Europa Universalis IV: Developer diary 5: The Return of the Kings

[DominusNovus]

I thought the idea was that diplomacy points and administrative (presumably tech, or maybe at least some tech) would use different "power"?

So eg. diplomacy skill generates diplomacy points, adm. generates adm points and mil generates mil points.

I would presume this is the case, but we don't have much to go off. I don't know if technology in particular would fit into the ADM model well; there are certainly many administrative and military technologies, but not much for diplomacy. So, we don't know how technological growth really relies on the various monarch points, but I would imagine that different techs use different types of points (possibly multiple types; a new type of army organization might use both admin and military, for example).

My point is this: If you spend your admin points on, say building a new port facility, it shouldn't be a zero sum game in terms of depriving you of resources to advance your technological capabilities. You'd think a nation with many well developed ports would be *more* advanced than one that decides not to build up their cities.

 

[unmerged(15337)]

Two comments/questions:

1. Johan already said that accumulated points will not be lost when the old king dies. This makes sense generally, but maybe it would be better to have a bit of attrition? Say, similar to the effect of reputation where a part of the old bad reputation is lost when the monarch turns over? That way you would keep most of the accumulated surplus but the loss of some of it would correspond to the transition which in many cases involves some instability.

2. Regarding tech progress -- now it seems to depend mostly (exclusively??) on the monarchs' and advisors' skills. Compare this to the traditional EU system in which tech progress largely depended on the national economy. In short: rich nations advanced quicker, poor nations advanced slower. This quite honestly makes more sense to me. Do I have this right?

 

[DominusNovus]

While fretting over the nature of monarch points, it occurs to me that it would make very much sense for many aspects of the game to reduce the need for monarch points, particularly late in game. For example, lets take the example cited in the DD today that Generals cost 1 Mil Point per month to maintain.

I would not be at all surprised if a national idea of, say, Battlefield Commissions now gives you the bonus of having 2 generals for free (not having to pay the mil point per month maintenance). Building a Military Academy might give a similar bonus. Meanwhile, a University might reduce the Monarch Point costs for new technologies, as might a Scientific Revolution national idea. Or Smithian Economics might reduce the point cost of new buildings. Etc. and so on.

 

[Andy_Dandy]

I would presume this is the case, but we don't have much to go off. I don't know if technology in particular would fit into the ADM model well; there are certainly many administrative and military technologies, but not much for diplomacy. So, we don't know how technological growth really relies on the various monarch points, but I would imagine that different techs use different types of points (possibly multiple types; a new type of army organization might use both admin and military, for example).

Guesses and mostly facts: Diplo-points are also used for trade technology, trade buildings and missions, traditional diplomat stuff (marriages, alliances, open boarders, trade agreements, peace deals etc), making cores and espionage.

...And of course, I forgot stability costs!!! Important indeed.


If you compare to the old tech system you'll have this picture:

Land tech: Military pints
Naval tech: Military points
Prod. tech: Adm. points
Gov. tech: Adm. points
Trade: Diplo. points
Stability: Diplo. points

 

[ANO1453]

Does that mean we can start the game with accumulated points, based on the previous historical rulers?

 

[Andy_Dandy]

Does that mean we can start the game with accumulated points, based on the previous historical rulers?

Might be too much for Paradox to differenciate between all nations at all start dates I'd guess.

Perhaps just 2 standard ones, depending on if the nation is at war or not?

Like in EU3 , where they either gave cultural tradition or military tradition from start date, depending on if the nation started in peace or at war..

 

[Gedierond]

I would presume this is the case, but we don't have much to go off. I don't know if technology in particular would fit into the ADM model well; there are certainly many administrative and military technologies, but not much for diplomacy. So, we don't know how technological growth really relies on the various monarch points, but I would imagine that different techs use different types of points (possibly multiple types; a new type of army organization might use both admin and military, for example).

I´m guessing it´ll be like this:
DIP points can be used to advance Trade tech and improve stability
ADM points can be used to advance Production and Government tech
MIL points can be used to advance Land and Naval tech

Also regarding tech, we don´t know if using Monarch power will be the ONLY way to advance tech. We´ll have to wait for a DD explaining the new tech mechanic for that. I guess it won´t be like that, maybe tech can still advance in some other ways (I´m thinking on the CK2 mechanic here), and you can use Monarch power for a big boost.

All in all, I think this new mechanic is very interesting and has a lot of potential. Of course, it´ll have to be finely balanced, but I guess there´ll be a lot of time for that, and maybe betas as well.
I´d like to make a recommendation, though, as I agree with something someone mentioned here. The points cap should depend on the ruler´s abilities, IMO. It should not be possible for a heir to benefit from a former ruler´s rule, if said former ruler sucked, no matter for how many years you did nothing with the former ruler.
I know people will probably never reach the cap anyway, but I feel the possibility of what I mentioned above shouldn´t even exist.


EDIT: changed the assigment of points to tech advancement. Makes more sense now, I think, lol!

 

[Andy_Dandy]

You are almost correct, here is the overview:

Land tech: Military points
Naval tech: Military points
Prod. tech: Adm. points
Gov. tech: Adm. points
Trade: Diplo. points
Stability: Diplo. points

I´d like to make a recommendation, though, as I agree with something someone mentioned here. The points cap should depend on the ruler´s abilities, IMO. It should not be possible for a heir to benefit from a former ruler´s rule, if said former ruler sucked, no matter for how many years you did nothing with the former ruler.
I know people will probably never reach the cap anyway, but I feel the possibility of what I mentioned above shouldn´t even exist.

I can assure you having a bad king will never be benefitial in any way.

 

[DominusNovus]

Might be too much for Paradox to differenciate between all nations at all start dates I'd guess.

Perhaps just 2 standard ones, depending on if the nation is at war or not?

Like in EU3 , where they either gave cultural tradition or military tradition from start date, depending on if the nation started in peace or at war..

Well, it would be a good way to represent some of the differences in starting positions. For example, at game start, I would imagine that the Ottomans might have a stash of monarch points (all 3 types), while the Byzantines would have scant left.

Consider that, in the screenshot, at game start, there's 52 Admin, 52 Diplo, and 35 Mil; clearly not just a set amount (or they'd all be the same, unless they just decided to spend some). Also note that both advisors have been employed for a time extending back before game start, which enables further differentiation between nations. So, for example, if you start between 1672 and 1727 as Britain (new Newton was in the Royal Society), you'll likely have Isaac Newton as an employed advisor (assuming he can fit into one of the new 5 advisor types).

 

[Gedierond]

You are almost correct, here is the overview:

Land tech: Military points
Naval tech: Military points
Prod. tech: Adm. points
Gov. tech: Adm. points
Trade: Diplo. points
Stability: Diplo. points

Yeah, that´s why I editted the post

 

[Sleight of Hand]

Henry VI did have a legal heir by the way.

 

[DominusNovus]

You are almost correct, here is the overview:

Land tech: Military points
Naval tech: Military points
Prod. tech: Adm. points
Gov. tech: Adm. points
Trade: Diplo. points
Stability: Diplo. points

Where was that mentioned? I'm not doubting you, I'm just curious.

PS, that does sound like a very good division.

 

[Atlanteax]

I assume accumulated power-points 'carry over' to the next ruler should the current one die, correct? This was not exactly explicit.

Accumulation would allow for predecessors to provide lasting contributions to a nation's strength ... but on the other hand, how does a (weaker) successor 'spend the efforts' of their (stronger) predecessor?

Edit: I see that Johan affirmed that points are not 'wiped' on a ruler's death.

.

In the meantime, my suggestion is to 'cap' the # of stored points based on current ruler + advisor x 111. So it could be 111, 444, 555, 999.

This way models how a strong ruler (plus a strong court) can have tremendous stored potential ... but that potential becomes crippled (possibly losing points if skill 2 ruler replaces skill 6, and you had already stored 500 points) if a weak successor ... BUT, a portion of that 'pain' is mitigated by a strong court being in place (going from 6+3 to 2+3).

 

[Ephafn]

You are almost correct, here is the overview:

Land tech: Military points
Naval tech: Military points
Prod. tech: Adm. points
Gov. tech: Adm. points
Trade: Diplo. points
Stability: Diplo. points

I really hope they don't put Stability in the Diplomatic category just to make things more symmetric...

Anyway, now that sliders are gone, do we even know if there will be such a thing as Land/Naval/Prod./Gov./Trade techs anymore? And whether all techs will only use one kind of point?
One could easily see a situation where to get 3-deckers you need Military points, to get Merchantmen you need Diplomacy points (since trade is represented by Diplo), and to get Frigate you need both in equal amounts (since light ships are useful in controlling trade).

 

[Atlanteax]

You are almost correct, here is the overview:

Land tech: Military points
Naval tech: Military points
Prod. tech: Adm. points
Gov. tech: Adm. points
Trade: Diplo. points
Stability: Diplo. points

I like!! Completely intuitive.

 

[MrQwerty]

This looks like an... interesting concept. I'm not quite sure what to make of "Monarch Points". It's good that a weak king should be a limiting factor in state mechanics, especially as states in general trend towards centralization in this time period. Well, I'll wait and see what all are affected by Monarch Points.

Also, what about advisors? If a king has, say, score 3 out of 6 in diplomacy, administration, or military, won't a 3-point advisor make that king perfect in that regard? What's stopping the player from creating a perfect king or even a half-way decent king in all fields?

 

[Grubnessul]

No, the perfect king + advisors would be 9/9/9

 

[PeterCorless]

Aaaaaaargh!! I DON'T like that advisors will be even more expensive. That sucks. What I would hope would be that small-skill advisors should be cheap and plentiful, and that the rates for their costs would rise dramatically with skill. Even a small kingdom should have a pack of nattering nabobs hanging around. Would they mean all that much? No, but at least you feel like you get a little bit of advantage here-and-there. But to get really great advisors -- the best in the world -- should be expensive. Small kingdoms should have a choice of which particular low-level advisors to choose from, and it should not feel crippling. It should never come down to "either I have a standing army, or an economic advisor... hmmm..." Otherwise, you are just making it a "rich-get-richer" game.

I also think there should be a "patriotism" discount on advisors of your own nationality/culture, or an increased cost for those not-of-your-nationality/culture. i.e., if you need to "import" foreign talent, it'll cost you. And, I know this sounds crazy, but every now-and-then, it'd be wonderful if you got a FREE advisor (have a "Talented younger brother..." event).

 

[Andy_Dandy]

I assume accumulated power-points 'carry over' to the next ruler should the current one die, correct? This was not exactly explicit.

Accumulation would allow for predecessors to provide lasting contributions to a nation's strength ... but on the other hand, how does a (weaker) successor 'spend the efforts' of their (stronger) predecessor?

Edit: I see that Johan affirmed that points are not 'wiped' on a ruler's death.

.

In the meantime, my suggestion is to 'cap' the # of stored points based on current ruler + advisor x 111. So it could be 111, 444, 555, 999.

This way models how a strong ruler (plus a strong court) can have tremendous stored potential ... but that potential becomes crippled (possibly losing points if skill 2 ruler replaces skill 6, and you had already stored 500 points) if a weak successor ... BUT, a portion of that 'pain' is mitigated by a strong court being in place (going from 6+3 to 2+3).

You seem to think that storing huge amounts of points will be an over powerfull strategy.

And how can you reasearch if you can store less then 400 points?

 

[delra]

Is price of advisor absolute or related to country's size? Can I afford highest level advisors with Holland, France and Portugal? Or only France?