• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

EU4 - Development Diary - 1st of November 2016

Hi everyone, and welcome to another development diary for Europa Universalis IV. This time its rather meaty and is about major gameplay changes for the 1.19 patch.

While we were reasonably happy with how Fort and Zone of Control has played out since introduced over a year ago, it has had one major drawback. The rules have so many cases to keep track of that it was practically impossible to make all cases clear to the player. This causes much confusion amongst players, who also had an experience that was not as great as they had hoped while playing.

So now Zone of Control have changed completely. Instead of affecting a province and sometimes blocking passage in adjacent provinces, Zone of Control rules are now area based.

Areas = The same map division that States/Territories are organsied around. And which 1.19 will show thicker borders around.


A Forts is:
  • hostile if it is controlled by someone you are at war with.
  • friendly if it is controlled by you, or by someone on your side in any war, unless you are at war with them (should not happen).
  • neutral otherwise.


An area is:
  • friendly if it has at least one friendly fort and no hostile fort.
  • hostile if it has at least one hostile fort and no friendly fort.
  • contested if it has at least one hostile fort and at least one friendly fort.
  • neutral otherwise.

Zone of Control blocks an army to move between two adjacent provinces if they belong to different areas, one of which is hostile and the other being either hostile or contested.

(Note that movement within areas is never blocked by Zone of Control)

An occupied province without a fort will flip back to its owner's control if there is in the area at least one non-besieged fort controlled by him but no hostile forts.

To ensure an army can always reach the fort that is blocking it from moving and then come back after sieging it down, all armies can ignore Military Access in all non-neutral areas

Rebels never impact hostile rules, and yes, Capital Forts now work like all other forts.

In order to stop the enemy from reaching the interior of your country, you will often need to have one fort in every area.. Even without that though, forts can force the enemy to make detours unless they first siege down some forts.

While doing this, an average country ends up with more forts than before, so maintenance have been halved.

While doing these changes, we have tweaked the map dramatically, adding in lots of wastelands to give natural borders, and also made a big revision to the area setup, so now areas are pretty much all between 3-5 provinces, giving a more even balance.

eu4_131.png





We have added a new peace treaty as well in 1.19, called “End Rivalry”. This peace option force the enemy to remove one of their Rivals. The removed Rival cannot be added again until 15 years after removed.


We play the game quite a lot every week, and read far more on what issues you as players have. So we keep balancing and changing things to make for a greater player experience. In 1.19 we have some rather important changes to how you play the game.

Combat has been changed a bit as well in this patch, as we removed the combat width penalties from terrain, as it made battles last way too long, and was a double defensive bonus combined with diceroll penalties.

Sieging units will no longer get a rivercrossing penalty if a relieving force engages them, even if they did cross a river a few days, months or years earlier.

We have changed the chance to increase colonysize from colonist being placed to instead being a lower the bigger the colony becomes. Previously it was pretty much a no-brainer to keep it as long as possible, as it became better the bigger the colony is. Now íts more of a choice..

Another complaint was the fixed levels of liberty desire that got applied to vassals and marches as they grew past certain arbitrary limits. Now it is scaling by development of the subject so you can always judge impact of their growth.

For those of you that care about score, Great Powers are now likelier to be getting score each month, as they have a default +5 rating in each category. Also maintaining enough forts is now an impact on your military score gain.

Corruption is now not entirely 100% bad, as a country with 100 corruption will now get -20 unrest in their realm.

Courthouse & Town Halls no longer affect unrest but instead reduce state maintainance by 25% and 50% respectively, while their building costs have been halved.

The Casus Belli from Expansion and Exploration Ideagroups did not really work as great as before with the new technology system, so in 1.19 they are getting changed. The Casus Belli themselves are gone..

Exploration Finisher now allows you to fabricate claim on another continent that is in your capital in a colonial region. (Colonial Subjects can do it everywhere in a colonial region.)

Expansion Finisher now allows you to fabricate claims inside any trade company region that is on another continent than your capital. (Without Wealth of Nations, it is any overseas port not in a colonial region, and not in europe.)

At the same time, distance impact on building spy networks have been dropped to 1/10th of before.

For those of you that have Rights of Man, we are now adding even more things. In 1.19, Trade Goods will have a local impact. A Grain Province gives +0.5 Land Force Limit, Iron gives 20% Faster Building Construction & Ivory gives 20% cheaper state maintenance.

We have also improved the “trading in good” - bonus, where some are almost twice as powerful as before, and some have changed completely.

Next week we'll be back talking about all interface improvements for 1.19.
 
  • 239
  • 57
  • 26
Reactions:
Not currently but I'd like to look at that in the future :)
For Denmark many of the early ones relate to the union so those at least wouldn't really make sense...

Thoe early ones would pre date the formation of Scandinavia due to requirement regulations but the later ones that grant bonuses would be nice for Scandinavia.
 
Would Scotland get any impassable mountains to help defend itself better against England?
It's not clear where you'd put blocking terrain to help Scotland defend its lowland capital from occupation.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
edit: forgive my English is bad

Exploration Finisher now allows you to fabricate claim on another continent that is in your capital in a colonial region. (Colonial Subjects can do it everywhere in a colonial region.)


i do not understand what this means?

Small nations in rough terrain like Georgia, the Balkan countries or Andean natives are already hopelessly underpowered against major nations. It's not just that they lose, it's that they dont even impose a cost that might act as a disincentive. By making it even easier for majors to crush them with sheer force of numbers you are making a game that is already ridiculously prone to ahistorical blobs now have even more incentive for ahistorical blobbing.


how is ahistorical when all said regions were swamped and taken over by blobbing nations for majority of game era in real life?

Does this mean it scales in relation to the overlord. So a 150 development subject doesn't get uppity "just because" even though it's ruled over by a 3000 development empire? It's already better than the first iterations of liberty desire, but vassals still can't really scale with huge empires without getting silly ideas.

On that note, could you also do that for diplo vassalization? The arbitrary limit of 100 development to diplo vassalization doesn't really make sense. And it's a fun tool to expand without war.


YES!. Your diplo vassalation modifier should be a percentage comparison i think. Like if they are less than 40% your development, have a similar government, and a certain trust level, you should be able to vasalise them with enough work.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
For me it makes sense. Think about who have the power and who corrupt the government. Nationalists can corrupt the government to have some big advantages (like local autonomy) and then give unrest. Same for burghers: we (the government) let them doing some illegal stuff but ask for peace for the counterpart.
My real problem about corruption is more about how it is gained. Why does unbalanced tech increase corruption ?

Sorry, that really doesn't make sense. Corrupt governments during this period (as well as outside the period) exhibited higher levels of unrest and increased rebellions. A ruler may allow corruption by a certain group (i.e. nobles) in order to keep them happy, but that wasn't what actually happened. First of all, it didn't keep them happy. It just made them richer and more powerful, which of course makes them more of a threat to the government. But most importantly, it angered all of the groups that were harmed by the corruption. You seem to think allowing one group to be corrupt wouldn't be hurting another. If you allow the nobles to be corrupt, collecting higher taxes and charging illegal fees, this would anger those people that are being affected (in this case the peasants and the bourgeoisie). So even if the nobles were satisfied (they wouldn't be), then there are still other groups that would be angry.

There was actually a benefit to corruption being allowed, it just wasn't a more stable country. The benefit was that a ruler could pay officials much lower incomes, or even none at all. The officials instead earned their money using corrupt practices, so they didn't mind the lower wages. So corruption should instead decrease the cost of government. Perhaps decrease the cost of advisers, or even the cost of state maintenance. The idea that corruption will lead to a more stable society is beyond nonsensical.

But yes, I agree that the way that corruption is gained is also quite odd.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
how is ahistorical when all said regions were swamped and taken over by blobbing nations for majority of game era in real life?

Because:

1) It took a lot longer historically, Imereti survived until 1810 historically. In game they are lucky to survive until 1490.
2) It was a lot more expensive historically
3) Sometimes they failed historically and and only succeed on a later time or even lost their previous progress (like the Spanish in north africa)
4) The great powers had to resort to things like local alliances historically that they dont have to do if they can easily march an army in
5) You are flatly wrong when you say "all regions were swamped for the majority". Most of the Italian minors there in 1444 were around at the Congress of Vienna. Three of the five balkan minors, Serbia, Wallacia and Moldavia were vassals but were not part of empires. Switzerland was never conquered nor even dominated
 
  • 11
Reactions:
Or even simpler, give the CBs on anyone with any of the native tech groups.

Someone earlier in the thread (not sure what page, apologies for not quoting you directly, whoever you are) mentioned something about it being somewhat related to whether the Pope cares. As such, it might be better to restrict it not based on tech group (though I'm open to debate on an exception for High American), but on the religions found in those areas. Because I suspect if say Iroquois suddenly became Catholic in history, everyone in Europe would care a lot more about whether taking their lands was "right".

I would be inclined to follow this logic to the idea that natives flipping to any Christian (or Muslim, if the colonizers happen to be Muslim) religion should be excluded from that CB, as that still gives them an escape from it (both for the AI, and for the player). It also seems to preserve the logic that results in it not being usable on CNs, whom we would anticipate to be of same religion, or at least same religion group, as the colonizers. Asia/Africa is obviously more complex, due to the fact that not only are there Muslim nations presently targetable by Expansion's CB, but that there are also Muslim nations (in the Anatolian tech group) who can make use of it.

Thus, the simple and intuitive answer would be to restrict Exploration's CB to target Pagans, and Expansion's CB to target Heathens (I would vote in favor of inclusive of Pagans, see below).

The suggested change to Exploration has the unintended side effect of making Exploration's CB valid on Fetishist (and Tengri), but as the vast majority of those starting nations are in what might be called Colonial Africa, I'm not clear that it's necessarily a bad thing, in terms of balance, as the Expansion CB would no longer be necessary there. The only issue I might take with it personally is that if the reasoning used to apply it is being part of Colonial Africa, then it is odd that, by this metric, Mali, Sofala, Kilwa, etc are still immune. Though it's certainly possible, although a little messy, to exclude Fetishist and/or Tengri.

The suggested change to Expansion has several side effects:
-First and most obviously, as it would encompass all Heathens (including Pagans), it would contain the Exploration CB's targets as part of it, and thus a colonizing nation that let others explore need not necessarily take Exploration, as they could take Expansion instead.
-Secondly, it would prevent the CB being used by Anatolian Expansionists on those nations in Africa and Asia who are Muslim.
-Thirdly, notably different from above due to Nomadic being explicitly included in the current code, it would prevent the CB being used by Anatolian Expansionists on Nomadic Muslims. I'm less sure of the positive effect of this.
-Finally, the additional restrictions above might allow relaxing restrictions on attacker's tech group (so that e.g. Morocco can use it on India).

While this is in fact more restrictive than the current set of rules, it is arguable that it makes more sense, especially in light of the reasoning we did above with respect to Exploration.

The additional side effect of the above changes would be that a nation (player or AI) vulnerable to the CBs in question who converts out of their starting religion, can no longer be attacked in such a manner, at least by heretics. Whereas right now, there's no defense against it. Arguably, this strengthens RotW play for players (although the AI probably still needs lessons on how to convert).

It is inevitable that Exploration and Expansion CBs will be compared to Religious CB, even more so if their requirements are tweaked per above to be based in religion, but from a certain perspective they already were religious CBs, albeit more specific in their application (and more rewarding, which makes sense, as they require more investment)-they were just coded differently.
 
  • 6
  • 2
Reactions:
It is inevitable that Exploration and Expansion CBs will be compared to Religious CB, even more so if their requirements are tweaked per above to be based in religion, but from a certain perspective they already were religious CBs, albeit more specific in their application (and more rewarding, which makes sense, as they require more investment)-they were just coded differently.
To add to your idea, currently the religious CBs only work on heretic and heathen neighbours, while exploration and expansion CBs work on everyone on the continent.
 
Because previously forts could block armies from marching past them, and now they can't unless they're on the inner edge of an area. Think of narrow areas along the coast, like Prussia. Think of minors in the HRE. Armies are no longer protected from being chased down and stackwiped unless your country is at least two full areas deep. Areas can also be carpet-sieged because movement isn't restricted within them. That means more war exhaustion and fewer options for the defender.
Unless you have allied neighbours ofc :)
 
I was just wondering, since you guys have been screwing up the game again and again, are you going to make a patch that will allow the players to undo you ridiculous forced changes in the game through out the last patches?
The last major change brought institutions, wich definately changed the game drasticly, and may I say, not nessesarily for the better.
It would be nice if it once again, it would become posible for Denmark to join the HRE without a major meltdown first, and why the heck is it nessesary for the colonies to demand independance if they are treated as equals? It makes no freaking sence !
Seriously, why is it that when Paradox find a large fault in the game, you make us pay for the repair in a DLC?
You don't seriously expect us to buy another Paradox product afterwards, do you? It surely does not look like you believe it yourself, afterall you just made a change in the privacy settings for this forum, where you give yourself the rights to "sell" or give away the customers info, for free if you like. Are you starting to get nervous about the greed we have seen in the multiple DLC's where we basicly got nothing that shouldn't have been in the game from the start?
My guess is that you are going to continue your greed, so that even the map change in this socalled Denmark patch isn't going to be available unless we pay up for yet another DLC.
Right?
 
  • 23
Reactions:
I was just wondering, since you guys have been screwing up the game again and again, are you going to make a patch that will allow the players to undo you ridiculous forced changes in the game through out the last patches?
The last major change brought institutions, wich definately changed the game drasticly, and may I say, not nessesarily for the better.
It would be nice if it once again, it would become posible for Denmark to join the HRE without a major meltdown first, and why the heck is it nessesary for the colonies to demand independance if they are treated as equals? It makes no freaking sence !
Seriously, why is it that when Paradox find a large fault in the game, you make us pay for the repair in a DLC?
You don't seriously expect us to buy another Paradox product afterwards, do you? It surely does not look like you believe it yourself, afterall you just made a change in the privacy settings for this forum, where you give yourself the rights to "sell" or give away the customers info, for free if you like. Are you starting to get nervous about the greed we have seen in the multiple DLC's where we basicly got nothing that shouldn't have been in the game from the start?
My guess is that you are going to continue your greed, so that even the map change in this socalled Denmark patch isn't going to be available unless we pay up for yet another DLC.
Right?
Tip top posterooni

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...t-your-game-to-a-previous-patch-level.904414/
 
  • 4
  • 2
Reactions:
I was just wondering, since you guys have been screwing up the game again and again, are you going to make a patch that will allow the players to undo you ridiculous forced changes in the game through out the last patches?
The last major change brought institutions, wich definately changed the game drasticly, and may I say, not nessesarily for the better.
It would be nice if it once again, it would become posible for Denmark to join the HRE without a major meltdown first, and why the heck is it nessesary for the colonies to demand independance if they are treated as equals? It makes no freaking sence !
Seriously, why is it that when Paradox find a large fault in the game, you make us pay for the repair in a DLC?
You don't seriously expect us to buy another Paradox product afterwards, do you? It surely does not look like you believe it yourself, afterall you just made a change in the privacy settings for this forum, where you give yourself the rights to "sell" or give away the customers info, for free if you like. Are you starting to get nervous about the greed we have seen in the multiple DLC's where we basicly got nothing that shouldn't have been in the game from the start?
My guess is that you are going to continue your greed, so that even the map change in this socalled Denmark patch isn't going to be available unless we pay up for yet another DLC.
Right?

Some people will never be happy I guess.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
Think the Swiss are going to be heavily affected. Those mountain passes in history helped prevent invasions, but seems they won't help on the defense, just direct the attack.

Are the decreased number of open building spots going to be taken into account?
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Think the Swiss are going to be heavily affected. Those mountain passes in history helped prevent invasions, but seems they won't help on the defense, just direct the attack.

Are the decreased number of open building spots going to be taken into account?

Think this is a great point. Forts will really make your economy suffer due to those building slots.
 
To add to your idea, currently the religious CBs only work on heretic and heathen neighbours, while exploration and expansion CBs work on everyone on the continent.

Technically true, but functionally not so much. Which is the point I was making, as you surmised.

For Exploration to target a coreligionist would require a primitive flip to a colonizer's religion prior to losing primitive status, which is challenging for the player, and next to impossible for the AI. For Expansion to target a coreligionist, a similar (albeit less difficult) scenario must take place with respect to Christian faiths, whereas while there are several cases that make your point for Muslim, they more or less boil down to 1) African 2) Nomad or 3) Indian tech groups, listed in order of my perspective on how appropriate the CB is for them. Furthermore, at present, such a situation requires a Muslim nation in the Western, Eastern, or Anatolian group, expanding into one of those three areas. Ingame, this manifests itself as one of two things: AI Ottomans eating Golden Horde and/or Timurids (and they probably don't have Expansion), or human player rushing India. I can see how a Mughals-forming run might prefer Expansion prior to Religious, but that's about it.

So there are some edge cases, but my point is that they're (probably) not necessary components of those two CBs, as Religious CB does a good job of filling the gaps created by any such changes, and makes more sense in those cases as well.
 
I was just wondering, since you guys have been screwing up the game again and again, are you going to make a patch that will allow the players to undo you ridiculous forced changes in the game through out the last patches?
The last major change brought institutions, wich definately changed the game drasticly, and may I say, not nessesarily for the better.
It would be nice if it once again, it would become posible for Denmark to join the HRE without a major meltdown first, and why the heck is it nessesary for the colonies to demand independance if they are treated as equals? It makes no freaking sence !
Seriously, why is it that when Paradox find a large fault in the game, you make us pay for the repair in a DLC?
You don't seriously expect us to buy another Paradox product afterwards, do you? It surely does not look like you believe it yourself, afterall you just made a change in the privacy settings for this forum, where you give yourself the rights to "sell" or give away the customers info, for free if you like. Are you starting to get nervous about the greed we have seen in the multiple DLC's where we basicly got nothing that shouldn't have been in the game from the start?
My guess is that you are going to continue your greed, so that even the map change in this socalled Denmark patch isn't going to be available unless we pay up for yet another DLC.
Right?

This is perfect, please post forever (!!)
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Exploration Finisher now allows you to fabricate claim on another continent that is in your capital in a colonial region. (Colonial Subjects can do it everywhere in a colonial region.)

Expansion Finisher now allows you to fabricate claims inside any trade company region that is on another continent than your capital. (Without Wealth of Nations, it is any overseas port not in a colonial region, and not in europe.)

At the same time, distance impact on building spy networks have been dropped to 1/10th of before.
This sounds like an awful lot of work to the average player who now has to build spy networks with everyone in the new world.
Not to mention that the costs of taking land using normal claims is actually massive and would make rapid expansion through areas like mexico nightmarish.
 
  • 7
Reactions: