Hello and welcome to another development diary for Europa Universalis. This time I’ll talk about a new feature for our soon to be announced expansion. This is the mechanic we called Hegemony.

The purpose of this feature is to create a greater narrative for the endgame, but there are two cases in which this will become the most used one.

First of all, our goal was to create something for those of you who like to conquer the world, and make part of that more interesting, and hopefully less tedious.

Secondly, our goal is to create an interesting and dynamic last century in larger multiplayer games.

So what is a Hegemony then?

A Hegemony is something a Great Power can proclaim when they fulfill certain conditions.There are 3 different types of Hegemony, each excelling in their own area available to Great Powers. They do come with their own requirements to become Hegemon and you must excel in their specific area. The AI will proclaim Hegemony whenever they can.

What is interesting is that there can only be one of each Hegemon, and a Hegemony is lost when you lose a war, no matter how you lose it.

Proclaiming a Hegemony gives you a bonus which partially depends on which Hegemony you have proclaimed, and the longer you keep your Hegemony, the bigger your scaling bonus gets, and finally when you reach max progress you gain a further finisher. Currently it takes about 20 years for a nation to get their Hegemony Power maximised, but that's subject to tweaking.

A Hegemon can not be allied with one of the other two Hegemons, and all other nations get a relation penalty against you. A Hegemon gets a very nice power projection boost, and will also gain score at a higher gain, while any nation allied with them gets less power projection and score.

All Hegemons have -0.1 monthly War Exhaustion and a +25% to Spy Defence, and all get 10% cheaper power costs when they have their hegemony power maxed.

Let's take a look at the different Hegemonies then.

Economical Hegemony
A Great Power with a monthly income of 1000£ can proclaim this Hegemony.

The base bonus is +100% manpower on all mercenary companies recruited, and the 100% power bonus is +50% Global Trade Power

The scaling powers go up to.
+33% Mercenary Discipline
+25% Trade Goods Produced
+25% Tax Income


Naval Hegemon
A Great Power with 1000 Heavy Ships can proclaim this Hegemony

The base bonus is +20% Naval Morale, and the 100% power bonus is +50% Naval Engagement Width

The scaling powers go up to.
+100% Naval Force Limit
+200% Sailors
+200% Blockade Efficiency


Military Hegemon
A Great Power with 500 Infantry Regiments can proclaim this Hegemony

The base bonus is +20% Land Morale on all mercenary companies recruited, and the 100% power bonus is TO BE DETERMINED.

The scaling powers go up to.
+10% Discipline
+30% Manpower
-10% Land Maintenance

Please remember that no numbers are finalised yet, and also that the Great Power mechanics will be unlocked by this expansion as well..

 

[SebasR]

i like the mechanic but i think the numbers are complete unbalance.

 

[Marmelado]

That is basically what Imperator: Rome seems to aim at, a civilization builder

Guess, my ideal timeteable would be:

Imperator - civilization builder
Early Middle Ages game - war map-painter and civilization reshuffle
Crusader Kings 3 - RPG with early nation building
EU5 - nation builder
Napoleon - war map-painter and nation reshuffler
Vic3 - late nation building
HOI4/5 - war map-painter and final reshuffler

 

[grandadmiralbob]

I haven't chimed in these DDs in a while, but there are a few things I have to say.
One thing we can mostly all agree on, is the AI is NOT the best opponent. Sometimes it suprises me, but mostly for the lack of AI. When you add mechanics that have prerequiisites and the player gets more boni, it cripples the AI even more. Orissa does well, but can't take advantage of it's first mission as an example. So IMHO, not only is it a snowballing for the player, but it's more stagnation for the AI, which is the last thing it needs.
About this DD, I have no idea why you would more bonuses. There are so many bonuses that I can't remember all of them. Trade bonuses, mission bonuses, event bonuses etc are all something, as just stated, that a player is better at beelining to get. Instead of adding more bonus buttons, why not expand on mechanics that already exist?
On a personal note, ever since August 13, the only real game changers are development, missions kinda, and map changes. I have bought every DLC on release, but I feel like those are the only changes that make the game fresh and have had a lasting impact on the gameplay.

 

[Later]

Why do you make strong nation even stronger? This game is already far too easy after first 100 years, people usually quit after 1600, because at that point the gameplay looks like: declare war, take half of the continent, core, repeat.

 

[randomgamer71]

I was expecting something like a super great power, with new options and new thing you can do (even if honestly have no idea what they could be), not a "hey, you are the strongest in the world so take this bonus that make you even stronger".

Can one stop being an hegemon? Suppose one is a naval hegemon and then reach the prerequisites to be military hegemon and prefer it because navies are useless, can stop being one and start being the other?

 

[abedfo]

I'd rather have some re-work of the Revolution mechanics. The Empire that goes Revolutionary first be it AI or a Human player should get some mega bonuses to go on a conquest spree like Napoleon. This could then sync nicely with a defensive coalition feature.

Additionally there are so many little historical features and events you could add. This sort of content would make me want to play to the end as it could lead to some potentially exciting gameplay.

 

[Manst]

I'd rather have some re-work of the Revolution mechanics.

They are already changing the revolution.
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...velopment-diary-3rd-of-december-2019.1292374/

 

[Me_]

There is no age restriction

Perhaps the system could interact with ages in a different way. For every age there would be a separate decision to gain hegemony, with increasingly higher requirements, but also the rewards would only reach huge values in last age. For example:
To become Naval Hegemon one would need:
100 Heavy Ships in I age
200 Heavy Ships in II age
500 Heavy Ships in III age
1000 Heavy Ships in IV age
The rewards for being a hegemon would be:
-0.01 monthly War Exhaustion and a +10% to Spy Defence, and all get 2% cheaper power costs in I age
-0.02 monthly War Exhaustion and a +15% to Spy Defence, and all get 3% cheaper power costs in II age
-0.05 monthly War Exhaustion and a +20% to Spy Defence, and all get 5% cheaper power costs in III age
-0.1 monthly War Exhaustion and a +25% to Spy Defence, and all get 10% cheaper power costs in IV age

Numbers for explanatory purposes only!!! Do not judge them!

And with the end of each age the hegemonies would reset with the last hegemon keeping the bonuses for 5 years.

That could make the system a bit more dynamic as there would be claimants showing up all through the game, rather than only at the end of the game.

EDIT:
Also, I don't think it's a good idea to have modifiers that reinforce themselves, e.g. ADM hegemony requires huge income, but also increases income, meaning that if a nation at 900 income manages to jump its income just for one month (e.g. via peace treaty), the Hegemony bonus would ensure that they stay above 1000 even after that one-month jump disappears.

Similarly, naval hegemony gives naval forcelimits, meaning that one can go over limit to become Hegemon and then worry not that they will go bankrupt, because the Hegemony will now ensure their forcelimits is sufficient.

 

[SPAMbuca]

I haven't gone through all replies so if it's been mentioned already ignored it, but:

- I don't think the negative effects are important at all once you get the point where you can proclaim a hegemony. Who cares what other nations think of you when you have a standing army of 500k+. It's definately not something the AI will ever achieve.
- Say, you lose hegemony by losing a war, wouldn't you be able to get it back instantly assuming you, for example, just build back up to 500k after the war?
- As other said, it doesn't sound balanced as the bonusses aren't equal while the the strongest hegemony is also an easier or easiest to achieve.
- I think absolutism is already achieving what you want world conquest players to achieve.
- In single player, when would you ever need 1000 heavy ships? I never had a need for 500 heavy ships either, apart from the achievement. You'd waste a ton of money and other resources for hegemony.
- If you want to create dynamic modifier, you need to make it competitive. As example I would refer to defender of the faith; a title I don't like to take unless there's some very special circumstances. That title can only be taken over if it's not abandoned if you have more prestige than the one carrying it. The way it's set up now, I can guarantee you the player won't ever lose it as the player has no reason to ever lose a war at this point.

 

[abedfo]

They are already changing the revolution.
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...velopment-diary-3rd-of-december-2019.1292374/

Didnt see this DD, thank you. I havent played the game in a while.

 

[Reman]

I like the overall idea of having "cleanup" mechanics to make the end of a WC less tedious, as there's really no reason to slow things down when the player has 15k development. However, the bonuses are off. I'd prefer to see things like reduced warscore cost, siege ability, reduced unrest, reduced annexation costs, and stuff like that rather than what's currently given.

 

[Me_]

To be fair, I think the negative reactions are a bit overblown. EU4 already has win-more mechanic, like Great Powers or Age Objectives many of which are easier to achieve for big nations. The idea of hegemonies itself is interesting. The numbers are grossly unbalanced, and as others said some unique rewards, rather than plain numbers could be more engaging, but this is still work in progress, so there is no need to panic.

 

[Johan]

Ok.

Feature needs to be overhauled..

 

[SPAMbuca]

Ok.

Feature needs to be overhauled..

Credits for listening to the community. I hope we get to weigh in on similar issues in the future to avoid a flood of complaints after launch.

 

[PiterCoffer]

Why would I lose naval or economic hegemony by losing a war, it's not like losing a land war that you lost a province in or in which you had to give some money in the peace treaty (or even more if you didn't lose anything and it was the ally that called for your help to lose something in the peace treaty) would have any impact on your naval or economic hegemony. Wouldn't it be better if you lost naval hegemony if someone else has a stronger fleet and economic hegemony if someone had a bigger income? Mind you, it should still be possible to make someone lose economic/naval hegemony via war by adding a new peace option "renounce to hegemony" (which could either cost like 60 warscore and just cancel the hegemony or cost 100 warscore and also give a negative percentile modifier to land/naval force limit or income for a few years depending on the type of hegemony that is being lost, this would in my opinion better represent the limitations you enforce on the losing country to concretely prevent them from being a hegemon)

 

[Johan]

locking it, and will be posting a new one when design has changed to feedback here..

clickable button to get power when you gain X is not changing though.