IIRC advisers can also give boni on ruler's stats. Johan said they are expensive, but GB in the 18th century was very rich, so it wouldn't be matter for them.
Europa Universalis IV Developer Diary 11 - The Cost & Reward for Technology
- Thread starter Johan
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
IIRC advisers can also give boni on ruler's stats. Johan said they are expensive, but GB in the 18th century was very rich, so it wouldn't be matter for them.
Administrative technology seems fine, as it has everything to do with improving the stability and infrastructure of your country.
Military technology on the other hand doesn't make sense. The term "Military" covers land, sea and air, but here it only covers land. Why not name it what it is, Land or Army Technology?
Diplomatic Technology is even more odd. Diplomacy has always been around since the dawn of man and isn't really something I would consider a technology. Wether it's about administration, warfare or trade, diplomacy will always be a part of it. Is diplomacy less relevant if you're a land based Austria compared to a seafaring England? I just don't see why trade and naval techs have been named "diplomatic" when Naval technology would be more suitable.
Administrative Technology, Naval Technology and Land technology would make more sense in my head at least
Military technology on the other hand doesn't make sense. The term "Military" covers land, sea and air, but here it only covers land. Why not name it what it is, Land or Army Technology?
Diplomatic Technology is even more odd. Diplomacy has always been around since the dawn of man and isn't really something I would consider a technology. Wether it's about administration, warfare or trade, diplomacy will always be a part of it. Is diplomacy less relevant if you're a land based Austria compared to a seafaring England? I just don't see why trade and naval techs have been named "diplomatic" when Naval technology would be more suitable.
Administrative Technology, Naval Technology and Land technology would make more sense in my head at least
The fort seems like a placeholder- as in for locked slots that open up only after certain dates or tech levels. I reckon the fort in Military Tech will turn into your Fire bonus, for example, since Fire is meaningless in the early game. Locking an attribute like that might also be a way to keep you from getting advisors, events or the like that affect irrelevant attributes, like the dreaded early-game 1-shock 6-fire general.
IMO, the facts you are mentioning do not apply very well to EU, because they happened very late in the game´s time span (and we don´t even know when exactly EUIV will end). I´m no history expert, but I think that during most of the time span featured in the game there wasn´t any technological progress leap as abrupt as the Industrial Revolution.
And, please correct me if I´m wrong, but by the time of the Industrial Revolution, wasn´t Great Britain already a constitutional monarchy? That way, the King wasn´t the only one responsible of leading the country, so in-game his stats would be a combination of his onw stats and those of the Parliament members.
George III will still be reducing British possibilities while he shouldn't influence them in any way.
I do wonder, with all the focus being on the administration-diplomacy-military trinity, is there any hope that we might get some "parliaments" for the republics and/or other nations with those three groups?
Administrative Technology, Naval Technology and Land technology would make more sense in my head at least
The naming is to fit with ruler's stats. Clearer that way, and it doesn't really matter anyway.
I like the idea of parliaments but I don't think it would work out. What would parliaments do to make the game more engaging? If all they're going to do is block the player from doing things, it would just be the old Chinese Factions mechanic from Divine Wind, and I don't know anyone who thought that was a fun mechanic.
If it was done like Rome's, it would be great, IMO.
More games need faction mechanic like that.
I don't like this at all, the categories don't make any sense. Naval power, trade, and colonization under diplomacy? Why? Also technology is too dependent on the head of state, which doesn't make any sense either because many advances were made by private initiatives and without any state patronage. Progress should be primarily be dependent the nation not the monarch/head of state.
Last edited:
Ming factions were boring because they focus on not allowing things and giving penalties. Parliaments could work by making some things easier (bonuses) and other thing harder. Also factions were very static (sliders could be changed by 1 every decade or so, while monarchs changed even less often). If parliaments were more dynamic (like the Senate in EU: Rome), depending on multiple factors, then they could avoid becoming boring.
Yes. Napoleon used airballoons in some of his battles, but putting that aside the word "military" covers all armed branches of a country wether it's 1530 or 2012
Still, it makes no sense whatsoever that the rulers diplomacy stats determines your progress in the arts of trade (fits much better into administration) and ship building (fits much better into military). The navy is just as much military as the army, and should go under Military tech, otherwise diplomacy really needs to be renamed as it doesn't have much to do with diplomacy at all.
On a sidenote, will rulers be able to be converted to both generals and admirals? Always found it strange that you couldn't put them in the navy, I know Danish kings have a long history of serving in the navy rather than in the army.
Last edited:
I also find it a little strange the way things are lumped into these three categories. Paradox is clearly very restricted by the three monarch stats and are trying to make too many things fit evenly into those categories, but I don't think it'll be so bad in gameplay.
It just simply means an organisation of armed forces authorised by a state or such. The term certainly does not cover land, sea and air. It doesn't cover anything. It could be armed forces on the Moon and still be correctly called the military.
Which is why I wrote "all armed forces", as military does cover everything
Ah you see I thought that was the full quote. The actual full quote makes a lot more sense. Though you could still, in my opinion, get away with calling the land army the military and not including navies. But I think the whole naval in diplomacy tech is due to game balance and the desire to keep it with trade (which is very dependent on navies)
I agree. I think it might have been better use different naming conventions to highlight what these groups are about, if only to keep things relatively clear and straightforward.