EU4 - Development Diary - 10th of January 2017

[Metz]

When will requirements regarding province count be changed to development count? Currently you can't integrate someone with more provinces even though you have more development.

 

[romothecus]

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.

Yeah, this sounds really, really bad. Ages shouldn't be predefined. They should be things that develop organically.

Whatever they're charging for this, I would have paid double that for more developed dynasties, with real family trees.

 

[Benghi Bon]

Yeah, this sounds really, really bad. Ages shouldn't be predefined. They should be things that develop organically.

Whatever they're charging for this, I would have paid double that for more developed dynasties, with real family trees.

It's doubly disappointing when I think about the fact that this is what'll be released. Like net_split said, this is unsalvagable in my eyes. It may get a few tweaks but this is what we're going to get and Ages is going to be released eventually. My only happiness in the matter is that it's a paid feature so I can entirely skip this mess, so I can still play the game at least.

 

[Te. Kenzo]

Also embrace counter-reformation should be an option

 

[Grand Historian]

To be perfectly honest, the only thing I've really paid attention to so far in this DD is that screenshot. And I have to say Japan looks great! Six province Kyushu, three province Shikoku, San'in and San'yo as their own areas, you guys have really outdone yourselves this time!

The only criticisms I can really offer for the map are that Chikugo really shouldn't be in Hizen as the Otomo had been exerting their loose authority over it even as early as 1444 - it wasn't until Takanobu Ryuzoji murdered Shigenami Kamachi in 1579 to get Yanagawa castle that Chikugo fell under a Hizen domain's outright rule. That, and Harima seems a little on the small side.

I can see a few new provinces in Ming and Japan, I'm sure @Grand Historian is going to be happy, though it seems not quite as many as he hoped for.

Actually, that's pretty much all the provinces I asked for in western Japan; Hyuga, Higo, Hizen, Iyo, Iwami, Bizen, Kii and surprisingly even Tango are all in now - the only thing actually missing so far is a Kyoto split. I can't make out eastern Japan, though, but if it's as good as their western work I'm not too concerned.

 

[Johan]

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.

Yeah, it could be a good solution.

 

[net.split]

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.

That would do precisely nothing to make the system more dynamic. The dynamism problems include but are not limited to the following:

• Hard-wired, historically-inspired goals that do not apply to all regions of the world and may well not apply in a sensible manner for how the alternate history unfolds the moment you press the button to start a new game
• A few powerful bonuses limited to specific nations that may or may not even exist during the era (imagine a player Re-Reconquista Andalusia; there is no Spain, and Andalusia can't have the bonus that would have been limited to Spain, so it's a completely wasted mechanic for that play-through)
  
• Hard year cut-offs, which take no world conditions into account whatsoever

An example of a more dynamic system for goals & bonuses would be something like the Campaign system suggested something like a year ago, where each nation can choose from several relevant Campaign choices for the next steps to take to advance the nation's interests. The resulting selection would provide an updated Mission list to help the nation achieve the Campaign goals. Conflicting Campaigns would create natural Rivalries (overhauling that system into something more sensible and useful) and result in information spread regarding what each nation is attempting to achieve. Completion of a Campaign results in a major related bonus that lasts for some amount of time (enhanced Mission rewards).

Some nations could have some unique Campaign choices for those who like to see historical events springing to life, but the system as a whole would not be based around this. Because Campaigns could have conditions before they can appear to be selected, they become dynamic with respect to the state of the world and the state of each nation.

That feels like Europa Universalis to me. And all these new types of bonuses we're seeing in this Ages mess could instead function as Campaign completion rewards.

This is of course just one example of how things could have been done differently. There are innumerable alternatives that would all provide the dynamism, depth, and integration that would result in good gameplay.

 

[TheDungen]

Yah maybe they can finally survive the french onslaught now

...I haven't seen AI france do well in ages. Granted I play a somewhat modded version of the game.

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

Take one of their military bonuses from their national ideas and use for this and give them a civilian national idea instead.
Aside from that there are plenty of good civilian buffs you could give them, +1 diplorep? fewer provinces needed for the nobility to be happy? Or some such thing to represent that this is the time when the sejm actually worked.

How does this make any sense if you're not christian and/or european ?

I'm very worried about this.

Also cultural unification, the last goal in the list, makes me uneasy as it's a process that never quite happened, even in europe, in this timeframe.
Spain for instance has never really been culturally unified in the time frame (and still not completely today) same with germany, france (which achieved it in the XIXth century), United Kingdom etc.

Yeah I though about that too, the idea of the nation state belongs in the last age (or even after it) not in the second one.

 

[Dakka]

you mean 27%, right?

Well at this point may as well just do +50%
RIDERS OF ROHAN!!!

 

[Grand Historian]

Well at this point may as well just do +50%
RIDERS OF ROHAN!!!

The long anticipated crossover between Europa Universalis and Mad Max.

 

[Republic of Mercury]

Also cultural unification, the last goal in the list, makes me uneasy as it's a process that never quite happened, even in europe, in this timeframe.
Spain for instance has never really been culturally unified in the time frame (and still not completely today) same with germany, france (which achieved it in the XIXth century), United Kingdom etc.

It's been confirmed that subject provinces count too, so, given that the age ends in 1620, England historically achieved this objective in 1603.

 

[A Secret Friend]

While I understand that these bonuses aren't meant to be something that appear in every game, and are meant to be somewhat of rewards if certain countries perform well, I still hope you also buff the Timurids in some way, so that AI Mughals have a chance of appearing.

 

[loup99]

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.

The general request so far has been to remove all fix dates and make ages entirely dynamic and organic, based upon developments in-game such as the institutions and important developments (reformation, counter-reformation, league wars, revolution etc). We will have to see whether that is taken into account or not, but so far it is not from what we read.

 

[Starisc]

I dont wanna be THAT GUY, but this seems so linear and boring.. Every gameplay the same objectives... Zzzzz.

I like to have the freedom to do what I wanna do in the game. Although there's no downside into not pursuing those objectives, I feel like I wouldnt be maxing out the potential of my country. And that bothers me.

Anyway, I think I wont like this feature.. Lets see..

I see two potential problems:

1. Tradeoffs missing: If I decide to go for these bonuses, I should have to pay for them somehow. Most of the objective seem quite obvious behaviors for that age (reformation, religious upheaval) - Any central European nation will naturally fulfill quite a few of these objectives. At least make it a choice by providing some downsides or turning the objectives into reach goals (hard to achieve - but when achieved with quite glorious bonuses)
2. Player choice - to ignore the age bonuses is non-optimal play, so a majority of players will use the ages mechanic. This leads to more "scripted" playthroughs.
Example Castille: it is already a very railroaded nation - you need to pick exploration first, build colonial nation, etc. It is the dominant choice given the NI and the geographic location. Now playing that age as best as possible to receive that bonus is also the dominant choice. Castille ends up pretty scripted from beginning to end, just when at that age you might start to have more freedom and might want to start to focus on something else after colonizing game has been won/ well established.

 

[romothecus]

An example of a more dynamic system for goals & bonuses would be something like the Campaign system suggested something like a year ago, where each nation can choose from several relevant Campaign choices for the next steps to take to advance the nation's interests. The resulting selection would provide an updated Mission list to help the nation achieve the Campaign goals. Conflicting Campaigns would create natural Rivalries (overhauling that system into something more sensible and useful) and result in information spread regarding what each nation is attempting to achieve. Completion of a Campaign results in a major related bonus that lasts for some amount of time (enhanced Mission rewards).

Some nations could have some unique Campaign choices for those who like to see historical events springing to life, but the system as a whole would not be based around this. Because Campaigns could have conditions before they can appear to be selected, they become dynamic with respect to the state of the world and the state of each nation.

wow, this sounds great. Vastly better than Ages.

 

[SolSys]

An example of a more dynamic system for goals & bonuses would be something like the Campaign system suggested something like a year ago, where each nation can choose from several relevant Campaign choices for the next steps to take to advance the nation's interests. The resulting selection would provide an updated Mission list to help the nation achieve the Campaign goals. Conflicting Campaigns would create natural Rivalries (overhauling that system into something more sensible and useful) and result in information spread regarding what each nation is attempting to achieve. Completion of a Campaign results in a major related bonus that lasts for some amount of time (enhanced Mission rewards).

Some nations could have some unique Campaign choices for those who like to see historical events springing to life, but the system as a whole would not be based around this. Because Campaigns could have conditions before they can appear to be selected, they become dynamic with respect to the state of the world and the state of each nation.

That feels like Europa Universalis to me. And all these new types of bonuses we're seeing in this Ages mess could instead function as Campaign completion rewards.

Not to burst the bubble, but didn't you just describe the background decisions the players do all the time as it is? Which, frankly, isn't too different from the system above [still not sold on it].

The only difference seems to be that the Campaign system is more guiding [hand-holding even]. I still ranked it "helpful" as it sounds as a nice way to enhance the missions system - a system which was implemented back in the day to help players who felt "lost" [and who of us didn't feel lost at times]. Maybe another name though; Mission-arcs [Arc-missions?].

 

[KrupPato]

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.

AI ottos can do religious ideagroup and convert ten provinces easy...

 

[net.split]

Well, I'm not really interested in trying to hijack this thread to advocate for some pet system or other of mine. I just wanted to give a brief example of how some of the core conceits behind this Ages system could instead have been used to make another system that's more dynamic and whole world-friendly.

There are many other good possibilities and options, and I'd take any of them.

 

[SolSys]

2. Player choice - to ignore the age bonuses is non-optimal play, so a majority of players will use the ages mechanic. This leads to more "scripted" playthroughs.

If you don't mind I would like to address this single point since it is mentioned every time.

As any min-max will tell you, if you play the game in any other way than a specific one then your play style is non-optimal. That is true for every game out there.
It, however, does become an issue when the semblance of choice is outright ridiculous - meaning, an overwhelming majority of players pick a particular path every time rather than some of the time.

 

[SolSys]

Well, I'm not really interested in trying to hijack this thread to advocate for some pet system or other of mine. I just wanted to give a brief example of how some of the core conceits behind this Ages system could instead have been used to make another system that's more dynamic and whole world-friendly.

There are many other good possibilities and options, and I'd take any of them.

I don't think the two negate each other. Your Campaign [Arc-mission? ] proposal sounds like a nice enhancement to the mission system.