EU4 - Development Diary - 24th of March 2020

[Mr.Grizzly]

1: there is a dev clash thread: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...lash-12-emperor-wednesdays-15-00-cet.1352228/

2: dev clash is on wednesdays now, not tuesdays.

Oh I forgot about that change, thanks for the reminder

 

[MrNewVegas]

So the 10% increase is just like, if something boosts desire by 1%, instead now it boosts it by 1.1%?

Shouldn't the Golden Bull be instead called a Papal Bull?

Also, what is the weighting for the AI to take each bull?

 

[MrNewVegas]

Too bad it doesnt even come close to Orthodox.
33% Manpower 5% Disc or 10% dev/building reduction on Orthodox. Maybe there will be some significant nerfs announced for orthodox but i dont see this new catholic mechanics on par with even protestant military wise.

Yeah this is the real problem with this. Catholicism doesn't get any military bonuses of note, so is still automatically nowhere near as good as Protestantism, and is still completely destroyed by orthodoxy

 

[Zhetone]

"sola fide" as a "concession" makes absolutely no sense theologically when looking at Catholic doctrine, it's completely illogical to include this as a decision in-game. the "allowing vulgar bibles" one makes no sense either seeing as the issue at the time was not allowing bible translation but allowing unauthorized bible translations. I get the feeling whoever is in charge of the Catholicism content doesn't know a lot about Catholicism in the time period (or today)

 

[MrNewVegas]

"The Ecumenical Council is a way for the Papal Controller to siphon their own money into the Curia Coffers to increase their influence to become the next Papal Controller."

You should really consider changing that localization, since it carries some pretty bad implications.

There's not even anything insulting about this description of a ecumenical council, it's just incorrect. Like, the mechanic doesn't even make sense. This is not and has never been even close the point of ecumenical councils. I just interpreted this as the author wanting a mechanic to give the curia money via the pope and they just grabbed a label out of the box and stuck it above the button

 

[RichardOlcese]

What do mean by "old Catholic ones"? I don't see the old Curia abilities of spending Curia Power for boosting your chance of being Pope, Stability, Taxes etc.

I had the same doubt! But if you observe carefully, the panel shown correspondes to a Papal States player. And Papal States never had access to those abilities anyway. I bet France, Castile, etc., will still be able to get those perks.

 

[PrussicAcid]

All these new Curia interactions are a great addition to the game!

However you should consider a Papal Bull that removes religious zeal in heretic provinces and reduce the conversion cost. Or if not, drastically reduce the conversion speed of centers of reformation...
You should also consider a decision that would change permanently the -1 tolerance of heretics "bonus" by something that will encourage some players not to convert to protestantism. Not necessarily a crazy military modifier, but more likely, a war exhaustion help to afford long wars against heretics.

 

[Pope Thrombosis IV]

Can we add the Propagate religion mechanic to at least Catholicism as well? I know their trading mission conversions aren’t as famous or prevalent as Islam’s but I believe it would add some unique flavor to Catholicism since it’s being reworked this update... of course Islam however would mostly likely need a minor buff in order to counteract this OOOOR... all Non-Pagan (excluding Dharma religions) get this option but perhaps Islam’s is more efficient? Criticism encouraged please just don’t be snarky about it!

 

[MensIuguolo]

Which of these mechanisms would be open to modding?
New concession options/effects? Number of concessions? Curia Coffers income/costs/powers?

 

[DominusNovus]

Agreed - there are not Catholic "mystics." The term does not make any sense. How about traditionalism?

I think this belongs in a theological debate regarding Catholicism. I would argue that there is mysticism within Catholicism.

At least at a surface level (regardless of deeper theological opinions) mysticism typically refers to practices more common in the Eastern Orthodox Church or in Islamic Sufiism rather than Roman Catholicism. However, even if we grant that such practices occurred in Renaissance-era Catholicism, which I am unqualified to comment on but highly doubt, then these would still not have been seen as the "hard-line" stance of traditional Church dogma. It would make more sense for mystics to be on the lenient branch than the conservative one.

Regardless of the status of mysticism within Catholicism, the idea of mysticism in opposition to a doctrine that literlaly means 'faith alone' is a non sequiter. Mystics are all about embracing faith as the main means of knowledge.

"sola fide" as a "concession" makes absolutely no sense theologically when looking at Catholic doctrine, it's completely illogical to include this as a decision in-game. the "allowing vulgar bibles" one makes no sense either seeing as the issue at the time was not allowing bible translation but allowing unauthorized bible translations. I get the feeling whoever is in charge of the Catholicism content doesn't know a lot about Catholicism in the time period (or today)

Agreed 100%. The terminology is about as accurate as would be expected from a cursory overview of Catholicism within a Protestant cultural context (something even many Catholics living in culturally Protestant countries struggle with).

@Johan or @Groogy Would you be open to considering changing some of the localization? The fundamental mechanics sound pretty good (I particularly like the general contrast of getting more out of true faith provinces or a smaller amount from all provinces), but the terms themselves could use a lot of work.

First Concession:
Secret Confessions really sounds redundant, as the Seal of Confession has been a fundamental aspect of Catholicism since, at least, the 13th century and most likely since the earliest days of the Church.

Second Concession:
As mentioned before, it isn't the translation of the Bible itself that was the problem for the Church, but unauthorized translations. Perhaps renaming it something along the lines of 'authorized translations' or something. Or, as the conciliatory alternative to 'Roman Catechism,' perhaps something vague like 'Ecumenical Catechism.'
EDIT: another option would be to divide it by the language of the Mass, rather than of the Bible. After all, Catholic Masses were conducted in primarily in Latin well after the Reformation, even when authorized translated Bibles became common for Catholics. So, it could be "Catholic Mass/Vernacular Mass" as an option.

Third Concession:
I'd be surprised if the Church gave ground on clerical celibacy, but there's nothing fundamentally off about the naming here, so no real complaints. There's probably a better name, but its not inherently bad.

Fourth Concession:
The Magisterium of the Catholic Church (Catholic Magisterium) is the Church's authority to interpret the Word of God. This is a far better contrast to Sola Fide, which is not something the Church would ever embrace, as it is absolutely contrary to Catholic Dogma, which does not change (Doctrine can change, but Dogma cannot).

Finally, I think there could be some further Concessions to add to the list, perhaps something around the original hot button issues like Indulgences, but that would be an actual mechanical proposal, and I'm just concerned about the terminology used.

 

[otblock57]

Looks interesting, but I just don't get the point of going Harsh if you can't do anything against zeal. No amount of stacking modifiers will ever get you to 100% strength or above, so choosing Harsh is pointless unless you let it stew for 30 years (good luck avoiding that disaster, by the way). It doesn't even make sense to war against the heretics because the modifier still sticks to provinces, so your only option to convert provinces before that 30 years is up is to go to war and convert capitals.

For another question, do you plan on including anything more about Loyola and the Jesuits? I noticed some complaints about mysticism in the thread, but replacing it with something like Ignatian spirituality, which still places the focus on a closer relationship with the faith without the implications of the word mysticism. You could even slot it into a larger thing about Devotio Moderna, which focused on a more pious lifestyle of humility and simplicity. Perhaps it could provide a small reduction to reform desire if your clergy were seen to act more in line with their humble principles?

On other complaints, maybe my Googling isn't up to scratch, but what is Christian Pictas referring to? Also the Ecumenical Council thing seems like a really bad label for the Pope essentially shuffling his money around.

Another thing, for people who want more military buffs for Catholics, one thing that's been on my mind a lot recently are the Sanfedists. They were peasant armies which rose up to restore the Kingdom of Naples after the it was taken over by the Parthenopaean Republic, a French client state. This would fit in really well with the whole Revolution and Counterrevolution thing you're going for with Emperor. Maybe it could be a state action, like raising Janissaries, for Catholic countries where they could pay papal influence to spawn big stacks of infantry with high morale and reinforce rate.

On the topic of Revolutions, can Revolutionary flags have more customization than just a randomly generated tricolor? For example, a better flag for Revolutionary England or Great Britain would be like the historical one (think the modern Hungarian flag) which has horizontal stripes. It also feels a little weird for some Revolutionary flags to just be the flags of the French puppet states which ruled the area in question.

 

[Zhetone]

First Concession:
Secret Confessions really sounds redundant, as the Seal of Confession has been a fundamental aspect of Catholicism since, at least, the 13th century and most likely since the earliest days of the Church.

I read this as being "secret confessions of heresy" as opposed to public trials of heresy, but from what I know anyway, the inquisition was in front of a council/jury in the fashion of a criminal trial, and doing that in secret would seem to actually deprive it of legitimacy rather than give it legitimacy, so it doesn't make sense on that front either

 

[Turtleblaze]

Many of the localizations need to be changed as mentioned by others. It's a question of basic respect for people's faith. This is a must do.

 

[AlexandruRadu]

There's not even anything insulting about this description of a ecumenical council, it's just incorrect. Like, the mechanic doesn't even make sense. This is not and has never been even close the point of ecumenical councils. I just interpreted this as the author wanting a mechanic to give the curia money via the pope and they just grabbed a label out of the box and stuck it above the button

Its both, I think. It makes sense neither as a label nor from a historical perspective. As far as I'm aware, Catholicism only recognized 7 Ecumenical Councils in Antiquity till the 1500s, so it arguably shouldn't even be unlocked until sometime into the Age of the Reformation.

And since it just reads as giving a bribe to the Curia to get their support, it can be renamed to something like "Patronize the Church" which you could read into as you wish without probably insulting people.

 

[Meglok]

@Groogy is anything being changed regarding the Reformation and RCs affecting non-Christian nations? For example, I doubt if the Ottomans or Almohads would welcome reformist preachers in their lands.

 

[PenitusVox]

Forgive me if I've missed it from some other Dev Diary, I only started following them a month or two ago, but it seems rather surprising to me that I don't see any other mechanics for Crusades here other than allowing them to be used past the point where they're turned off by the Age change. It especially seems like they should have some way to fund any ongoing Crusades using the Curia Coffers or some other more in depth mechanics. In general, Crusades tend to be pretty useless for most countries and are instantly forgotten about, when really they should be incredibly important, including ones against, say, the Hussites which did have to defend themselves against Crusades historically, not long before the start date of EUIV.

 

[DominusNovus]

For another question, do you plan on including anything more about Loyola and the Jesuits? I noticed some complaints about mysticism in the thread, but replacing it with something like Ignatian spirituality, which still places the focus on a closer relationship with the faith without the implications of the word mysticism. You could even slot it into a larger thing about Devotio Moderna, which focused on a more pious lifestyle of humility and simplicity. Perhaps it could provide a small reduction to reform desire if your clergy were seen to act more in line with their humble principles?

You know, it would be fun to explore patronizing the different monastic orders. Even today, in our pluralistic and ecumenical society, there's a strong rivalry between orders like the Jesuits and the Dominicans. In fact, they often consider each other greater rivals than actual heretics or heathens (think the usual inter-service rivalry you see in militaries, and then add in the usual religious dogmatism).

A year or so back ,when I was visiting my in-laws and we went to Mass, there was a visiting Jesuit and Dominican. As the priest introduced them, he told everyone "and in case you have any difficulty remembering which is which, just remember that the Jesuit is on my left and the Dominican is on my right. No surprise there." Not everyone got the joke, sadly, but at least I got to enjoy explaining it to my wife.

 

[overgon]

please mission trees of genoa and venice. please

 

[otblock57]

You know, it would be fun to explore patronizing the different monastic orders. Even today, in our pluralistic and ecumenical society, there's a strong rivalry between orders like the Jesuits and the Dominicans. In fact, they often consider each other greater rivals than actual heretics or heathens (think the usual inter-service rivalry you see in militaries, and then add in the usual religious dogmatism).

A year or so back ,when I was visiting my in-laws and we went to Mass, there was a visiting Jesuit and Dominican. As the priest introduced them, he told everyone "and in case you have any difficulty remembering which is which, just remember that the Jesuit is on my left and the Dominican is on my right. No surprise there." Not everyone got the joke, sadly, but at least I got to enjoy explaining it to my wife.

I never even considered that the Dominicans and Jesuits might have issues with each other, I'd just assumed they'd form a common front against non-Catholics. You learn more everyday. Say, can you explain that joke?

 

[AMDG]

Hello @Johan and @Groogy, and to the rest of the forums. I am a Paradox and EU4 player since 2014. I would like to
make a few comments on the proposed mechanics surrounding church councils and the Council of Trent. Because I took a university course on church councils which especially focused on Trent, I'm making my first post this afternoon because I feel my perspective might be of use. With this said, I like many of these mechanics and feel they are a great starting point.

1.) Regarding the Ecumenical Council Mechanic

• There's not even anything insulting about this description of a ecumenical council, it's just incorrect. Like, the mechanic doesn't even make sense. This is not and has never been even close the point of ecumenical councils.

• I also believe that ecumenical councils should not function as outlined. Church councils are meetings, predominantly of bishops, convened to make decisions regarding "faith and morals" which have binding authority on the church. When they apply to the whole Catholic Church, they are called "ecumenical."
• The first problem with the outlined mechanic is that "the Papal States" did not necessarily pay for councils as much as the Church did. Why introduce a curia coffer mechanic if this is just a way for the Papal States, and not the Papal Controller -- presumably, the Pope's benefactor -- to ahistorically pay for church councils?
• The second, related problem is that the Pope, historically, did not always like ecumenical councils, as they often attempted to limit his authority. For example, then-named John XXIII convoked the Council of Constance (1414-1418), and then the council removed him! Its 1417 decree, Frequens, then stipulated that the Pope had to call ecumenical councils with binding authority every few years -- a big limit on Rome's power. While popes generally ignored this after the fact, it nonetheless does not make sense for Church councils to function as a mechanic for sustaining the incumbent Papal Controller.
• I propose modifying the mechanic. Should it remain, it should be renamed and the siphoned funds should come from the Papal Controller's treasury. Simultaneously, the Papal States themselves should also have access to the mechanic and have the ability to either contribute from their treasury or exploit development to maintain their grip.
• I also propose incorporating church councils into a more appropriate dynamic. I am very happy that councils were included. The Papal Controller should be able to call a church council, and a majority vote of Catholic princes should also be able to do so, weighted by allocation of bishops. Councils could then function as electorates according to the same distribution of bishops and make decisions on: under normal conditions, papal authority (perhaps this results in cost modifiers and benefits/costs of papal interactions); given special circumstances, moral issues (this could include the usage of mercenaries, treatment of natives in the New World, the slave trade, parliaments); and, as prompted, the other stages of the Reformation, including the Hussites and Calvinists. For example, the Council of Constance (1414-1418) condemned Jan Hus.

2.) Regarding the Location of the Council of "Trent," and Participation in It (here I rely on Trent: What Happened at the Council by John O'Malley)

• In 1523, the HRE's Imperial Diet called for a "free Christian council in German lands." However, the Council of Trent only began in 1545. One reason for this delay was the debate surrounding the council's location, which related to concerns over: a) the relationship of the Pope to the council; b) the relationship of the council to the Habsburg-French rivalry.
• What were the possible locations? The emerging Protestant princes (later, the Schmalkaldic League) felt that "free" meant a council without Papal predominance, i.e. one outside the Papal States. The Germans, together, would not go to either France or Spain, given the above factors. Germany was ruled out because the French would not go. Given these concerns, Paul III unsuccessfully proposed Mantua as a location in 1537 -- as it was close to Rome, but nominally Imperial territory, albeit over the Alps. Paul only came upon Trent, a sleepy village in the Tirol, in 1542, given its status as a Habsburg domain on the Italian side of the Alps -- making it sufficiently German and not German for the participants.
• The French were not pleased by the location and only participated fully in the council by its Third Period, under Catherine's leadership. Nonetheless, their eventual delegation led by Cardinal de Guise proved decisive in bringing the council to a somewhat successful conclusion. Beyond council stances, Catholic states should have the ability to contribute to the Council of Trent with gold, manpower (for a garrison), diplomats, missionaries, etc. to amplify the extent of its final modifiers. Realistically, the IRL Council of Trent could have easily failed.
• The brilliance of EU4 is its ability to allow its eras' fundamental factors to dynamically lead to alternate series of events. I believe that a series of events can be made to allow for the Papal Controller to decide on the location of the council for each of its periods, resulting in modifiers for: diplomatic opinion, religious tolerance, local province development, etc. Of course, Trent would be a middle-road option available for events to unfold as they did historically.
  
• Finally, Protestant countries should have the opportunity to send delegations and themselves choose to re-convert or become "conciliatory" or hardlined towards Catholics. The real Council of Trent did have Protestant delegates, however they arrived too late in the game to make a difference, as theological differences had been cemented by that point.

3.) Minor issue: "Private Confession"

• I do not understand why this is a "conciliatory position." Does this refer to the individual right to religious freedom? Or, does it refer to the private confessing of sins to a priest or minister? In Christianity, "private confession" generally refers to offering auricular confession to a priest or minister who then, in the person of Christ, dispenses absolution and (depending on the denomination) penance. If it is referring to the sacrament of confession in this way, "private" should not be a conciliatory position for the Catholic Church, for which it is the status quo. In addition, Luther retained many elements of Catholic confession. Finally, many Reformed denominations removed the "private" element from confession, i.e. the one-to-one conversation with a priest or minister. Confession, for these folks, became a conversation with God.
• Depending on the description and intent of this, the name should be changed.

Thank you for all your work and for reading this if you have. Please message me with any questions.