The whole reason trade companies were so good is for the extra merchants, and the territorial corruption reduction.
Also forget about Golden Horde strategies to take India and have trade companies to save the abysmal horde economy, now we can enjoy being bankrupt all the time. *Golf clap*

If you are telling me it took you months to come up with that, then I really pity you. I instantly understood the downside while reading the limitations for the first time.

Also can't have trade companies in same religion province? So basically you can't trade with someone of the same religion as you? So I guess Europe didn't have Trade Companies in the Southern half of Africa.
No offense but this is beyond retarded logic. Very disappointing!

Here is a pointer for you ..... if you are planning to add limitations to the game, that isn't a problem.
Limitations are easy to add, like the territorial corruption, like the states, like the religious maintenance, many other crappy mechanics that destroyed the base game were born out of poorly implemented limitations. I would recommend you think twice maybe thrice if need be before adding limitations.

Absolutely disappointing!

overseas just means on a different continent to your capital, though.

 

[Nyanako]

Lots of work. Good work.
Are we still on monthly dev diaries, or back to weekly, or fortnightly dev diaries.

 

[lolada]

Been thinking about it but nothing concrete right now

Even cost scaling of cav would go a long way.. making it more affordable than artillery early - differency is quite small now and artillery has siege benefits.. so why bother with cav at all. If anything ... cav cost could from 2.0x to 4.0x and artillery the other way around from 4.0x to 2.0.

Combat wise - both do add extra 30%-ish more damage to infantry unit.. That is something that could be tweaked. Arty actually tends to deal more and cav less - due to casualties.

And cav is very incosistent with upgrades.. there are tech jumps... its often weaker than infantry with pips and sometimes even with damage multipliers.

I think cav can be fixed without any combat reworks. Some improvements in cav placement on battlefield would be also great.. as once they kill a unit, they are stuck in reserves practically.