Europa Universalis IV Developer diary 13 – FREEEDOM!

[Pitt The Elder]

Proportionally, however, the EU4 core system is a huge step up from EU3 where you can feasibly get to a point where you burn 2+ infamy per year, meaning 100 new core provinces every 50 years with good CBs, and there's no realistic cap at all on expansion other than infamy burn. Hopefully the new overextension mechanic plus the necessity to spend admin points on stuff other than cores will mean that even large states grow only at a slow (i.e. historically appropriate) pace.

Having read Guillaume HJ's post in the 50 Points to Core thread, I'm actually fairly appeased. Though we shall have to see how it turns out.

 

[Bluehawk]

So, since the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is a tag now instead of a personal union like in Eu3, what will happen when those Lithuanian rebels in the screenshot break away? Will the Commonwealth automatically flip to the POL tag, or will there be two contradictory states existing at once?

 

[unmerged(63836)]

So, since the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is a tag now instead of a personal union like in Eu3, what will happen when those Lithuanian rebels in the screenshot break away? Will the Commonwealth automatically flip to the POL tag, or will there be two contradictory states existing at once?

In EU3 personal union was active up to real union of Lublin and creation of the Commonwealth in 1579, and after that it was simply Poland that inherited Lithuania. New tag replaces simple inheritance by Poland. Personal union of Poland and Lithuania (up to 1579) and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (after 1579) are two different things. I guess that there could be both 'the Commonwealth' and Lithuania. Same as Castlle/Aragon rebelling from Spain, or Scotland rebelling from Great Britain in EU3. In these both cases their name also implies that they rule over these rebels (Espania means Iberian peninsula, Great Britain is an island consiting of England, Scotland, and Wales).

EDIT

Also, according to screenshot, Polish peasants rebelling from the Commonwealth would defect to Silesia - kind of weird. I guess that generic culture-group based rebel mechanics are unchanged.

 

[Andy_Dandy]

Isn't there such a thing as Naval Manpower or something similar? Thus they can still be split, no?

Why would they split the manpower in naval and land? What's the fun in that? The purpose is to make it harder to decide what you use your manpower on. More hard interesting choices choices with trade-offs equals more strategy equals a better and deeper strategy game.

And a sidenote; navies didn't recruit only experienced sailors during EU-times if someone had that idea. They often just raided the cost and took the first and best peasants they could find, and forced them to become a part of the crew. They weren't so picky about it.....

 

[Gustav91]

Civil wars. Revolts. Plots. Murders. Death and destruction.

There's a reason a lot of countries that started out as elective monarchies changed to hereditary rule instead. It was a lot more stable.

Stronger aristocracy, worse problems. Forming of the Kalmar Union when Margareta was chosen Queen in Sweden there was a smooth change the passing over to the Gryfs, Eric av Pommern was not a problem either until his wife Filippa av England died in 1430, because she was actually the "true" ruler. She was doing most of the work. So as long there are "good" rulers and a united aristocracy the elective monarchy's will work fine.

This reminds that I want to see the queens role extended. In cases as the rule of Eric av Pommern will have no problems until his queen Filippa dies.
Kingdoms should have a ruler and if it's a male ruler we will even see the queen (if we have any) which could have her own stats that gives more monarch points (more often low military). If you have a female ruler you can marry her to but if you marry her to a king you'll be a lesser part in a personal union. Otherwise she'll be set aside. But if you keep a female ruler you could get some special events boosting your monarchy points.

It's an idea. Roast it my friends!
You can hate it, it's okay.....

 

[Gingerninja]

Realistically, they shouldn't. Norway was decimated by the Black Death due to an already small population and the fact that its aristocracy (again, quite small) was pretty much wiped out as far as I know. I think that's why they ended up appealing to Denmark. I don't think EU games really model these things (am I wrong?) but at the very least Norway should probably have a very small manpower pool.

Norway is Tier 3 so something must've happened to them. I dare say the potential was there.

 

[Closet Skeleton]

EDIT

Also, according to screenshot, Polish peasants rebelling from the Commonwealth would defect to Silesia - kind of weird. I guess that generic culture-group based rebel mechanics are unchanged.

I assumed that means the rebels are funded by Silesians. Happens all the time in EU3 where all kinds of rebels have the flags of various neighbours meaning they're supported and won't attack that country's armies.

 

[KaptainMorganWo]

But what if I want to go from a Republic to a Monarchy for roleplaying purposes?

 

[unmerged(80402)]

Realistically, they shouldn't. Norway was decimated by the Black Death due to an already small population and the fact that its aristocracy (again, quite small) was pretty much wiped out as far as I know. I think that's why they ended up appealing to Denmark. I don't think EU games really model these things (am I wrong?) but at the very least Norway should probably have a very small manpower pool.

They do. Norway is by far worst european country you can take.

 

[Dafool]

But what if I want to go from a Republic to a Monarchy for roleplaying purposes?

Then you'll most likely need to stage a revolt and then let the rebels do the work for you. EU3's relatively painless transition from monarchy to republic and vice versa seems to be gone.

 

[Talq]

Stronger aristocracy, worse problems. Forming of the Kalmar Union when Margareta was chosen Queen in Sweden there was a smooth change the passing over to the Gryfs, Eric av Pommern was not a problem either until his wife Filippa av England died in 1430, because she was actually the "true" ruler. She was doing most of the work. So as long there are "good" rulers and a united aristocracy the elective monarchy's will work fine.

Except your last sentence is the main qualifier. You absolutely should not expect good rulers and a united aristocracy for 400 years. Aristocrats who put their own interests first (want favours (read, pay no taxes) for their vote, can be bribed, vote for their friend, make a bid for the crown itself, disregard the crown and do their own thing even when the nation is being pounded by a superior neighbour) are not a rarity.

This reminds that I want to see the queens role extended. In cases as the rule of Eric av Pommern will have no problems until his queen Filippa dies.
Kingdoms should have a ruler and if it's a male ruler we will even see the queen (if we have any) which could have her own stats that gives more monarch points (more often low military). If you have a female ruler you can marry her to but if you marry her to a king you'll be a lesser part in a personal union. Otherwise she'll be set aside. But if you keep a female ruler you could get some special events boosting your monarchy points.

It's an idea. Roast it my friends!
You can hate it, it's okay.....

Outside of inserting the assumption that all queens were good rulers & should be a benefit to you?

As an aside, Elizabeth I of england was one of the few examples where an unmarried female ruler (& consequently no direct heir) went reasonably well come succession. Most times the end of the direct line would trigger some civil strife (see all the ...of Succession wars).

 

[Grubnessul]

Can you guys, please, please reconsider this system. All it will do is encourage existing blobs to get bigger, faster. A small nation that manages to grab a non-core high-base-tax province is going to slapped with over-extension almost immediately, whereas a France, Russia, or PLC that does the same won't notice it at all.

I'll reserve full judgment until we see the full infamy-replacement system, but you really must tie in some mechanic to stop big countries from being in some constant cycle of always getting more powerful. Perhaps the monarch points are that, but at the moment, it doesn't seem like it. Even if it's as simple as having a flat number of provinces per government tier, which each one over that contributing to over extension, that would make mid and late game play somewhat interesting, rather than just being some all crushing super-power.

But France also has a very limited number of admin points to spent on its expansion as well, while the OPM becoming a TMP has relatively much more admin points to integrate the new province quickly.

 

[Sute]{h]

Is "the Commonwealth" a new way of dealing with unions? If so it should apply in a few other places around the world as well. Mainly the Kalmar Union and Denmark-Norway. Like Poland-Lithuania both of these can be defined as real unions rather than personal unions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_union

 

[Captain Gars]

In EU3 personal union was active up to real union of Lublin and creation of the Commonwealth in 1579, and after that it was simply Poland that inherited Lithuania. New tag replaces simple inheritance by Poland. Personal union of Poland and Lithuania (up to 1579) and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (after 1579) are two different things. I guess that there could be both 'the Commonwealth' and Lithuania. Same as Castlle/Aragon rebelling from Spain, or Scotland rebelling from Great Britain in EU3. In these both cases their name also implies that they rule over these rebels (Espania means Iberian peninsula, Great Britain is an island consiting of England, Scotland, and Wales).

Which is also why the name The Commonwealth is to prefer to Poland-Lithuania.

 

[Captain Gars]

Is "the Commonwealth" a new way of dealing with unions? If so it should apply in a few other places around the world as well. Mainly the Kalmar Union and Denmark-Norway. Like Poland-Lithuania both of these can be defined as real unions rather than personal unions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_union

It's not a new way, but a new tag just like the Scandinavia, Great Britain, etc., although to form it is a bit different from those other tags.

 

[Orinsul]

But what if I want to go from a Republic to a Monarchy for roleplaying purposes?

Generally Role-Playing purposes is where modded in trigger-by-console-only-events come into it


Will there be advanced government types for Theocracies? or will you have to become a Monarchy or Republic as in EUIII to keep up in the late-game or expand?

 

[Valkanis]

True that. Its like trying to kill your leader because his stats/traits are bad.

Except that history is filled with people trying to kill their leader because they didn't like his or her traits.

 

[Valkanis]

Why would they split the manpower in naval and land? What's the fun in that? The purpose is to make it harder to decide what you use your manpower on. More hard interesting choices choices with trade-offs equals more strategy equals a better and deeper strategy game.

And a sidenote; navies didn't recruit only experienced sailors during EU-times if someone had that idea. They often just raided the cost and took the first and best peasants they could find, and forced them to become a part of the crew. They weren't so picky about it.....

I agree completely.

 

[Gustav91]

Except your last sentence is the main qualifier. You absolutely should not expect good rulers and a united aristocracy for 400 years. Aristocrats who put their own interests first (want favours (read, pay no taxes) for their vote, can be bribed, vote for their friend, make a bid for the crown itself, disregard the crown and do their own thing even when the nation is being pounded by a superior neighbour) are not a rarity.

You are definitely right 9/10 successions there where problems but I meant that there actually is that last 5-10% of the successions that there was no problems.

All queen wheren't good rulers so a Queen could have stats of 0/0/0 in worst case, a regular Queen could have 2/2/0 (adm/dip/mil) so they're by default often low stats.

 

[TheLionHeart]

*Spits coffee out* THE COMMONWEALTH!! Poland would have even been a better tag for Poland-Lithuania.

Ah, whatever I'm hardly going to touch Poland this time around. Because Dutch + New trade system = GOTY...for me at least.