EU4 - Development Diary - 14th of April 2020

[Battlex]

Why not more options for the religion events after winning a league war in the HRE. Such as an option to just allow Catholicism and Protestant, or just Protestant and Reformed, or just Protestant and Hussites, or just Protestant, Reformed and Hussites, or just Catholicism and Orthodox.

Will the Bavarian succesion crisis or the Saxon PU over Poland, they were both major events and both caused major wars.
What about Julich being added in as a prince? And having an event for Brandenburg/Prussia to PU ii?

Brandenburg Prussia is already PU event in game, it just never fires as they both need to exist, and the slavs always break off Poland before prussia does. Julich-Cleves-Burg is in next patch, war of polish succession is really just a regular war of succession which the game already has. What would the war of bavarian succession be like? Do you mean the bavarians swapping their lands for Belgium? But yeah there really needs to be code to seperate protestants and orthodox, with how tolerated orthodox serbs that migrated into the hapsburg lands were compared to Lutheran Germans

 

[PlatinumSun]

Brandenburg Prussia is already PU event in game, it just never fires as they both need to exist, and the slavs always break off Poland before prussia does. Julich-Cleves-Burg is in next patch, war of polish succession is really just a regular war of succession which the game already has. What would the war of bavarian succession be like? Do you mean the bavarians swapping their lands for Belgium? But yeah there really needs to be code to seperate protestants and orthodox, with how tolerated orthodox serbs that migrated into the hapsburg lands were compared to Lutheran Germans

What? I know their is a PU event for BB to PU Prussia if it forms, I never brought that up in my comment. Im not talking about that.

Also I didn't realise they were adding Julich, I looked up what new tags they were adding in I didn't see it, sorry.

Yes I do mean the Bavarian Flanders swap with Austria which caused a coalition war which I forgot the name of. Some German name starting with an H or R I don't remember. I should remember, I read 500 pages of a 1400 page history book on Prussia not too long ago.

Also I didn't realise the Polish PU thingy with saxony was already in the game. Ive never seen it I always show Poland and Saxony how Prussians have a cock bigger than Silesia. That is my fault, I should have looked up the events list before I commented.

As for religion I think they should make it so every nation has tolerated religions just lile cultures, with the US and Prussia getting +2 tolerated religions as a bonus. Most nations would have none, such as the Papal states which would just has Catholicism. Some would have 1, say as England you can have Both Protestant (Tolerated) and Anglican (Main) or Anglican (Main) and Catholic (Tolerated) if you so choose. Some nations would have +2 such as Prussia and US.

What do you think?

 

[The_Turt1e]

Friends of Europa Universalis 4.
Is it to late to ask, if Paradox could implement the Countship of Hoya in the Province of Hoya?
It was indipendent in 1444 and not such an small countship.
It became part of Brunswick in 1582 with the death of their Count.

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

very cool feature for Custom Nations

I hope its either:
A- Being able to add two bonuses to a single idea
B- Being able to choose unit models
C- Being able to custom edit historical nations.

 

[Battlex]

Friends of Europa Universalis 4.
Is it to late to ask, if Paradox could implement the Countship of Hoya in the Province of Hoya?
It was indipendent in 1444 and not such an small countship.
It became part of Brunswick in 1582 with the death of their Count.

They're vassals from 1512, tag inflation disrupts the balance of power which is one reason Brunswick Callenberg isn't in game

What? I know their is a PU event for BB to PU Prussia if it forms, I never brought that up in my comment. Im not talking about that.

Yes I do mean the Bavarian Flanders swap with Austria which caused a coalition war which I forgot the name of. Some German name starting with an H or R I don't remember. I should remember, I read 500 pages of a 1400 page history book on Prussia not too long ago.

Also I didn't realise the Polish PU thingy with saxony was already in the game. Ive never seen it I always show Poland and Saxony how Prussians have a cock bigger than Silesia. That is my fault, I should have looked up the events list before I commented.

As for religion I think they should make it so every nation has tolerated religions just lile cultures, with the US and Prussia getting +2 tolerated religions as a bonus. Most nations would have none, such as the Papal states which would just has Catholicism. Some would have 1, say as England you can have Both Protestant (Tolerated) and Anglican (Main) or Anglican (Main) and Catholic (Tolerated) if you so choose. Some nations would have +2 such as Prussia and US.

What do you think?

Even selecting religions is hard because certain schools might be more accepted than others, which is why the Muslim faith overhaul really needs to be branched out more.

There isn't an event for the war of Polish succession, but the elector of saxony dying whilst there's a Wettin on the throne of Poland, and a PU forming is the most the game can dynamically do, I don't think the war of the Polish succession is that important to use anything but generic events

 

[PlatinumSun]

They're vassals from 1512, tag inflation disrupts the balance of power which is one reason Brunswick Callenberg isn't in game

Even selecting religions is hard because certain schools might be more accepted than others, which is why the Muslim faith overhaul really needs to be branched out more.

There isn't an event for the war of Polish succession, but the elector of saxony dying whilst there's a Wettin on the throne of Poland, and a PU forming is the most the game can dynamically do, I don't think the war of the Polish succession is that important to use anything but generic events

Yes, hopefully we get one more DLC after this, to flesh out religions.

I politefully disagree. Why do you think Frederik II went balls to the wall and took Silesia? Its iron? No to fuck over Saxony and Poland and also s they could border the Hapsburg Empire.

 

[Battletank09]

I need to know for the stuff leading up to reformed empire, will reformed electors have their Electorships revoked following the end of the league war? Cause that would REALLY suck for a reformed player nation to just have it revoked, then after the emperor abdicates to the new religion, have to give them out and not be able to give it to yourself. Also would protestant princes lose their Electorship too then? Really hope a dev responds to this.

 

[bouldefrog]

Completely irrelevant to anything here but I thought this would be the best way to get the devs to see my post. Basically add macrobuilder option to fabricate on neighbouring countries. Thank you for coming to my ted talk

 

[Battlex]

Yes, hopefully we get one more DLC after this, to flesh out religions.

I politefully disagree. Why do you think Frederik II went balls to the wall and took Silesia? Its iron? No to fuck over Saxony and Poland and also s they could border the Hapsburg Empire.

The loss of Silesia is in the war of Austrian Succession? What are you getting at?

 

[Cuban Pete]

As we draw closer to the release of Emperor, I have to say, as someone who mostly plays Venice and other republics when in Europe, I am somewhat concerned. New estate mechanics, new territory mechanics, and a bunch of new ideas are absolutely fantastic and they're very exciting. However, by in large, it doesn't seem like Merchant Republics, the redheaded stepchildren of Europe, will be getting much attention outside of new missions and the Hanseatic crisis.

Since I started playing the game, there was never a time where I could say merchant republics were "good," or rather, competitive. Playing tall and being conservative with your conquests isn't exactly effective in EU4 for a variety of different reasons. But you could still make it work with a Merchant Republic because ultimately a challenge and decent flavor (and pretty borders ala vassal spam) is a lot more important to me than being able to take a poop on King Louis CXXIIV's forehead or dismantling the HRE or forming Rome. I have never expected Merchant Republics to be notably better than any other government. I'm sure that some people can very easily do WC without swapping governments but I'm not the kind of person who particularly cares about that sort of thing.

What I do expect from them is a few things, especially in the case of Venice, since there's a lot of opportunity there.
- Flavor, above all else (this game is meant to be played, after all)
- The ability to survive, largely through diplomacy
- To make more money than anyone else upstream of their node
- To have ways of using that money to make the game a little more compelling

As it stands, we've heard nothing about how Merchant Republics (recall, hard, unchangeable 20 stated province cap before RT leech) will change with the new state mechanics. Nothing about what they'll get in return for having territorial autonomy increased (the only way to empire and keep your government), and Charters are also autonomy nerfed (I can't tell if placing everything in a charter means more money for Merchant Republics than other governments at this point). Even in the game's current state, Venice for example is locked out of taking full advantage of African Charters because of some funny trade route business unless they dominate Genoa. Which, while not impossible, is kind of silly.

The money I do make essentially goes to being 500% over my naval force limit and packing my provinces with manufactories. Which is fine, I won't complain about affording a big navy or making lots of goods, but it is only because I, the player, have the ability to form alliances wisely that I survive long enough to get to this point. An AI Venice (which in reality was only a fairly gradual decline until Napoleon) is regularly nonexistent after 200 years in game, if that. Trade leagues are nice, but they're far more trouble than they're worth (meh trade bonuses on countries that stop existing after 1650ish, and being called into silly wars against massive blobs to defend the knights or some opm in north germany), especially for the AI. There's a lot of reason why the AI can't deal with merchant republics, I get it. Make an apple pie from scratch, and all that. But they could at least do with something to keep them in the game longer. It doesn't even have to be directly military. I would never complain about having more diplo rep.

But I can deal with merchant republics kind of sucking, none of those are exactly "new" issues (just kind of exacerbated by the update), and I still have a good enough time to keep picking the same country. I play Venice because, well first of all I think Venice is cool, but I also think they have some nice flavor. But with this massive European update/xpac that has been in the works for well over a year, what makes me most anxious is that the only thing I've heard that I'm getting is a new mission tree. No faction rework (interest has been expressed deep in the bowels of dev diary replies but nothing for this xpac?). No introduction to estates. No new idea sets. No new event trees (other than Hansa). No new flavor. I get that this is a minor complaint in the grand scheme of things. Merchant Republics are more or less obscure, and there's so few in game other than a few notable examples. But that's just it. You have the space to squeeze something in for us here.

 

[JJEmperor74]

Off topic but will France get vassals AND allies if you refuse to give up Maine as England? Seems a tad broken.

Oh and can I suggest that England's 10% infantry combat ability still doesn't quite reflect the quality of their pre-arquebus/musket longbow units. Even a modest increase to 15% would be welcome and good for game balance.

 

[Wenceslaus II.]

Off topic but will France get vassals AND allies if you refuse to give up Maine as England? Seems a tad broken

And getting a PU over one of the great powers doesn't? At least it's worthy of the reward.

 

[Mont-Rouge]

This DLC has almost 1 and a half years of development! It's impressive . I hope that the quality will be there. I can't wait anymore, I can't even play EU4 my favorite game as I find that this one is sorely lacking since dev diaries

 

[Mr.Grizzly]

Off topic but will France get vassals AND allies if you refuse to give up Maine as England? Seems a tad broken.

France is supposed to be stronger then England at game start, also England is literally breaking a treaty, so yeah people would probably jump on them.

Oh and can I suggest that England's 10% infantry combat ability still doesn't quite reflect the quality of their pre-arquebus/musket longbow units. Even a modest increase to 15% would be welcome and good for game balance.

This I do agree with, +10% ICA really alone isn't really a good bonus, especially early game when infantry suck

 

[korawit13]

The Balance of power is working. It called forming coalition which the Balance of threat. It is nothing wrong with having more historical mechanics and more new historical events. To be realistic, if the European Superpowers like France, Holy Roman Emperor, and England can destroy one another, they would do so. They fought any wars against one another, but it is usually little gain and stalemate. That is why they find other ways to expand to somewhere else [imperialism]. The superpowers in the past are really paranoid of each other despite just fight against a there common threat. [I refer to Neoplotic war and WWI secret alliances]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_(international_relations)#Realism_and_balancing

 

[Battlex]

Off topic but will France get vassals AND allies if you refuse to give up Maine as England? Seems a tad broken.

Oh and can I suggest that England's 10% infantry combat ability still doesn't quite reflect the quality of their pre-arquebus/musket longbow units. Even a modest increase to 15% would be welcome and good for game balance.

England broke a treaty obligation, ofc it's easier to get their allies in than yours

 

[Pbhuh]

The Balance of power is working. It called forming coalition which the Balance of threat. It is nothing wrong with having more historical mechanics and more new historical events. To be realistic, if the European Superpowers like France, Holy Roman Emperor, and England can destroy one another, they would do so. They fought any wars against one another, but it is usually little gain and stalemate. That is why they find other ways to expand to somewhere else [imperialism]. The superpowers in the past are really paranoid of each other despite just fight against a there common threat. [I refer to Neoplotic war and WWI secret alliances]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_(international_relations)#Realism_and_balancing

Yeah I dont think you know what people mean with the Balance of Power.

After the 30 years war, there were relatively many countries of Power who all often put aside personal goals vs keeping other powers not too strong.
But before this this was already established with things like the Ottoman expansions into Europe, being halted by a Naval effort by many christian nations and also later on in the 17th century with the Siege of Vienna.

In Europa Universalis we see that this does not exist. Ottomans are free to expand into any weakened European State without consequence. They can easily conquer into Ruthenian lands, reach Vienna easily and weaken Poland to such an extend that it often stops existing.

In reality we saw a combined effort of many powers to weaken a growing power. Think of France under Louis XIV. The Nine Years War (or War of the Grand Alliance or League of Augsburg) and later on the Spanish Succession. In Europa Universalis its darn near impossible to really make all great powers hate you to such an extend that they all jump on you, unless you go out of your way to gain Aggressive Expansion, something the AI avoids.

 

[Battlex]

As we draw closer to the release of Emperor, I have to say, as someone who mostly plays Venice and other republics when in Europe, I am somewhat concerned. New estate mechanics, new territory mechanics, and a bunch of new ideas are absolutely fantastic and they're very exciting. However, by in large, it doesn't seem like Merchant Republics, the redheaded stepchildren of Europe, will be getting much attention outside of new missions and the Hanseatic crisis.

Since I started playing the game, there was never a time where I could say merchant republics were "good," or rather, competitive. Playing tall and being conservative with your conquests isn't exactly effective in EU4 for a variety of different reasons. But you could still make it work with a Merchant Republic because ultimately a challenge and decent flavor (and pretty borders ala vassal spam) is a lot more important to me than being able to take a poop on King Louis CXXIIV's forehead or dismantling the HRE or forming Rome. I have never expected Merchant Republics to be notably better than any other government. I'm sure that some people can very easily do WC without swapping governments but I'm not the kind of person who particularly cares about that sort of thing.

What I do expect from them is a few things, especially in the case of Venice, since there's a lot of opportunity there.
- Flavor, above all else (this game is meant to be played, after all)
- The ability to survive, largely through diplomacy
- To make more money than anyone else upstream of their node
- To have ways of using that money to make the game a little more compelling

As it stands, we've heard nothing about how Merchant Republics (recall, hard, unchangeable 20 stated province cap before RT leech) will change with the new state mechanics. Nothing about what they'll get in return for having territorial autonomy increased (the only way to empire and keep your government), and Charters are also autonomy nerfed (I can't tell if placing everything in a charter means more money for Merchant Republics than other governments at this point). Even in the game's current state, Venice for example is locked out of taking full advantage of African Charters because of some funny trade route business unless they dominate Genoa. Which, while not impossible, is kind of silly.

The money I do make essentially goes to being 500% over my naval force limit and packing my provinces with manufactories. Which is fine, I won't complain about affording a big navy or making lots of goods, but it is only because I, the player, have the ability to form alliances wisely that I survive long enough to get to this point. An AI Venice (which in reality was only a fairly gradual decline until Napoleon) is regularly nonexistent after 200 years in game, if that. Trade leagues are nice, but they're far more trouble than they're worth (meh trade bonuses on countries that stop existing after 1650ish, and being called into silly wars against massive blobs to defend the knights or some opm in north germany), especially for the AI. There's a lot of reason why the AI can't deal with merchant republics, I get it. Make an apple pie from scratch, and all that. But they could at least do with something to keep them in the game longer. It doesn't even have to be directly military. I would never complain about having more diplo rep.

But I can deal with merchant republics kind of sucking, none of those are exactly "new" issues (just kind of exacerbated by the update), and I still have a good enough time to keep picking the same country. I play Venice because, well first of all I think Venice is cool, but I also think they have some nice flavor. But with this massive European update/xpac that has been in the works for well over a year, what makes me most anxious is that the only thing I've heard that I'm getting is a new mission tree. No faction rework (interest has been expressed deep in the bowels of dev diary replies but nothing for this xpac?). No introduction to estates. No new idea sets. No new event trees (other than Hansa). No new flavor. I get that this is a minor complaint in the grand scheme of things. Merchant Republics are more or less obscure, and there's so few in game other than a few notable examples. But that's just it. You have the space to squeeze something in for us here.

I agree, stronger merchant republics means more italian wars, a southern threat to the HRE, and ottos kept at bay a bit longer

 

[korawit13]

@Pbhuh, yeah, it is true in the game. I talk about history. Sorry for the confusion. The Siege of Vienna is a common personal interest of Christian Monarchs to defeat the Ottoman's Islam expansion unless they like to pay religious tax to Ottomans [Once upon a time, France is an alliance of Ottoman]. I agree with you about the game causality.

 

[holyvigil]

Off topic but will France get vassals AND allies if you refuse to give up Maine as England? Seems a tad broken.

Oh and can I suggest that England's 10% infantry combat ability still doesn't quite reflect the quality of their pre-arquebus/musket longbow units. Even a modest increase to 15% would be welcome and good for game balance.

I think their relations are maxed out.