EUIV - Development Diary - 14th of January 2020

[klingonadmiral]

In other words, if I have a land connection from Constantinople to Kumari (Southern Most Tip of India) I won't be able to make Kumari a Trade Company Province.

London and Kyoto: the two new cities of world's desire.

 

[covya]

Personally I think Cav should fulfill a role, like Artillery does within the combat mechanics. I don't think just tweaking pips to be relatively good to their cost would be enough or good.

Have you considered allowing units to "overflow" combat width by their flanking range? So if combat width was 20, and cav could flank 2 tiles, you could have 20 infantry and 4 cavalry fighting effectively. The primary benefit that makes cavalry worth while is their increased flanking, but this quickly drops off once armies scale to the point that they are at full combat width. This would mitigate that drop off.

Also, how is overseas defined in this instance? Just no land connection to the capital? or does it also need to be on a different continent? Could an island nation trade company the mainland, for example? Are the Americas trade company-able for anyone who doesn't get colonial nations there, provided the land is overseas?

 

[swagmeister]

Propagate religion still hasn't been addressed with these changes. Did you guys forget it was a feature you added? I'll be honest that I thoroughly despise the idea of not being able to convert my provinces before adding them to trade companies unless they add in a way to convert them afterwards outside of being Muslim with propagate religion.

 

[Chewyshoot]

Seems like it's time for a bit more DEUS VULT! Theocratic One Faiths just got a lot more doable, it seems

 

[Amtep]

Now I can achieve my dream of playing Ming with a "stated land only" rule

Territories are a kind of administrative neglect that horrifies proper Confucian administrators.

 

[Athel404]

Since external mission is removed, it poses even more the question whether Crusader State counts as a monastic order for the reforms, or if forming Jerusalem would lose the reforms and force a knights player to pick normal theocracy ones

 

[Stepkick]

After reading the Dev Diary further and coming across the Naval Combat section, I don't know what to say. Am I further disappointed? Is the change any good? Concerning marines in particular and the +5 naval attrition building.

Basically if Britain transports, troops from London to Sydney, regular troops, during peace, that has the potential to wipe out their entire manpower pool? Am I reading this right. So the only logical way to ferry troops is none, ferry marines instead, and if you want to ferry marines then enjoy taking more Shock Damage, it's like you're purposely setting yourself into a Horde like shock phase. Someone please tell me I am reading it wrong. I see no reason why a journey from say California to Sydney of 40,000 regular troops should result in more casualties than troops available.

You might tell me to use marines as spearheads and then building troops on the newly acquired overseas territory after the war. Cool say my forcelimit is 60k, 40k regulars, 20k marines. I manage to claim Sri Lanka as Britain using my marines, all good I saved my manpower by avoiding the ferrying the regulars into the cesspit of manpower. Now I have Sri Lanka in my control, how am I supposed to send my regulars across? Do I build new regulars? I am forcelimit constrained. Do I disband the troops at home? More manpower loss? Someone please explain to me what's going on here.

And with naval attrition buildings so France will lose ships in the channel if Wessex has naval attrition buildings? Do they stack so 5 buildings in 5 provinces in one naval tile, 5x5 = 25 naval attrition???

 

[Howl]

Uh, coalitions are pretty easy to juggle man if you have difficulty managing coalitions I don't know what to tell you besides improve? If you're going for a WC you're easily at -200+ opinion modifiers from AE at many points adding more to that doesn't change the playstyle at all. But the PDX devs don't really understand the basics of their own game so not surprising that they can't understand how truly meaningless those and many other changes are.

Let's keep this civil and informed and you'll be taken more seriously.
For the record, I like to conquer the world and I like to one tag it.

Those are still meaningless, by the time you're going 200%, 300%, 400% money, manpower, etc is infinite I can't play most singleplayer games past 1600 because you've already won by that point.

In fact I would expect to be well above 100% quite early. The smartest move is probably to keep everything unstated as that will only lead to the dev counting for 25%. Early game with 500 base +25% from admin ideas (+a little extra from techin admin) that means you can have about 1.5k dev before you start building up this modifier. How long does it take you to reach 1.5k dev?
Sure, currently coalition handling is easy. As in, you actively limit which countries you want in the coalition, truce juggle and try to eliminate coalition members. Coalitions are likely a real consideration when you sit in front of the make peace screen and decide on what you take. So you actually play with this mechanic. You interact with it. It gives you choices. As much as coalitions are getting criticized they have this going for them.

With the new modifier? Imagine sitting at 400% of it.
Diplomacy? Gone. As you point out everyone hates you and you cannot improve relations. At all.
Vassals? Gone. Cannot improve relations so they will be impossible (really tedious) to integrate.
Coalitions? Basically everyone of the same religion will immediately be in coaliton range due to +AE.
Truce breaks? Who cares, not necessary for a leisurely one tag world conquest anyway.


@Groogy Sorry to say it, but at last for me these changes will destroy the game I like to play completely. With corruption you could at least still play as a horde, because after a certain point 100% corruption would actually be helpful. But if I understand the impact of these changes correctly that will be it for me.
I understand that other people want other things out of this game, but at least for me, this is a very sad read.

 

[Zhouji]

Will the Tibetan tags have a special Theocracy government form? And the Persian Feudal Theocracy government? They are the only few long-time existing Theocracy examples in history apart from the Christians.

Will the government reformation process be accelerated? Currently it's just simply not realistic for the Republics to enact the last Tier of reform.
Also in the post you mentioned "Combining this reform with the age bonus gained in the Age of Reformation, you can spread your religion to some quite large nations." when talking about a Tier 8 reform, which is hardly possible to finish during the Age of Reformation.

 

[Howl]

Personally I think Cav should fulfill a role, like Artillery does within the combat mechanics. I don't think just tweaking pips to be relatively good to their cost would be enough or good.

Remove insufficient support penalty. It makes having cavalry heavy armies for countries with a non 100% ratio impossible.
If you start even remotely close to the limit, your army is toast once you cross it. You will suffer massively more casualties, which incidentally will be mostly inf and only make it worse. Comically enough, you run the greatest risk in battles, where you brought more combat width than the enemy, so most of your cav is sitting by watching you infantry take losses. And then proceeds to cheer the enemy on to victory or something.
Currently you either go 100% cav ratio or the value does not matter for the few token cavalry you have. Anything else amounts to suicide.

 

[YeP1337]

I don't know if this has been answered already or not but.


Going over the limit has a scaling penalty which at 100% over the limit is:

• +100% Stability Cost Modifier
• +50% AE Impact
• -50% Improve Relations
• -5% Administrative Efficiency

Why is this a thing? You're effectively making the whole game play tall.

Also, why are you making it so you cannot have TC land that is your religion?


While I am intrigued by some of the changes, I don't feel that people should be getting penalized for expansionist gamestyles.


edit: typo.

 

[lolada]

After reading the Dev Diary further and coming across the Naval Combat section, I don't know what to say. Am I further disappointed? Is the change any good? Concerning marines in particular and the +5 naval attrition building.

Basically if Britain transports, troops from London to Sydney, regular troops, during peace, that has the potential to wipe out their entire manpower pool? Am I reading this right. So the only logical way to ferry troops is none, ferry marines instead, and if you want to ferry marines then enjoy taking more Shock Damage, it's like you're purposely setting yourself into a Horde like shock phase. Someone please tell me I am reading it wrong. I see no reason why a journey from say California to Sydney of 40,000 regular troops should result in more casualties than troops available.

You might tell me to use marines as spearheads and then building troops on the newly acquired overseas territory after the war. Cool say my forcelimit is 60k, 40k regulars, 20k marines. I manage to claim Sri Lanka as Britain using my marines, all good I saved my manpower by avoiding the ferrying the regulars into the cesspit of manpower. Now I have Sri Lanka in my control, how am I supposed to send my regulars across? Do I build new regulars? I am forcelimit constrained. Do I disband the troops at home? More manpower loss? Someone please explain to me what's going on here.

And with naval attrition buildings so France will lose ships in the channel if Wessex has naval attrition buildings? Do they stack so 5 buildings in 5 provinces in one naval tile, 5x5 = 25 naval attrition???

Basically you want to go coast and avoid ocean too much.. coast is 1% attrition, open sea 10%. So going from europe to asia is not that bad. going over the ocean you might want to path your way carefully. California to Sydney.. yeah thats bad for manpower. But who in the world transport 40k there.. you'll do it once or twice in the world conquest.
Once you conquer land you can build units there. Will be interesting to see how it turns out.

Do I disband the troops at home? More manpower loss? - Likely if you are at max FL. Hm there's even that thing with professionalism that allows you to disband units without manpower loss - but its quite high professionalism. There's something about hiring mercenaries to be said.

About naval attrition.. blockading naval fortresses looks like no-go anyway. you can't sit there long if enemy has fleet - because you'll get killed once enemy engages. Blockading GB.. i bet its quite impossible.. maybe with naval and maritime ideas. I think they already said it wouldn't stack.

 

[withche.07]

Would you consider hybrid government for Sunni theocratic rule over Mecca? especially Ottomans.

This is the event bringing up Sharifate of Mecca
View attachment 501100
I liked the idea of having hybrid government. It actually has historical basis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharifate_of_Mecca
During the Ottoman period the Emirate was not hereditary, and owed its succession to direct nomination by the Ottoman Porte. A dual system of government existed over the Hejaz for much of this period. Ruling authority was shared between the Emir, a member of the ashraf or descendants of Muhammad, and the Ottoman vali or governor. This system continued until the Arab Revolt of 1916. Apart from the Emirs of Mecca, Ottoman administration in the Hejaz was first at the hands of the Governor of Egypt and then the Governors of Jeddah. The Eyalet of Jeddah was later transformed into the Hejaz Vilayet, with a governor in Mecca.
The Hejaz region was formerly under the Mamluk Sultanate until its defeat and take over by the Ottomans in 1517. In the same year, Sharif Barakat of Mecca acknowledged the Ottoman Sultan as Caliph. When the Sharifs accepted Ottoman sovereignty, the Sultan confirmed them in their position as rulers of the Hejaz. Ottoman authority was only indirect, as the arrangement left real power with the Emir. The Sultan assumed the title of "Hâdimü’l-Haremeyni’ş-Şerifeyn", or Custodian of the Two Holy Cities.

 

[Johan]

Basically if Britain transports, troops from London to Sydney, regular troops, during peace, that has the potential to wipe out their entire manpower pool? Am I reading this right. So the only logical way to ferry troops is none, ferry marines instead, and if you want to ferry marines then enjoy taking more Shock Damage, it's like you're purposely setting yourself into a Horde like shock phase. Someone please tell me I am reading it wrong. I see no reason why a journey from say California to Sydney of 40,000 regular troops should result in more casualties than troops available.

1) you dont reinforce when on a ship.

2) if you hug coasts, its not a problem, as its the same 1% attrition as before.


this change makes it a fair bit harder to move troops across the atlantic.

 

[Rzts]

I think devs should be careful not to unintentionally penalize tall nations (sure this is not the intention right?). Like if I play tall, I only have 3 states but every province are over 40 development, counting around 500 total dev, and suddenly I am penalized for bringing peace and prosperity, just to say.

 

[covya]

I think devs should be careful not to unintentionally penalize tall nations (sure this is not the intention right?). Like if I play tall, I only have 3 states but every province are over 40 development, counting around 500 total dev, and suddenly I am penalized for bringing peace and prosperity, just to say.

Especially tall nations which are locked at a specific government rank
edit: Does lithuania come out with close to a 200% penalty? They are locked at duchy, with something like 273 dev, with almost all of it stated

 

[szmik]

fixes seem to be worse than problems do you want people to miss corruption?

As for naval combat improvement, why not just remove ships from combat outright? who would care about disengagement chance when it seems to have minimal effect?

If anything there should be open beta to really test all the changes across variety of playing styles.

 

[supdewd]

hooolly moollly this is big

 

[Vohen]

Next Diary will come on the 4th of February.

So you're keeping that into the new year?
Will it be permanent?

 

[Badesumofu]

No cause in that case, their example of Mamluk not being able to make Arabia (which is in the continent of Asia) into a Trade Company wouldn't be so.

Mamluks not being to make Arabian TCs is explained by the same religious group limitation.