EU4 - Development Diary - 10th of January 2017

[priamossz]

are we going to see this DLC shown in dev multiplayer before release?

 

[uleslaw]

One question: shouldn't those eras be more dynamic? Fixed dates looks quite strange in the game in which you can become colonial power as Byzantine Empire.

 

[Benghi Bon]

for possibility to ignore?
Looking back to Institutions System and its high dependency on ability to develop your provinces, I suppose we will be forced to buy expansion anyway.

Yarp I suppose so. And yes, for possbility to ignore. I'm not buying Ages.

I love the idea of having your country go through different ages, but this is as far from what I imagine anyone would've thought of and wanted when they spoke of ages than what we're getting.

This is a checklist of drivel you have to do in order to get points to unlock something. That is really what this is and it has not a single inch of depth to it. Ages could've been a big thing and the biggest feature to come to EU4 had it been anything but this. Something dynamic and interesting, with dynamic names like "age of strife" and whatever else depending on what your country is going through. Anything but this.

 

[Soranya]

Please Please Please Paradox make the Age Timers Dynamic (at least somewhat).
Tie it to Reformation/Institutrions for example?

Also I am not happy as these "Ages" are very Europe Focused, this is somewhat immersion braking in the rest of the world. Especially when you have not got contact to the Europeans yet.
Are there any plans to address this? (E.g. have Ages progress by tech group and make some permanent ages like a "Pre Columbian" and "Post Columbian" age for new World countries and uppon Modernization they switch to the "Regular" ages system.)

 

[net.split]

This somehow managed to be even worse than the previous Ages diary, despite the complaints and later minor retooling of some of the options.

Very glad this is paid-only. There's no way I'm buying this DLC, even on sale and even if it comes with something else important. I don't want this Ages poison pill in my game.

I pray there is nothing critical added to this DLC, like Confucian mechanics or reworked China / Japan. Leave those for another DLC that doesn't have such a bad feature included.

 

[Voigt]

Gain at least 5 colonial nations.

I would suggest, to let the value scale with the total possible Colonial Nations. In some RNW there are only like 5 different colonial regions, so it gets really hard to colonize everywhere, especially if some places are far away. So atleast let it scale between 4 and 6.

 

[Mortheim]

I'm not 100% happy with the Polish bonus myself, but I really don't want to add a military bonus.

Why? They can have another mil bonus. They aren't true Prussia atm.

 

[Dakka]

I'm not 100% happy with the Polish bonus myself, but I really don't want to add a military bonus.

Just add +20% Cav Combat ability

 

[JustMormegil]

Just add +20% Cav Combat ability

you mean 27%, right?

 

[Nyrael]

Would be good if Catholics had an Objective to re-convert a nation with high development, which is something they'd consider a big achievement in this time period.

 

[grommile]

I pray there is nothing critical added to this DLC, like Confucian mechanics or reworked China / Japan. Leave those for another DLC that doesn't have such a bad feature included.

Unlike requests of the form "kill this feature with fire" (which, with sufficient quality of argument, are sometimes honoured; see the proposed 1.19 fort changes which were reverted after open beta because the player base pointed out serious problems with the consequences), requests of the form "don't put good features in this DLC because it also contains a really bad feature" are stupid, because:

• If you can persuade the devs that the bad feature really is bad, they'll remove or revise it anyway.
• If you can't, your request makes literally no sense to the devs.

 

[seriousgigi]

the age starts in 1530, 10 years after suleiman the magnificent's accession to the throne and starting the golden age of ottoman empire but it seems almost none of those objectives can be achieved by AI ottos lmao.

 

[net.split]

Unlike requests of the form "kill this feature with fire" (which, with sufficient quality of argument, are sometimes honoured; see the proposed 1.19 fort changes which were reverted after open beta because the player base pointed out serious problems with the consequences), requests of the form "don't put good features in this DLC because it also contains a really bad feature" are stupid, because:

• If you can persuade the devs that the bad feature really is bad, they'll remove or revise it anyway.
• If you can't, your request makes literally no sense to the devs.

That was not a request for the devs. It was me expressing how I hope things pan out.

I don't think this particular system can be salvaged at all. It is at its core Eurocentric in both flavor and majority of the options (yes there's a few bones thrown to the RotW but the package as a whole just further cements the European-based view of all the world's history; it's also yet another system that integrates poorly with the Random New World), and the mechanics are simplistic, underwhelming, and largely railroaded. It can't be fixed with a few tweaks, and it's too big of a system for Paradox to just scrap it; they'd be left with nothing of note to sell in their next DLC.

I have no requests for the devs in this case because I have given up on this system and this DLC completely.

 

[Metz]

The new age feature is good because it lets certain countries get bonuses by doing things that may be easier for them instead of having to expand when unable to or having to grow tall when they can't afford to.

I hope the new absolutism mechanic lets you centralize power and reap benefits, yet if too high, it can trigger a revolution (when in the age of revolutions that is). Currently, achieving a revolution means you have to damage your nation on purpose which is unrealistic.

 

[romothecus]

WTF would that even mean?

He probably means some kind of Chinese tributary system where different entities had different responsibilities and levels of control relative to imperial China.

 

[Metz]

It's 4 nations per age.

I don't see why it can't be 5 or 6 nations per age. There is room in the interface and could make the game more plausibly dynamic and interesting.

 

[Republic of Mercury]

the age starts in 1530, 10 years after suleiman the magnificent's accession to the throne and starting the golden age of ottoman empire but it seems almost none of those objectives can be achieved by AI ottos lmao.

Well if the Ottoman's golden era started in the previous age, in game terms, then shouldn't we judge it based on how well they can meet the previous age's objectives?

 

[Melian Erios]

Wouldnt that make them OP pretty fast though?

Historically it makes a LOT more sense and given they'd still have the institution penalty it's not really that OP.

 

[Melian Erios]

Own all provinces of your culturegroup.

Presumably this counts provinces owned by your subjects too right? Or else colonisers are being punished for colonising?

 

[Me_]

I'm not 100% happy with the Polish bonus myself, but I really don't want to add a military bonus.

Give it +0.3 goods produced globally. That's not military and this era was the time of major increase in population, the founding of many villages and cities and the rise of huge wheat plantations. It also gives Poland an appropriate problem at the end of the era - the collapse of royal treasury, which simply could not afford a large army in the next era.