Staying small. Is there a point, or a way?

[Sorenzo]

This is simply not true.

Actually, it IS true that many mechanics are biased towards small nations. The caiptal give extra basetax. This is particularly useful if you're a OPM. Forcelimits for small nations are relatively higher per basetax than for larger nations (as far as I can tell). A small nation gets more merchants, diplomats and missionaries per province. Small nations get more monarch points per province than larger nations.

Etc. In other words, anything your country has in virtue of being a country, but which doesn't scale, is a bias towards small nations. This is why having vassals has benefits at all... personally owning every province in your empire is just not as efficient as having a bunch of small nations each getting the benefits that all nations get.

Now, getting more provinces is almost always good, but this doesn't mean there isn't a bias. If there wasn't a bias, a nation would get double diplomatic relations and double monarch points and double merchants when it took over another nation of the same size. They'd be proportionally stronger in every way. Not being proportionally stronger means they're disproportionally weaker. This is what "bias" means.

 

[ChildeR]

Actually, it IS true that many mechanics are biased towards small nations. The caiptal give extra basetax. This is particularly useful if you're a OPM. Forcelimits for small nations are relatively higher per basetax than for larger nations (as far as I can tell). A small nation gets more merchants, diplomats and missionaries per province. Small nations get more monarch points per province than larger nations.

I would argue that the bias is mostly against nations with 2-5 provinces or so, rather than for small nations. A 2PM is only a bit more powerful than a OPM, but a 200 province nation is almost twice as powerful as a 100 province one. For such nations their smaller rivals are not pushovers, but their large rivals are significantly more powerful.

When you get large enough for the base values to not matter, FL and manpower scale almost linearly with the number of provinces, as do taxes and production. Especially early game when buildings don't significantly alter the value of a province.

Now, getting more provinces is almost always good, but this doesn't mean there isn't a bias. If there wasn't a bias, a nation would get double diplomatic relations and double monarch points and double merchants when it took over another nation of the same size. They'd be proportionally stronger in every way. Not being proportionally stronger means they're disproportionally weaker. This is what "bias" means.

If you look at it like that, tech and ideas are biased towards large nations. You need to pay the same base amount for the tech/idea, usually get proportional benefits like +10% something, have more money for advisors and more neighbors for tech bonuses.

 

[uishax]

If you want a easy solution, then simple increase the idea, tech and coring costs in the defines, it makes large nations incapable of keeping up with tech while expanding at the same time. And at the end of the game, those blobbing nations will be 5-6 techs behind the small nations.
Also, increase building power and ducat costs to like 50 and 500 , but quadruple their effects as well.

 

[masterpaul666]

Cheaper stab boosts for smaller nations.

I like this. I'm thinking 25% cheaper stabillity if you're below 5 province, dropped to 10% from 5 to 10, and no bonus after 10.

If you want a easy solution, then simple increase the idea, tech and coring costs in the defines, it makes large nations incapable of keeping up with tech while expanding at the same time. And at the end of the game, those blobbing nations will be 5-6 techs behind the small nations.
Also, increase building power and ducat costs to like 50 and 500 , but quadruple their effects as well.

I don't like the idea of changing tech cost worldwide for everyone. The balance is midly good right now, small nerf can work, but major change like that would break it. Thats why I was saying nerfing nation with more than like 40-50 provinces, there's not THAT many. And even nerfed, they'd still be able to stay ahead. It'd just be a bit harder. It'd slow them down.
As for the building, I found that building power cost is linear, 1 cost for all. If I find a way to change cost of different building, then I'd up buildings above lvl3, making them cost 25 point at 4, 50 at 5, 200 at 6, but I'd more or less double their effect. It becomes a loss, but anyone can really still build them, so too strong would make people dump point either way.

 

[Zak Preston]

Playing a small nation with 5-9 provinces outside of HRE is extremely boring and unrewarding, especially if you have superpowers near you.
I've tried:

• Teutonic Order, and there is no way I could survive without entering HRE. Poland, Bohemia, Brandenburg seemed
• The Papal State: good BT, good possibilities to expand, but surrounded with superpowers. Guess joining HRE is a must for them too
• Caucasus nations: low BT, aggressive hordes from one side and Ottomans from the other. Low BT provinces also.
• Theodoro: Far from big politics, but surrounded by future PLC and Russia, Ottomans and no access to big European plays. Also their potential BT would be low if they stay 5-9 provinces.
• Ireland: the most interesting choice. Can colonize a lot, can potentially vassalize Scotland and release Wales and Cornwall from England, not sure about Brittany, though. But their ability to colonize NA may turn them in the most interesting choice in for mid-lategame.

 

[Chev]

Maybe more unique buildings could be added like the march or university.
Is it possible to add buildings via mods? It would be nice.

Also, I like uishax's suggestion of increasing cost and effect for the regular province improvements, but maybe for higher tier buildings only.
Just make the MP cost scale as well as the gold cost, so even rich large empires can't spam those improvements all over the country.

Lower stab boost cost seems nice as well. Maybe it would even make sense to lower the chances of stabhit events occuring.

 

[Zak Preston]

What I've been wondering about:

Let's take 2 possible examples: Ireland and Theodoro in alternate history.
1. Irealnd has managed to defend it's independence and became a "second Portugal", colonizing North and Central America. For sure there would be colonial wars started by other colonizers, subjugation wars started by England. But if Ireland withstands and expands it's colonies, why wouldn't it become more populous, rich and why wouldn't Dublin become a tradenode itself (possibly removing another tradenode)? In gameplay terms there should be a way to icrease BT for some provinces, and stable rich minors might have some advantages over blobs.
2. Theodoro: took all Crimea and all almost uninhabited Northern Black Sea and Azov steppes, somehow got allies (PLC or Muscovy\Rusia for example). What happens next IRL: colonization of superfertile chernozem lands, building new ports, cities and towns (like Russia did after conquering those lands from Turks). Population grows, tax income raises, manpower and force limit pool grows.

Unfortunately, nothing of that is not possible in EU4, and Ireland will stay a small 5-8 (if takes Wales and Cornwall) minor with decent colonies, but no real influence in EU4 worls.
Theodoro will stay a poor minor with low BT, army and fleet, a few possible vassals and no influence.

In real world power attracts money, money attracts power: the larger capitals which state can operate, the more more traders, artisans, artists, poets, writers, architects, engineers, scientists, clerks, officers and hired workers. A relatively small but rich state may have a very strong army due to numerous contracts and good relations with mercenary armies to pay them solid gold when a war starts. And when a blob with huge stability problems. This is how Switzerland, Netherlands, Italian states survived long enough and some even formed larger nations.


I guess I should write a more detailed essay on this topic.

 

[Bragi]

I guess I should write a more detailed essay on this topic.

Yes, you should. You raise some important and interesting questions here.
In EU4, we are literally stuck to the meagerness of the set-in-stone BT of a province. Yes, we can slightly improve it, but the option to grow "tall" compared to "wide" is very limited.

 

[masterpaul666]

What I've been wondering about:

Let's take 2 possible examples: Ireland and Theodoro in alternate history.
1. Irealnd has managed to defend it's independence and became a "second Portugal", colonizing North and Central America. For sure there would be colonial wars started by other colonizers, subjugation wars started by England. But if Ireland withstands and expands it's colonies, why wouldn't it become more populous, rich and why wouldn't Dublin become a tradenode itself (possibly removing another tradenode)? In gameplay terms there should be a way to icrease BT for some provinces, and stable rich minors might have some advantages over blobs.
2. Theodoro: took all Crimea and all almost uninhabited Northern Black Sea and Azov steppes, somehow got allies (PLC or Muscovy\Rusia for example). What happens next IRL: colonization of superfertile chernozem lands, building new ports, cities and towns (like Russia did after conquering those lands from Turks). Population grows, tax income raises, manpower and force limit pool grows.

Unfortunately, nothing of that is not possible in EU4, and Ireland will stay a small 5-8 (if takes Wales and Cornwall) minor with decent colonies, but no real influence in EU4 worls.
Theodoro will stay a poor minor with low BT, army and fleet, a few possible vassals and no influence.

In real world power attracts money, money attracts power: the larger capitals which state can operate, the more more traders, artisans, artists, poets, writers, architects, engineers, scientists, clerks, officers and hired workers. A relatively small but rich state may have a very strong army due to numerous contracts and good relations with mercenary armies to pay them solid gold when a war starts. And when a blob with huge stability problems. This is how Switzerland, Netherlands, Italian states survived long enough and some even formed larger nations.


I guess I should write a more detailed essay on this topic.

How about a system of base tax buff, every say, 25 years, 5 of your provinces gets +1 base tax, as a modifier, not actual base tax. If the province gets taken over, that buff is gone. It'd be a way to boost smaller countries, allowing them to grow, but make it so their land isn't just taken once its richer. That, and a mod to make province conquered lose 1 base tax, perma, would be neat. Meaning, areas that fight a lot, would slowly lose value over time.

 

[Azede]

Maybe there could be policies specifically focused on smaller nations to improve various aspects of your country (base tax, man power, trade power) by using the 1 monarch power per month. This uses the advantage smaller nations have in monarch power not having to use it on various actions such as coring, culture conversion, harsh treatment and annexing. Just an idea.

 

[nOxr]

Or a new Idea set specifically tailored for smaller countries that want to go tall! With Ideas that give bonuses just to the capital and neighbouring provinces, or increases FL or manpower with fixed amounts instead of scaling bonuses. Since they aren't general, they could be pretty good without being unbalancing. It's only fair, merchant republics have plutocracy and expanders have influence and humanism.

 

[Zak Preston]

How about building new ports, towns, villages (without buildings to upgrade) to increase BT, manpower and force limits? The cost could be really high enough, but bearable for small nations

 

[Azede]

I suppose the problem with all these ideas is that they don't add much in the way of game play for smaller nations, I think that will be the issue when it comes to making small nations more viable and interesting to play whilst staying small.

You could try link it to autonomy and revolts by making it a decision to "focus on immigration and infrastructure" say increasing base tax and manpower yearly for 10 years whilst increasing autonomy and revolt risk in all provinces. This would make it impossible for large countries to take the decision due to the almost certainty of multiple revolts whilst leaving it manageable for a small country using the various means of reducing revolt risk. I think that could make for some interesting years of "peace" and would leave small countries with a real benefit at the end and the added element of having to reduce autonomy down again to keep some balance.

 

[IIWW]

How about a system of base tax buff, every say, 25 years, 5 of your provinces gets +1 base tax, as a modifier, not actual base tax. If the province gets taken over, that buff is gone. It'd be a way to boost smaller countries, allowing them to grow, but make it so their land isn't just taken once its richer. That, and a mod to make province conquered lose 1 base tax, perma, would be neat. Meaning, areas that fight a lot, would slowly lose value over time.

It's too ahistorical. Don't get me wrong, this is alternate history game, but thats too much. Germany, Netherlands were fought over throughout the history so many times, yet they were never a poor country (well, the great crisis, but it hit the whole world).

 

[macd21]

What I've been wondering about:

Let's take 2 possible examples: Ireland and Theodoro in alternate history.
1. Irealnd has managed to defend it's independence and became a "second Portugal", colonizing North and Central America. For sure there would be colonial wars started by other colonizers, subjugation wars started by England. But if Ireland withstands and expands it's colonies, why wouldn't it become more populous, rich and why wouldn't Dublin become a tradenode itself (possibly removing another tradenode)? In gameplay terms there should be a way to icrease BT for some provinces, and stable rich minors might have some advantages over blobs.
2. Theodoro: took all Crimea and all almost uninhabited Northern Black Sea and Azov steppes, somehow got allies (PLC or Muscovy\Rusia for example). What happens next IRL: colonization of superfertile chernozem lands, building new ports, cities and towns (like Russia did after conquering those lands from Turks). Population grows, tax income raises, manpower and force limit pool grows.

Unfortunately, nothing of that is not possible in EU4, and Ireland will stay a small 5-8 (if takes Wales and Cornwall) minor with decent colonies, but no real influence in EU4 worls.
Theodoro will stay a poor minor with low BT, army and fleet, a few possible vassals and no influence.

In real world power attracts money, money attracts power: the larger capitals which state can operate, the more more traders, artisans, artists, poets, writers, architects, engineers, scientists, clerks, officers and hired workers. A relatively small but rich state may have a very strong army due to numerous contracts and good relations with mercenary armies to pay them solid gold when a war starts. And when a blob with huge stability problems. This is how Switzerland, Netherlands, Italian states survived long enough and some even formed larger nations.


I guess I should write a more detailed essay on this topic.

Under those circumstances they do improve - that's what buildings are for. A colonial-Ireland will have more income to spend on buildings and better advisors, allowing them to increase their income, trade power and manpower.

 

[masterpaul666]

While the netherlands are rich, its mostly from trade and fertility. It's not about population, and basic taxes. Production and trade would remain mostly unafected. Then again, I'm just missing the population system from eu3. Would fix about 90% of my problem with eu4.

 

[Zak Preston]

Under those circumstances they do improve - that's what buildings are for. A colonial-Ireland will have more income to spend on buildings and better advisors, allowing them to increase their income, trade power and manpower.

Buildings are for capital of province, I'm talking about making some regions more populous due to prosperity factors: no war, rich lands, strong state economics, strong army and so on. Buildings do not increase BT (except temple) or forcelimit (except special ones). Therefore in EU4 you can't build Las Vegas in a desert and make it an important city with high population and BT.

 

[nOxr]

While the netherlands are rich, its mostly from trade and fertility. It's not about population, and basic taxes. Production and trade would remain mostly unafected. Then again, I'm just missing the population system from eu3. Would fix about 90% of my problem with eu4.

Oh, yes! Cruising forward in peace and high stability with the nice feeling that your cities grew in importance and wealth, attracting talents from your war ravaged neighbours. Even though it was such a basic system, it gave you the feeling that you could change the socioeconomic landscape over time. That you could transform your insignificant captial into the city of world desire during the game.

I suppose the problem with all these ideas is that they don't add much in the way of game play for smaller nations, I think that will be the issue when it comes to making small nations more viable and interesting to play whilst staying small.

You could try link it to autonomy and revolts by making it a decision to "focus on immigration and infrastructure" say increasing base tax and manpower yearly for 10 years whilst increasing autonomy and revolt risk in all provinces. This would make it impossible for large countries to take the decision due to the almost certainty of multiple revolts whilst leaving it manageable for a small country using the various means of reducing revolt risk. I think that could make for some interesting years of "peace" and would leave small countries with a real benefit at the end and the added element of having to reduce autonomy down again to keep some balance.

This is a good idea.

Edit: There could be an entire series of events where you had to chose between:

A) Bonus to base tax or manpower in a province, or goods produced nationally or something, plus an increase of autonomy and unrest in ALL your provinces.
B) A loss of stability, prestige, legitimacy or gold.

This would be an easy choice of A for every smallish and stable country, but a painful choice of B for every biggish or unstable country. Over an entire game it would allow a peaceful and stable country to grow taller. It's a simple idea, but it would be easy enough to implement in a mod.

 

[Zak Preston]

I suppose the problem with all these ideas is that they don't add much in the way of game play for smaller nations, I think that will be the issue when it comes to making small nations more viable and interesting to play whilst staying small.

You could try link it to autonomy and revolts by making it a decision to "focus on immigration and infrastructure" say increasing base tax and manpower yearly for 10 years whilst increasing autonomy and revolt risk in all provinces. This would make it impossible for large countries to take the decision due to the almost certainty of multiple revolts whilst leaving it manageable for a small country using the various means of reducing revolt risk. I think that could make for some interesting years of "peace" and would leave small countries with a real benefit at the end and the added element of having to reduce autonomy down again to keep some balance.

Let's take a fresh look on history:
Byzanium. Let's suppose that Byz somehow survived Ottoman invasion with the help of Western nations and even reclaimed somehow Greece, what scenario would be more realistic: Greece-based Byzantium lives in it's borders and struggles with Balkan Slavs, Turks and maybe Arabs or it blobs further to restore Roman Empire?
Independent Ireland: How do you think, would they annex Scotland and England or would they stay in their borders?
Alternate history is a place for debates and speculations for sure, but in most cases second variants seem much more possible.


Edit: for peaceful gameplay EU4 needs international politics, real military coalitions or confederations, religious or economical pacts, monarchs interaction, and maybe internal factions.

 

[aplsin]

Lots of good ideas in this thread! I'd like to add these ideas:
* "Number of Great Power Allies" diplo malus should scale with nation size so the penaly is less for small nations (maybe down to 0% for OPMs?).
* Diplo relation slots could somehow scale with size, maybe a 1-5p minor would get +50% more slots, rounded down.
This would make small nations more likely to survive by having strong alliances AND some perment vassals/marches.

I would love for it to be more viable to not expand, but for this to be fun we would have to get more stuff to manage during peace time, and for that I have no ideas except colonisation which is already in the game but ofc not available to all small nations. Edit: I like Zaks ideas for this!