Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Europa Universalis IV: Developer diary 4: Your Economy is about to change

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Europa Universalis IV 81974 EUIV: Bug Reports 555 EUIV: Suggestions 19170 EUIV: Technical Support 6739 EUIV: FAQ & Strategy Guides 235 EUIV: AAR's, Let's Plays, and Fan Fiction EU IV: Alternate History Short Story Contest Contr 29
Show only dev responses
I see only good improvements, mainly because of the easier system.

No more monthly/yearly duality, no more minting, and tech independent from economy. Undoubtely this simplifies a lot the learning curve, to both new and old players' benefit.

Repaying loans whenever we want, finally...probably a gift from V2.

Harbor fees make totally sense, finally naval Military Access will gain significance.

(also, tariffs tied to 'the number of large ships compared to the ports' makes perfect sense, and will prevent OPMs from creating a colonial empire ten times their size).

I see only good news, looking forward to the next Diary :).

The only question is: If inflation cannot be done by minting, but just with loans and gold, won't nations with gold mines somehow be disadvantaged?
 
We're sometimes not as consistent with spelling as we like to be, but the official stance on spelling is to use American spelling. Now, let's drop the language discussion and get back to the dev diary please.
 
A question, mentioned earlier, but would like to reiterate:

Harbor Tax- I assume you pay this when you have a naval access agreement. Do you pay *per use* of harbors (which imho would make more sense), or a flat sum for being able to access each harbor, regardless of whether you use it or not? I guess the concern comes up that, in the later case, a naval access agreement with anything resembling the historical British Empire would be ruinously expensive?

The thing I really like about all these changes is that it may finally be feasible/realistic to play a primarily naval power given this and the other changes.
 
Chilango2 said:
1) Harbor Tax- I assume you pay this when you have a naval access agreement. Do you pay *per use* of harbors (which imho would make more sense), or a flat sum for being able to access each harbor, regardless of whether you use it or not? I guess the concern comes up that, in the later case, a naval access agreement with anything resembling the historical British Empire would be ruinously expensive?
Click to expand...

My guess would be that you monthly pay a sum compared to the number of foreign ports used and the number of ship you have there.

But I'm curious as well...maybe the Devs can already answer that :).
 
Still more news about 'less', I'm keeping judgement reserved for when I see more of 'more'.
 
I think the Harbor fees will/should just be ignored in the end. There would need to be a lot of things happening to make them effective. First and foremost, attrition would have to be a lot more common. You'd have to have attrition hitting you in all waters outside your own so that there is actually an incentive for using foreign harbors for when you're carrying out a campaign on the other side of the world. Secondly, you would have to calculate the money you're paying for harbor fees for as long as you've got permission to use them. Otherwise, what is to stop a player from entering and exiting the harbor to reset the attrition timer each month and not pay the harbor fees?

But in any event, I'll keep my ships home and try to never pay a harbor fee for the history of my life.
 
I like the idea of harbour taxes. Getting military access with a colonising nation was often a cheap way to kickstart your own colonisation process.
 
wukk said:
The dd isn't clear about this though. It lists port fees as expenses but not as an income source. Where does the money go?
Click to expand...

probably as a "temporary income" It is way more important to know that you use money on gaining access (so that you can remove this expense if necessary) than to know that you gain money from this exact source.
 
Balor said:
[*]Production: Production income depends on what resources the province has and what good the province is producing. Wine is worth more than fish, spice more than grain, and so on. So your production income depends on what trade goods each province can produce and how much you can get for that trade good, since it all comes down to supply and demand. As your province improves its technology, your income will increase since the province gets better at producing those specific trade goods.
Click to expand...

So more than only one good?
 
Checco said:
The only question is: If inflation cannot be done by minting, but just with loans and gold, won't nations with gold mines somehow be disadvantaged?
Click to expand...

Gold mines give you tons of income, but make you run the risk of a Spain-style economic meltdown in the long term. It's an interesting downside to their huge wealth (and assuming that it will be similar to EU3, their value is largest in the early game and gradually declines)
 
I'm having a quite fundamental question; what does the income from production and trade actually refer to?

If they both refer to the taxation of the things being produced or sold, then shouldn't it be part of the "taxation" category? I think the most realistic way to portray the income would be so that the government would not receive production income, instead it would benefit the local province. and trade should be renamed into "trade taxation", which you can regulate (lower tax means more free trade, higher tax means more mercantilism/less incentives for merchants).
 
I can't express how much this got me excited!

Detaching tech and stability from income and making inflation only from gold (and loans!)! :wub:
Now I'll have to wait what seems like forever to know how they work. :confused:

And taxes growing with population numbers. :laugh:
 
Tariff income is modified by the number of large ships you have relative to your number of ports
Click to expand...

Hmm, doesnt this risk creating situations where gaining coastlines become bad? Perhaps it should be limited to Core ports? Alternatively, add a substantial advantage to extra ports elsewhere in the system to counterbalance, perhaps? Logically, England should get something else for all its ports than having to have more big ships.

Aside from this nitpick, I love everything I'm reading, and I'm guessing these changes mean a more challenging game. No more easy tricks to max stab instantly, no more obvious tech lead and inflation-zero edge over rival empires, no more waiting for January for the real money to come in. Count me in.
 
A whole lot of good things here:
Pop effecting taxation - as per the first thread I created on the EU2 forums!
Harbour Fees - so now there is a cost for getting military access everywhere.
New Inflation mechanic - about time!
Early Payback of loans - although paying all the interest is a unnecessarily harsh.
Separation of tech/stability from budgets sounds like a change for the better. Its not like Henry VIII government budget would have had its largest expense as researching tech, but in EU3 if you didn't then you would be in for a world of pain.

The only change I'm a bit down about is that they aren't moving the simple negative cash model from CK2 across. I thought the consequences (selling gold mines, etc) fit the EU period (and the fuggers in particular) to a tee.
 
On loans, how will interest work? Will we see lower interest rates so that taking loans will actually be sometimes an attractive proposition?

Will there be any costs associaed with trade? Or will the primary cost be maintaining your trade fleet?

How will taxes be calculated? Will certain regions be hardcoded to be better (through base tax), or will it be more influenced by buildings and investments?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back