• 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 - 25th February 2016

Hello and Welcome to another development diary for Europa Universalis IV. Today we’ll talk about features that will be part of the next patch, and will enhance the historical feeling of the game.

The first of these major paradigm shifting concepts is what we refer to as States and Territories. A large part of the game has been related to what you can do with a province depending on if it is overseas or not. With the overseas concept, there have been very many limitations that have reduced immersion.

What we have now, is that every region you own and control is represented as a Territory. Provinces in a Territory, unless the Territory is upgraded to a State, is considered overseas for almost all previous rules when it comes to things like coring, autonomy, trade companies etc. So why would you not just make everything into a state then you ask?

Well.. First of all, each state that is not your capital has a maintenance cost in gold, which is dependent on its development, the distance to the capital and if it is on another continent or not.

Secondly, there is a limit on how many states your empire can control. Everyone can have at least 1 state in their realm, with a Kingdom being able to add 1 more state, and an Empire 2 more states. All non-tribal states can also add another state, and the Celestial Empire can have 2. Administrative technologies can add up to 7 more states to your realm, and if you get the administrative ideagroup fully filled out, you get another state as well.

You can at any time abandon a state to become a territory, but then it’s autonomy will grow to 75% immediately, while it takes time for it to decay down after making a territory to a state.

Your capitals region is always a state, and can not be downgraded to a territory. Another benefit from this is the rule change when it comes to capitals. You can now move capital to any province in a state that is your core.

Coring in a Territory is 50% cheaper, but the cores created are “colonial cores”, which require an instant upgrade cost when it becomes a state. If a province is still a colonial core and not upgraded when a state, the autonomy will not go below 50%.

While doing this we have revised the setup of regions on the map, so they are more similar in the amount of provinces they contain.

uw9kMf4.jpg



Our second large feature from today is Corruption. Corruption is a state in your country, easily seen in the topbar. The higher corruption you have the worse off your country becomes. Corruption affects all power costs in a country by up to 100%, and it also increases minimum autonomy by up to 50%. Corruption also affects your defence against hostile spies and your capacity to build up spynetworks in another nations.

Corruption increases include the following.
  • Mercantilism
  • Being an Empire
  • Hostile Spy Action
  • Having one tech being more than 2 techs behind another.
  • Being more than 1 tech behind a neighbour.

Corruption is reduced by the following.
  • Investing money, you now have a slider indicating how much money you want to spend on combating corruption. This cost is scaled like advisor costs are scaled through time.
  • Being ahead of time in administrative or diplomatic technology.
  • Being a Duchy
61T6yeq.jpg


The actual numbers are still in the balance phase here, so won't mention them just yet..

There are alerts indicating if corruption is growing or not, and there are plenty of events triggering and/or affecting corruption. Having no corruption, and not having corruption growing can even trigger some really beneficial events.

Finally, one of the remaining espionage actions we mentioned in an earlier development diary is related to corruption. You can for a very high cost of your network place down a spy to increase corruption in the target country for five years. Of course, only one can do it in the target at a time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 307
  • 216
  • 55
Reactions:
Lets put it bluntly and straight as it can be: is NOT economic slider! it affects ALL POWER costs. It is mainly monarch point slider with economical side effect. Basically it is extra penalty over tech group, extra penalty for ideas, inflation reduction, stab costs etc. You had 250% tech penalty, now you may gave up to 500% tech cost penalty.


Silly thought: high corruption will block your tech COMPLETELY! Since you have cap on monarch points, equal more or less 150% (+50%) of amount required to tech cost, but tech may cost now +100%, which gives 200% cost!

So you are western tech and your max pool of monarch points is 999. But your techs cost 1200 points now !
It is not even negative feedback spiral, it is ultimate black hole death spiral. The moment you start lagging behind because you got crappy monarch from RNG or even your 3 monarchs in row had 0/1 DIP, the moment you wont be able to tech up at all starts looming on the horizon.

ULTIMATE DISASTER - corruption hole where you can not tech up at all.

I sincerely hope that @Johan reads this thread, will recognize sillness of this and will decouple monarch points from corruption.

What I'm saying is that you fight corruption mainly by a slider, thus it's a slider mechanic, which is not very exciting. It's also a bit weird because corruption isn't a problem you can remove by simply spending a lot of money in real life, it's a rather complex problem often tied to things like culture and national unity.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm really hyped about the -50% coring cost almost everywhere. Will vassal annexation be -50% outside states as well?

good question.. If yes, problem. If no, problem also ;)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
No god pls no, as if coring wasnt expensive enough this days. Now adding more "fun" with corruption D:
 
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
What I'm saying is that you fight corruption mainly by a slider, thus it's a slider mechanic, which is not very exciting. It's also a bit weird because corruption isn't a problem you can remove by simply spending a lot of money in real life, it's a rather complex problem often tied to things like culture and national unity.
I think he meant by how you have to balance monarch points between tech and everything else. Can you afford the increased costs against corruption if you take the next idea/cores/whatever? It looks more like a punishment for being behind in tech and focusing on other stuff like waiting for the tech reductions or the other stuff being more important than the tech.

I guess we'll see when the final numbers come. I hope it's not necessary to check the slider every month.
 
I think he meant by how you have to balance monarch points between tech and everything else. Can you afford the increased costs against corruption if you take the next idea/cores/whatever? It looks more like a punishment for being behind in tech and focusing on other stuff like waiting for the tech reductions or the other stuff being more important than the tech.

I guess we'll see when the final numbers come. I hope it's not necessary to check the slider every month.

That "punishment" is inane as represented. Creating false choice wrt idea investment or expand vs tech now where it did not previously exist is not useful to a strategy title, rather an active detriment that double punishes the "wrong" choice.

It won't break the game if it's small enough, but it is bad for the game at every possible value unless it changes conceptually.
 
Edit:
so if you want to play monarchy or, God forbid, in RotW, you have to buy Wealth of Nations, Cossacs and maybe some other mandatory DLC and your first idea group must be Espionage.
(they even changed Studying technology espionage action, so it will give tech cost reduction, how thoughtful)

Average monarchy stats are higher than average Republic stats. And this is assumeing you're eating the 'not - RT' downsides from events. 1/1/4 or some combination thereof is bad. To get less than 7 stats from a monarchy is unlucky. Not impossible; but unlikly.

2/2/5 isn't great. You can't always re-elect up to 3/3/6 [Where your ruler is easily good] because your ruler may die; and RT.

Stop speaking as if Monarchies are doomed. If you hate the DLC features; don't buy the DLC. If you hate the free features just backwards patch to 1.15. I'm skeptical of corruption as well; and if I don't like it I'm going back to the current patch.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
It would be better if the state/territory system worked in terms of number of provinces in any given area of connected provinces to give a more dynamic feel to the game. As others have pointed out the system is based around historic geographies, many of which did not exist in 1444. I play Europa to carve my own history, not be bound by them.

The system is also a big set back for countries based around the edges of the 'state' boundaries, such as Luxembourg. Luxembourg could for example own Trier, Pfalz and Metz. By this system Luxembourg would be carved out into 4 states, whilst it's considerably larger neighbour (France) would be within 1 state.
 
  • 9
  • 1
Reactions:
Gotta say I really dislike the idea of a cap on the amount of states. Couldn't it just work like colonies where if you go over the allowed amount they just cost more or something?
Also dislike the idea of distance to capital affecting the cost. As others have said this may encourage moving one's capital to an ahistorical location just to benefit from reduced state costs.


Eu4 is all about alternative history. Wouldn't it make sense for a capital to be in the middle of its empire?
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Average monarchy stats are higher than average Republic stats. And this is assumeing you're eating the 'not - RT' downsides from events. 1/1/4 or some combination thereof is bad. To get less than 7 stats from a monarchy is unlucky. Not impossible; but unlikly.

2/2/5 isn't great. You can't always re-elect up to 3/3/6 [Where your ruler is easily good] because your ruler may die; and RT.

Stop speaking as if Monarchies are doomed. If you hate the DLC features; don't buy the DLC. If you hate the free features just backwards patch to 1.15. I'm skeptical of corruption as well; and if I don't like it I'm going back to the current patch.
Not all points are created equal - I would take 5/2/0 over 1/3/6 for example in most game states, to show an extreme comparison.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Average monarchy stats are higher than average Republic stats. And this is assumeing you're eating the 'not - RT' downsides from events. 1/1/4 or some combination thereof is bad. To get less than 7 stats from a monarchy is unlucky. Not impossible; but unlikly.

2/2/5 isn't great. You can't always re-elect up to 3/3/6 [Where your ruler is easily good] because your ruler may die; and RT.

I never said that monarchies are Doomed. I always say that they are screwed, even now.
Monarchies ARE inherently worse then non-monarchies and they get regencies, which are even worse. The average stat for ruler in monarchy is 3, which you get after FIRST reelection for republic (I forgot exact formula for theocracies, but IIRC their stats are better). You fear -RT events, but there are also +RT events and I sincerely hope that they not badly unbalanced. I even remember discussionas about the optimum management of RT and that some events giving +RT were more likely to happen if your RT was smaller, while above 80RT more events gave -RT. So the question would not even be how many, on average reelections can you get reelecting every single ruler, and I assure you that is is more then one. The question is how can you maximize your monarch point output. And you can do it. If you get old ruler you do not reelect him, increasing your RT, since his chances to live long are not big. So you skip him, maybe second one and go with reelecting younger guy. The question is : how many reelections can you get with such scheme, selecting younger guys? I am lacking some data and it is not place for lecture about probability theory but the result is higher. I have seen posts with detailed analysis, buried somewhere in pile of old posts, made a few DLCs ago, but the results should be still valid. IIRC correctly you could easily run 4 reelections, maybe more, but I can not give link now nor I do not want to permorm such analysis myself now and here.
Additionally with republic you have full control of what do you want to maximize, ADM, MIL or DIP? With monarchies you can do nothing, and you can get string of low MIL rulers, even if on average they are "average". And it can happen after you just opened new MIL idea group and filled first or second. THe only thing you can do is pray that heir/ruler will die in hunting accident or leading army. But if your ruler or heir is female she can not die on battlefield! Bummer, and you still think that monarchies are better?

I could ask what courses on probability did you finish, but looking at your statements the answer does not look promising.

I do not have hard data so you can easily dismiss this part, but lets assume that I can get on average 4 reelections on every 3rd guy (20 years of rule), which actually would gave me more MP than in monarchy (almost 10 vs less then 9 in monarchy, because regencies have lower ststs). If I could squeeze 24 years the average would be almost 11, but the main advantage is not really amount of MP but flexibility to allocate them and assurance that I will get significant amount of e.g. MIL points.

You say that getting less than 7 on monarch is unlikely=unlucky. Lets think about less than 6, and maybe 9 to have clear view: in republic you get 0 chance to get less than 6 points. IF we assume 4 reelections and my cycle above I have 42% of getting 6 points, 14% of getting 9 points, and 42% of getting better results, with average almost 10.
In monarchy the average is below 9 because regencies. Regarding chances, it requires some skills in combinatorics: we have a lot of probability events generating less than 6 total: all zeros, single 1 and two zeros, two ones, three ones, single two, two and two ones, ... each with its own weight. I might have made mistake calculating it quickly on a piece of paper but it looks like the probability exceeds 6% and I did not even consider that you can get regency. And yes it is unlikely, but you can get two or more such rulers in row.
Lets look at rulers generating 14 or more: in republic, assuming my scheme you have 28% chance that you have such ruler, but as I have already said republic is not about chances it it about expected cumulative outcome. In monarchy, unless I made mistake, the chance to have 14 MP or more is (counting all combinations giving 14 or more and their chances) is actually 3.7% (before taking into account regencies)
How can anyone say that monarchies are even close to republics in terms of delivering MPs, especially in any planned way?

And if you have just recently opened MIL idea group and will get three monarchs (and maybe one regency) with low MIL point what will you do? Stop teching up to avoid "unbalanced tech" penalty, but getting "neighbour penalty"? And if you are in Far East or in America you start observing that your tech cost are going up: 170%, 200%, 300%, do you westernize, increasing neighbour penalty or not? oops, your tech costs seems to exceeded your maximum MP pool. Game over.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
so I think this is just a simple rework of the overseas mechanic and perhaps wont apply to the continent if I read it correctly. either way i liked Wiz's dev diaries because they were very in depth, Johan seems to be a little skimpy on the details. regardless I'll withhold judgement until I see their developer stream in a few weeks and see the changes in action.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
so I think this is just a simple rework of the overseas mechanic and perhaps wont apply to the continent if I read it correctly. either way i liked Wiz's dev diaries because they were very in depth, Johan seems to be a little skimpy on the details. regardless I'll withhold judgement until I see their developer stream in a few weeks and see the changes in action.
It very much applies to the continent. The screen shot of England shows them paying a maintenance cost for Calais (Low Counties) and its French holdings.
 
I don't really like the limitations of stringent nature of the state system, but it got me thinking, and I'd like to know your guy's thoughts on my idea for a new administrative system.

Administrative Integration:

What is it?

The basic premise is to allow players to choose where they direct their resources in coring provinces. If, for example, the UK wants to maintain control over the Hudson Bay Company, or have greater influence over their population in India, they can- at a cost. Like in real life, it is possible to do these things if you so please, but allowing a colonial nation to form, or just using trade companies, can be much more cost effective.

How does it work?

-Initial coring costs are lessened, but still there.

-Colonial nations are not forced on the player, but instead created by choice, much like a client state

-Regions serve as overarching administrative boundaries, not single provinces (Ideally I would like for you to be able to create your own regions with set size limits, but I'm unsure if the engine is able to do that)

After the provinces within a region are cored, depending on separatism, culture, economy, geography, and distance from your capital or an administrative center (More on that later) it will have a integration cost and speed with multiple stages.

Integration decreases the autonomy limit. (For example, an unintegrated colony might have a min autonomy of 90, or 95%)

You can integrate in two ways (Maybe a slider between the two?):

Militarily: Quick and dirty, this integration uses a mix of admin and mil points to forcibly subdue the populace. While this process is expedient, it also costs a bit more overall and increases separatism and unrest within the populace.

Diplomatically:
Slow and nice, this integration uses a mix of admin and diplo points to peacefully integrate the populace. The process is slow, but it costs less overall and decreases separatism and unrest within the population.

You can also construct administrative centers for a large admin, and monetary initial and upkeep cost. These buildings are pricey, and like colonies cost more overtime the more of them you have. They however extend your administrative range allowing you to integrate with less cost and more fully. Perhaps this could also play into the upcoming corruption system.


Well, these are just some thoughts that popped into my head. I'd appreciate it if you would poke holes into it, and point out any gameplay or historical flaws!
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Unfortunately this sounds like an overcomplicated system that just adds complexity. A new layer of negative factors to be managed, tied to both of the major resources in the game: monarch points and money. I see no value to gameplay here.
 
  • 11
  • 1
Reactions:
What a bunch of nonesense in this dev diary. Trash. Will put EUIV on hold after these "free features" are intoduced in patch.

Horrible.
 
  • 9
  • 7
Reactions:
I really hope this turns out a lot better than I expect it to be, maybe tie States and Territories to the smaller regions instead of the large ones? Less railroaded that way in my opinion.
 
It appears that the majority of people who voted are not looking forward to these changes.

Understandable. These features don't really seem to add depth to the game but rather just penalize the player for not following a new set of arbitrary rules. There will be more content with this update but so far it's not looking good.
 
  • 7
  • 3
Reactions:
It appears that the majority of people who voted are not looking forward to these changes.

Understandable. These features don't really seem to add depth to the game but rather just penalize the player for not following a new set of arbitrary rules. There will be more content with this update but so far it's not looking good.
It's actually slightly in favour of yes (243 Agree+Helpful vs. 237 Disagree), but yeah, it's shaky. Not like I expected anything different from the map-painting fans of Hungry Hungry Hippo: the Grand Strategy Game. If anything, regions are huge - number of possible states should probably be somewhat higher, but with areas instead of regions for borders.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
It's actually slightly in favour of yes (243 Agree+Helpful vs. 237 Disagree), but yeah, it's shaky. Not like I expected anything different from the map-painting fans of Hungry Hungry Hippo: the Grand Strategy Game. If anything, regions are huge - number of possible states should probably be somewhat higher, but with areas instead of regions for borders.

Helpful doesn't mean 'Agree', it just means 'The post in question was helpful to my understanding'. Lumping that in with the 'Agree' votes is a bit of a shaky idea.

Also, people don't hate it because they're map painters. People hate it because the mechanics this diary talks about are being implemented poorly. States/Regions are based on 1821 boundaries and not 1444 ones and also are static, not dynamic; on top of this, they railroad expansion in small nations who sit alongside state boundaries rather than letting them take what they can get or forces them to sit on their hands for no reason other than magic. Corruption results in negative death spirals for backwards tech, less-advantaged tech groups, and bad ruler chains, and also forces players to play one-dimensionally.

Be honest, do you truly believe that all the backlash on this diary comes from map painters hating on it because it gets in the way of their fun? If anything, states helps WC, not hinders it.
 
  • 11
  • 3
Reactions: