Europa Universalis IV Developer diary 17 – Honey, don’t you want to talk about it?

[tapewormlondon]

In CKII we got the option of designating a person as important. Can we designate countries as important in EUIV?
E.g. if I have secret designs on Holland, I really want to know it if their alliance with England is cancelled, or they get entangled in a war. But as the same time I don't want to hear about alliances and wars between countries I don't care about.

This would be very good!

 

[mchaza]

The problem is the AI can't handle that kind of offer. It's too easy for the player to manipulate it, giving (for example) a high value province in a strategically vulnerable location for 3 low value provinces in a strategically essential position, allowing the player to win the next war with ease.

Well that region would be rated low for the AI, if its surrounded by enemy factions they wont accept it.

 

[George LeS]

Nice.

But I do want to urge a retrograde step, back to a map more like EUII's. There, in diplo mode, you could see general relations by color coding, plus there was an icon in the capital province (a help) which showed various relations. Marriage, vassalage, alliance, etc.

Why cannot this be revived?

 

[unmerged(303218)]

Sorry, the AI couldn't handle "swap" peace offers. The AI has no sense of "strategic vulnerability" of provinces (that's why e.g. Castille grabs random Turkish and steppe provinces) nor of strategic value.

Also and no doubt has been fixed but the crazy peace offers by the AI are to the point of ridiculous that aren't funny at all, especially those minor one Provence weak members demanding that despite dominating my main foe and have a 100% chance of victory, wants me to surrender some or all my vassals pay them a huge sum of gold and break agreements with other nations, then what it should be a " I am so sorry for declaring war on you, peace do not invade and annex or vassalage me".

That's because the AI makes its prognosis based on its "war capacity", an entirely faulty approach. This economic war capacity (WE, manpower pool, economy) does not belong in wars shorter than 5 years and/or fought between non-major states. (In fact the entire war capacity issue is a result of a total war based on attrition.)

Imagine what the AI sees:
0 warscore (you only have a warscore advantage against the alliance leader, and those whose provinces you already occupy)
a distinct war capacity advantage (0 WE, full manpower pool, full coffers)

Therefore it must be winning the war, right? Right?

Not to mention the fact that war capacity is calculated as a relative, not absolute, value. That is, an OPM with 100% capacity is valued to be in a better position than a France with 50%.


The solution would be to banish the economic war capacity to Vicky and beyond, it does not belong in the early modern era. Instead, base decisions regarding war on the state of the military.

 

[spinoza013]

Wake me up when this is released

 

[corporateslave]

Want... now... Waiting... so... difficult!!!

 

[The-King]

Great Developer Diary! I want to hear MORE about the multiplayer dev test games! So excited for the game now.

 

[Atlanteax]

Looks like "Aggressive Expansion" is the 'new' Infamy mechanic ... which ought to work great in uniting the rest of the world against you without imposing artificial limits on freedom of action.

 

[grommile]

That's because the AI makes its prognosis based on its "war capacity", an entirely faulty approach. This economic war capacity (WE, manpower pool, economy)

There's more to the AI scoring system called "war capacity" than WE, MP, and ducats, as anyone who has ever ended up (as a land power) in a war with ENG/GBR can assure you. (I've been rated at 0% WC with a near-LFL army, plentiful MP and ducats, WE below 1, and no provinces occupied... because ENG was on the other side and I had no combat-effective fleet.)

 

[macd21]

Well that region would be rated low for the AI, if its surrounded by enemy factions they wont accept it.

It doesn't matter, the player will still find ways to exploit the system, the AI just isn't good enough at evaluating the consequences of such a swap. The AI will think it's coming out even or ahead but is actually cutting its own throat.

 

[Encadi]

With a game start of 1444 (or even later), 1471 is 27 years of gameplay. In these 27 years:

• Great Britain has formed
• France Absorbed Brittany, Provence, Bourbonnais, and Savoy, as well as reclaiming Gascony from the English (9 provinces+Savoy) and probably some more I missed
• Spain has formed
• Muscovy grew triple its size
• Venice took out the middle of Italy, including the Papal State

I'm not sure, but these do seem like kickstarting blobs.

Some people really lvoe to overanalyze alpha screenshots that are not showing what you want to show but other features, game isnt finalized man.....

 

[Encadi]

It's impossible to form GB and Spain in 27 years because you need the cores ( 50 years ).
The major problem in multi is the heavy starting blobbing. I see that it's always a problem in EU4.

What does heavy starting blobbing really means?

 

[Evie HJ]

There's more to the AI scoring system called "war capacity" than WE, MP, and ducats, as anyone who has ever ended up (as a land power) in a war with ENG/GBR can assure you. (I've been rated at 0% WC with a near-LFL army, plentiful MP and ducats, WE below 1, and no provinces occupied... because ENG was on the other side and I had no combat-effective fleet.)

Which is the dumbest part, because the WC calculation is goign to just completely ignore the fact that England *cannot* get you back on land (because even the largest army they can land wouldn't make a dent in the forces you can muster on land)

Really, really, really, really horrible design there by Paradox.

 

[Shiranui]

With a game start of 1444 (or even later), 1471 is 27 years of gameplay. In these 27 years:

• Great Britain has formed
• France Absorbed Brittany, Provence, Bourbonnais, and Savoy, as well as reclaiming Gascony from the English (9 provinces+Savoy) and probably some more I missed
• Spain has formed
• Muscovy grew triple its size
• Venice took out the middle of Italy, including the Papal State

I'm not sure, but these do seem like kickstarting blobs.

Well, they're all human. The only remotely blobby AI I think is Morocco. Which is good!

 

[Encadi]

Good DD. More Diplomacy is always a good thing

One question, mentioned here already: as GB+ Spain have already formed, has the "50 year core" system been changed? Or the need for core in unification?

I think they have said many times cores are gained by spendiong points not by time passing

 

[grommile]

Which is the dumbest part, because the WC calculation is goign to just completely ignore the fact that England *cannot* get you back on land (because even the largest army they can land wouldn't make a dent in the forces you can muster on land)

Well, yes. In the situation I describe, clearly England's WC against me should also be zero.

I choose to believe that Paradox will improve the WC calculation in EU4. Do you choose to believe they won't?

 

[king of AR]

I have three questions 1.is there a distance limit on declaring rivals?2.is there a relations penalty with countries that are friends with your rivals ?3.is there any bonus for wiping out your rivals?

 

[Evie HJ]

Well, yes. In the situation I describe, clearly England's WC against me should also be zero.

I choose to believe that Paradox will improve the WC calculation in EU4. Do you choose to believe they won't?

I chose to believe that they haven't mentioned anything to that effect yet.

 

[apg]

I like these chnanges to diplomacy - the relations by numbers and seeing what effects it is excellent.

 

[Arizal]

I like the changes, but I hoped just for a moment that my demands of modular truces (no more fixed time) and treaties could be taken in account. It seems not, and it would have been extremely difficult to translate them in game, so I'm still looking to this upcoming game sceptically, especially for the "deterministic" parts.