Europa Universalis IV Developer diary 15 - Et tu Brute?

  • 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.
I like the idea of republican tradition. It would be cool if you start with more republican tradition coming from a constitutional monarchy or similar constitutional government.

Also, like the example event. Good dev diary.
 
Hah, finally republics wont be superstable - What about Republican Dictatorships / Bureaucratic Despotisms? Do they also get Republican Legitimacy? (I suppose some countries will have national ideas that give bonuses to republican tradition, like Switzerland, USA, or Venice)
Will all "fallen" republics change to Despotic Monarchy (its one of most primitve governments?), or depending on technology level some will change into Absolute Monarchies / Enlightened Despotisms

It's probably not a big deal if you change to despotic monarchy. Previous DDs have made it seem fairly painless to change government types. You can probably go from merchant republic to despotic monarchy and then immediately change to absolute monarchy if you want to at the cost of a few ADM points.

I wonder how republican tradition will work for late game revolutions like in the U.S. or France. Will they have to start at 0 tradition too (assuming the game even goes that far)?
 
Actually, I think Americans can seek re-election after they step down after their 2 terms and wait a bit. I may be wrong though.

No, just two terms for the POTUS since 1951.

Some time ago we've seen the Commonwealth as a republic. This makes me wonder: how will the government of the Commonwealth be represented? A new prince every 8 years, like in EU3?

Well, I hope we can customize the maximal number and length of terms.
 
Last edited:
hannibal_barca: Leave the nationalism at home, dude. We talk about games here.

More on topic, I just noticed something - there's some talk about how it's annoying that you need to conquer Rome to form Italy, but take a look at the exact text:

"Of course, Milan can still form the nation of Italy as all Italian minors can But they need to dominate Northern Italy and Rome to do it."

Key word bolded. It suggests that outright conquest and annexation may not be needed to form Italy. Perhaps Spheres of Influence matter more now than they did in EU3? Perhaps the diplomatic system has a few new tricks and treaties up its sleeve for those who'd rather rule through soft power? I hope so - trade already seems like it'd be a good deal for nations who want to play a less aggressive game, and additional diplomatic options can only make that better.
 
Perhaps republics formed by a revolt will start with a higher legitimacy than those formed by the king deciding to change governments?
I believe it's been said that in EU4 the only way to convert to a republic is through revolution; not a simple stabhit like in EU3. (Excepting scripted events of course.)
 
I am wondering will term limits for republics be variable? For instance when playing as venice you are electing the doge but the problem is that unless rare circumstances happen the doge was elected for life. Other members of the government were elected for shorter terms afaik.

Where as in other games, there was no way to repersent this arrangment. so just curious if this will be in the game somehow.
 
Just out of curiosity: why is Milan a republic in a screenshot from 1444?
 
Just out of curiosity: why is Milan a republic in a screenshot from 1444?

Presumably the event mentioned in the DD occurred/was manually triggered and changed the govt type.

As for the early republic and USA example of Washington re-election forcing it back to a monarchy: that depends on when you consider teh start of the republic. Basing it at the start of the revolution gives ~15 years before GW was re-elected as the time of the articles of confederation as well as the war era before that.

The fall-back to a despotic monarchy is probably intended as a deterrant to the frequent swapping seen in EU3, much like the "must change by revolt" mechanic.
 
I think all historical events that fire should have an option, even if its as simple as "do it" and "don't do it".

The one you see seems to be the result of a decision made previously.
 
So, do I get he math right?

You are elected for 4 years, and re-election costs 10 republican tradition.

So, having a lot of 2 terms leaders very slowly erodes the republic, but if you count in crappy rulers you do no want to re-elect, The "typical 21st century-style term limited" republic is perfectly stable at being republic.

If you go on re-election spree, you loose 6 republican tradition every re-election, and perfect republic needs ~14 re-elections to become monarchy. I guess after straight 60years of rule you`re kind of a monarch anyway.

Although, to make things a litle more interesting i would like to see republican leders having heirs and you can elect the son of current ruler for same penalty. The advantage: you know kids stats. It is kind of realistic that the father`s power and allies would support he son, right? Also i guess that would make sense to have an option.
but there is no risk! You will know if it will revert! and what madman would, if he wants to stay republic, keep the same leader if he is under 20% tradition?!

i mean, if you know you are under 20% tradition, you will know not to elect the same leader twice. so there is no risk anyway, unless you do not know how much tradition you have or unless it is based on chance if it reverts via a percentage change of it happening tied to the tradition
Running republic at low republican tradition is not a good choice.
 
Last edited:
As several have asked before; what happens with the terms of Venetian doges? They were elected for life, though few ruled for a huge stretch of time. The EU3 thing of four year terms was a bit silly, but probably a gameplay expedient.

What about in EU4? I can't see Venice becoming a monarchy because you continue electing the same doge when that happened historically!