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.
By this math it is impossible to re-elect a leader in the first 20 years as a republic, without changing back to a despotic monarchy. And the 10% is that percentage points or 10% of your current tradition? So if I'm at 30% republican tradition, if I re-elect am I at 27% or at 20%? I like the idea of republican tradition, but re-electing leaders should be a viable option, and actually kind of the normal mode (people prefer to vote for what they know, president have a tendency to get re-elected right?). I would also prefer at least the choice to become a republican dictatorship instead of a despotic monarchy.

It's important to know how frequent are the elections, IMO. If we take the USA system, they have Presidential elections every 4 years, and before they made a law in that sense (after Roosevelt) it was still tradition (enstablished from Washington himself when he refused the third mandate arguing it was dangerous for the democracy to have so much power in one man hands for so much time) that a President shouldn't stay in position for more than 2 mandates, a.k.a. 8 years. To make this realistic, it should be possible to re-elect someone once without losing the Republic form. So they need to loosen up a little the parameters.
 
On other hand, they made a DD for The Republic yesterday so there is still a chance for a EU4 DD I think.
 
On other hand, they made a DD for The Republic yesterday so there is still a chance for a EU4 DD I think.

Not the same persons that make EUIV and The Republic so the DD yesterday means nothing.
 
Not the same persons that make EUIV and The Republic so the DD yesterday means nothing.

Not the same people, but the company is the same as is the business model. While it is no guarantee, the fact that CK2's DLC got a DD (though a day later) does make it more possible (which is more than nothing).
 
It's important to know how frequent are the elections

Well, it seems pretty safe to assume it will be more frequent than one every 20 years. In EU3 it's every 4 years for most, every 8 years for noble republic and on death for a few others.

If we take the USA system, they have Presidential elections every 4 years, and before they made a law in that sense (after Roosevelt) it was still tradition (enstablished from Washington himself when he refused the third mandate arguing it was dangerous for the democracy to have so much power in one man hands for so much time) that a President shouldn't stay in position for more than 2 mandates, a.k.a. 8 years. To make this realistic, it should be possible to re-elect someone once without losing the Republic form. So they need to loosen up a little the parameters.

The refusal of Washington shows the same train of thought as PDS, if some-one is re-elected too often, it's a threat to democracy and they have a point. But I agree with you. Washington did a second term as first President, and I think that should be something that under normal circumstances should also be possible in EU4.

Also if you think about it, republican tradition should be easier to maintain the more democratic your republican form is. The way it's described it's the other way around. If every republic gains 1% tradition per year, republic forms like noble republic will have an easier time to keep tradition high while sometimes re-electing a ruler than republic forms with elections every 4 years, while forms as a republican dictatorship don't have to worry about losing tradition with re-election as at all, since they only elect a new ruler when the old one dies. So I think the more democratic forms of republic should either have a faster growth rate of tradition or get at least much less of those events where you have to choose between losing tradition or losing stability (or a bit of both).

It would also be better if re-electing a ruler would cost more tradition the more often you do it. A second term should be fairly cheap, a third term should be quite expensive, and even more terms should but your republican tradition really in jeopardy and risk a dictatorship or monarchy.
 
Last edited:
If every republic gains 1% tradition per year, republic forms like noble republic will have an easier time to keep tradition high while sometimes re-electing a ruler than republic forms with elections every 4 years, while forms as a republican dictatorship don't have to worry about losing tradition with re-election as at all, since they only elect a new ruler when the old one dies.

Noble republic shouldn't be able to re-elect a king (who ruled for life). Election of his dynastic heir should be equivalent of that.
 
Noble republic shouldn't be able to re-elect a king (who ruled for life). Election of his dynastic heir should be equivalent of that.

I think there should be a difference between elective monarchies (like the HRE and I believe Poland at some point) and noble republics where a lower noble represent the state for a while (like some Italian city states had at the time).
 
I think there should be a difference between elective monarchies (like the HRE and I believe Poland at some point) and noble republics where a lower noble represent the state for a while (like some Italian city states had at the time).

My impression was that EU3s noble republic was based primarily on Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. But yeah ideally, there would be a distinction between city-states (like in Italy), elective monarchies (Denmark, Poland until 1569), and noble republics (PLC).
 
My impression was that EU3s noble republic was based primarily on Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. But yeah ideally, there would be a distinction between city-states (like in Italy), elective monarchies (Denmark, Poland until 1569), and noble republics (PLC).

I assumed it was based primarily on Florence, but I played Republican Tuscany before I even noticed Poland was a Noble Republic on later start dates.
 
I assumed it was based primarily on Florence, but I played Republican Tuscany before I even noticed Poland was a Noble Republic on later start dates.

I suspect that devs had huge Eastern European blob (with noble republic for 200 years) in mind when designing this type of government, not an Italian OPM. On the other hand though, it didn't simulate various aspect of PLCs political system.

EDIT

BTW - new 'the Commonwealth' tag shown in one of the EU4's DD screenshots has Noble Republic as a type of government.
 
Last edited:
It would also be better if re-electing a ruler would cost more tradition the more often you do it. A second term should be fairly cheap, a third term should be quite expensive, and even more terms should but your republican tradition really in jeopardy and risk a dictatorship or monarchy.

Despite the noble republic definition (which is a particular kind of republic, very different from democratic or even dictatorship) I totally agree with your idea of a progressive penalty for republic tradition. It could be for example 2% penalty for the first re-election, 4% for the second, 8% for the third and so on.

So, if you have just founded a democratic republic, in 4 years you accumulate 4% RT, lose 2% due to re-election, remain with 2%. Second re-election (8th year of Republic) you have 6%, lose 4%, remain with 2%. Third consecutive re-election though, you have 6% RT but lose 8% so you automatically go from democratic republic to dictatorship (which, IMO, should be different from despotic monarchy).
 
is there any chance of u guys talking about Persia? :-? thats a challenging country and the only big rival to Ottomans in mid-east, plus a big block to russian goal of "reaching warm waters of south". i rly like to know about it and play as that, historicaly has lotsa oppertunity for being great, neighbours to mess with and conquer, lotsa risk for decisions and a big chunk of potential for fun specially if u bring ottomans to their knees!!! hehe!... so what say u devs? :p
 
is there any chance of u guys talking about Persia? :-? thats a challenging country and the only big rival to Ottomans in mid-east, plus a big block to russian goal of "reaching warm waters of south". i rly like to know about it and play as that, historicaly has lotsa oppertunity for being great, neighbours to mess with and conquer, lotsa risk for decisions and a big chunk of potential for fun specially if u bring ottomans to their knees!!! hehe!... so what say u devs? :p

Persia is sadly probably not going to get much DD love. I would love hear more about it though.