EU4 Development Diary - 25th February 2016

[AbsintheRed]

I wish they would have simply made a system thats based on range, after which autonomy would increase the further you get away. Modified by administrative efficinency. They could have made colonial nations a voluntary choice then, either sit on 95% autonomy in Mexcio or install a local administration. Would give the player more freedom.

My thoughts exactly.
If only we could convince them somehow to abandon this region-state mechanic for good...

 

[AbsintheRed]

It seems that Poland dont eaven own all of its culture group provinces in its own state.

Also the historic Kingdom of Hungary seems to be split into (at least) 2 regions. Cannot really find a historic justification for that either.
And I'm sure there are countless more examples, not visible on the one image we have in the OP.

Admittedly I didn't investigate too thoroughly, but Silesia's in the North German region despite being almost entirely Slavic in 1444. That'd work in 1821, but not in 1444. If what Demetrios said is true, though, then that means the States are even worse in terms of boundaries because it doesn't fit in neither 1444 nor 1821 and are instead based on who-knows-what.

Yep, Demetrios is right, unfortunately. Paradox made some horrible choices here.
Those borders neither represent 1444 or 1821 borders (although closer to 1821), it seems rather random, from different time periods.
But that doesn't even matter, EU4 should get rid of those static regions, it's impossible to represent them in a way which would at least somewhat please their fanbase.

 

[Przemyshaw]

My mistake. I was talking about that one Polish province that in 1444 is a part of teutonic order. (Kulm/Chelmno)
Btw bohemia and Silesia are in North german because of gameplay purposes but shouldnt this game focus rather on history and put prussian lands in North german instead bohemian?
Btw part 2 Pomerania in 1444 was still West slavic. Brandenburg should culture convert it during game to be more accurate.
The same with prussia. In 1444 only nobility and burghers( minority) was german peasants (majority) were Baltic culture group.
Dont make another bost to actually op german culture group.

 

[persovs]

I really dont like this territory change, i think it kinda removes freedom of the game that i love soo much
but i guess ill have to see if this really is that bad or if it is fine

Edit: on the other hand the corruption thing is kinda amazing kinda not, because isnt corruption already kinda a part of the game? because big empires already dont get twice the troops if they have twice the land and if corruption becomes a thing it would weaken big empires even more.

and also why is the reason for 10 nations with 100 development combined can sustain 50 troops but one nation with 100 development would only be able to sustain 15-25 troops?

 

[perhje]

Admittedly I didn't investigate too thoroughly, but Silesia's in the North German region despite being almost entirely Slavic in 1444. That'd work in 1821, but not in 1444. If what Demetrios said is true, though, then that means the States are even worse in terms of boundaries because it doesn't fit in neither 1444 nor 1821 and are instead based on who-knows-what.

Silesia is part of north Germany because it's a part of the holy roman empire at game start and also throughout all the history they was a part of the north german states and never a part of Poland in the period 1444-1821. They became a part of Poland after WWII(1945) with a small part of it was given after WWI(1918). In 1444 it was around 100 ago them being a part of Poland in 1444. Only defense left for Silesia being a part of Poland is partly the cutural argument, but Silesia had been germanised and in the cities it was to high degree germans living there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Silesia

As for the others Britain is the islands with their strait connections, France is the culture group french minus the wallonians which for the most of the period was under the Habsburgs and plus some savoyan land on the french side of the alps, Low Countries are the dutch, flemish and wallonian ares + east frisia which wasn't a part of the empire, but also rest of the low countries broke out in the era and the Low Countries being part of any other region would make the region way to powerful anyway. Scandinavia is the areas under the three kingdoms minus Orkney because it fit better with Britain because of land connections and Holstein becuse they where a part of the HRE(also cultural border), North/south Germany is the HRE minus the italian lands(shadow empire), but as Johan said they had to split it because of the huge size/development. Baltic the balts, estonians and prussians, Poland is the polish culture plus their ruthenian lands. Italia is the geographical border with the alps to the north. In addition you can see Balkan, Hungary, and the western east slavic region.

 

[Przemyshaw]

Silesia is part of north Germany because it's a part of the holy roman empire at game start and also throughout all the history they was a part of the north german states and never a part of Poland in the period 1444-1821. They became a part of Poland after WWII(1945) with a small part of it was given after WWI(1918). In 1444 it was around 100 ago them being a part of Poland in 1444. Only defense left for Silesia being a part of Poland is partly the cutural argument, but Silesia had been germanised and in the cities it was to high degree germans living there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Silesia

As for the others Britain is the islands with their strait connections, France is the culture group french minus the wallonians which for the most of the period was under the Habsburgs and plus some savoyan land on the french side of the alps, Low Countries are the dutch, flemish and wallonian ares + east frisia which wasn't a part of the empire, but also rest of the low countries broke out in the era and the Low Countries being part of any other region would make the region way to powerful anyway. Scandinavia is the areas under the three kingdoms minus Orkney because it fit better with Britain because of land connections and Holstein becuse they where a part of the HRE(also cultural border), North/south Germany is the HRE minus the italian lands(shadow empire), but as Johan said they had to split it because of the huge size/development. Baltic the balts, estonians and prussians, Poland is the polish culture plus their ruthenian lands. Italia is the geographical border with the alps to the north. In addition you can see Balkan, Hungary, and the western east slavic region.

Polish state is missing one province kulm.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria–Czech_Republic_relations#Before_World_War_II
In eu iv in later starting dates thay are shown as one country but it was a personal union and bohemia had its own (state, capital). And if you really think they should be in germanic state then ok they were in empire i can understand but why in North german? Thy were conquered by north german (third reich) in 1938. Before that they were never under prussia or any other north german state but with lower german with austria.
As for Silesia. I can agree they historically were in north german and you are right the were mostly culture converted but muth more later than 1444. In 1444 the are West slavic. The AI i eu iv should more often culture convert to bo more historical accurate.

 

[gronak]

I sincerely hope these proposals are scrapped, or modified.
The areas thing could be good, as long as the duchy can have 3 regions, kingdom can have 5 and empire can have 7. That way I think it will be more fair.

Corruption on the other hand I feel is just awful and will only put me off playing an unmodified version of the game. Perhaps if you could get ideas to severely reduce corruption (Maybe add something into the administrative ideas?) then it could be alright as long as the ideas are good enough.

 

[persovs]

It would be better if these states and territories were slightly more flexible based on cultures and geographical lines rather than arbitrarily determined at the game's start. For example, if a country chooses to change a culture in a territory, and it is adjacent to an adjacent state, that province should be able to join that state. Of, course a country in control of a neighboring territory could then gain a re-conquest CB to re-acquire the territory. Natural geographical boundaries could act as buffer zones that stop a territory becoming too large e.g. seas and mountain ranges.

With this i would be way more happy with this new system with states and territories, and more things should be able to change the area borders

 

[persovs]

I have 1 big problem with corruption
its relation with tech, i find this very annoying. And the other is the corruption thing should not only be lowered by money but also by other things and when you destroy corruption some nobles and stuff or even advisers should become very unhappy

 

[Dinglydell]

With this i would be way more happy with this new system with states and territories, and more things should be able to change the area borders

So like this?

Instead of having regions as arbitrary, static state borders, why not this:

-your capital has a certain state-range, all provinces you own within this range are part of (or can be assigned to?) your capital state (named after your capital province?)
-when you've expanded outside this range enough, you can create a new state and assign it a capital province. Provinces in range of this state-capital become part of your new state
-when state boundaries overlap, provinces become part of the state with the closest state-capital - or the capital state (since the capital state is free)

This way, states aren't bound to an arbitrary border - and small nations on the edge of said borders have no disadvantage whatsoever keeping their whole nation in one state.

 

[MordinSolis]

Perhaps this is late to the party, but I love this concept! Whenever I get blobby, I have that I either have to massively culture convert or deal with non acceptation. Like owning all of Europe as a Unified Holy Roman Empire means I like exclusively the Austrians, and no one else, because no culture in Europe singly counts for more than 10%.

Another Way this could be integrated would be with Colonial Nations, perhaps keep the Colonial Nations, but allow them to pick their culture, a historical example would be how Britain colonised certain areas with certain ethnic groups like Nova Scotia, or Welsh Patagonia.

if you own europe as hre you at least accept all of germany since empire makes you an automatic cultural union( that is depending on pdx not taking the voltaire route and not giving hre epmpire rank upon formation )

 

[MordinSolis]

So now you do not need artificial vassal wall between Europe and Asia. Each Region is already walled from others.
If it will work on the same continent, as I read from @Johan post, then you could core almost whole world with 50% bonus and keep it there (as TMIT already suggested over 10 pages back). Then assign estates as you propose ...
- that IMO is big improvement if I ever wanted to do one-tag WC, but since I am not fan of such games my opinion of proposed changes is plummeting down

Explanations:
Since the hardest are beginnings and now you can core 2 times faster, you can also give land to vassals on the opposite side of the Region wall, so they can core faster too.

As far as i know you cant assign estates to overseas territories so why are you assuming that you can do so on territories which replace the overseas mechanic ?

 

[MordinSolis]

Not sure if I'm a fan of the corruption mechanic, I don't necessarily see what deeper interesting choices it adds. Seems like a nerf to kingdoms and empires and mercantile republics - apparently corruption increases linearly between 0 and 100 for reasons you can't dynamically control as Empires and M. Republics (what am I supposed to do? NOT take +1 mercantilism or NOT become an Empire? Ridiculous) If at 100 corruption you have 50% min. autonomy everywhere and pay 100% more monarch points for everything (you can't be serious? At least leave tech & ideas alone!) then in effect it is really just a ducat sink you cannot possibly afford to neglect, maybe apart from avoiding going bancrupt. Also corruption furtner restricts what tech/idea strategies you can take and penalizes you for neglecting diplo tech (or other tech) even further discouraging viable customization of your nation by making it more expensive to fall behind tech. Maybe I do want to go all out on military ideas and gamble on crushing all my foes. And maybe I want to blow all my admin points on coring and annexing provinces, instead of teching. I don't know, seems like more "soft" limitations on diversity and even more unneccesary micro.

I don't know, I'm curious how it will play in the end because at this point it's obviously a mechanic here to stay. I wasn't a big fan of Estates either though they sounded so damn cool on paper. I'd rather see a naval mechanics upgrade, right now you just collect your fleet in a doomstack, deal one decisive blow and blockade everyone and their mum. Historically you couldn't possibly afford to collect your ships into one doomstack fleet.

I think the whole fundamental idea of making ships auto-fight inside sea-provinces analogous to land warfare is so deeply flawed that if a naval overhaul is once again based on this basic premise it cannot possibly turn out good. Ships have differences in speed and auto-finding one ship inside a sea province is ridiculous. Rival ships should mostly pass each other within sea provinces with a low-ish probability chance of an encounter event where perhaps you get to pick whether they try to run or fight with fleeing outcomes largely based on ship type and upgrades. Right now you often find yourself fighting forced naval battles that you had zero intention fight, when battle encounters of larger fleets in reality were basically "agreed upon" by both sides. You can't just hunt down one random ship with an entire battle fleet (and shoot it with 20 ships at once) - I find there are lots of good ideas in the Hearts of Iron IV naval system, so I hope this gets looked at in a soon-ish expansion.

^ there is no reason why 5 barques would willingly engage 6 carracks, they could just outrun them anytime.

Mercantilism needed a downside before it was a 100% positive thing and you basicaly always took mercantilism.
On empires dosnt it make sense that empires are more corrupt since you need more people to administer your empire while as a duchy you generaly have a smaller realm and thus can observe your subjects closer and that discourages them formm poketing money or other things ?

 

[MordinSolis]

I wonder if this will have implications for parliamentary representation. Say, if you conquer as England/Britain the province of Gibraltar and retained it as territory, you would not be able to make it a parliament seat and therefore, no more events annoying you with a request to grant it parliament seat (as Gibraltar has never even been granted one in real-life history so why should it now in EU4?) That is, unless parliament seat mechanics is independent of state/territory concept.

Good point to raise it really annoyed me how parliament seats are bound just to home continent.
i hope that now seats are only assigned to states and i can happily ignore the rock

 

[MordinSolis]

It seems that Poland dont eaven own all of its culture group provinces in its own state.

Nor does germany or russia and most likely also china. some culture groups are simply too big to fin into one region.

 

[MordinSolis]

Admittedly I didn't investigate too thoroughly, but Silesia's in the North German region despite being almost entirely Slavic in 1444. That'd work in 1821, but not in 1444. If what Demetrios said is true, though, then that means the States are even worse in terms of boundaries because it doesn't fit in neither 1444 nor 1821 and are instead based on who-knows-what.

For the example of silesia in 1444 it is part of the HRE which was mostly german so it makes sense for it to be in a german region even though they are slavic.
Also with how much people complain about silesia being in germany despite being slavic i do feel like i need to point out that Bohemia (also slavic culture even culture group with poland and silesia) is also in the german region so why is nobody complaining about that ?

 

[MordinSolis]

I really dont like this territory change, i think it kinda removes freedom of the game that i love soo much
but i guess ill have to see if this really is that bad or if it is fine

Edit: on the other hand the corruption thing is kinda amazing kinda not, because isnt corruption already kinda a part of the game? because big empires already dont get twice the troops if they have twice the land and if corruption becomes a thing it would weaken big empires even more.

and also why is the reason for 10 nations with 100 development combined can sustain 50 troops but one nation with 100 development would only be able to sustain 15-25 troops?

a nation with twice the land does get twice the troops form that land( providing the land is of equal value) but and this also answers your first question:
Nations have a base FL(forcelimit) that is not dependant on size and also a base income. this means that 10 nations get that base income and FL 10 times while one nation gets it only once.

 

[persovs]

So like this?

yeah i agree on that one

 

[Sabotage13]

Again, other than Savoy, which nations are you worried about here?

Post-Burgundian Inheritance Austria would be an obvious candidate. The Ottoman Empire another. Lithuania a third.
And we don't know how the rest of the world (where countries cannot be assumed to reach Level 10 by the late 15th century) will look like.


Of course, all this assumes that the AI actually knows about this feature and is incorporating it into its calculations re: which provinces to conquer etc. which isn't a given.

 

[Checco]

My thoughts exactly.
If only we could convince them somehow to abandon this region-state mechanic for good...

As if Agree/Disagree counted anything...

When in CK2 Coalitions & Infamy were announced, there was a massive "NO!", yet the "new features" were implemented anyway.
(ofc, the following patch nerfed them to the ground in a way many posters suggested even before the release...)

Why worrying about Savoy/Poland having potential issues with regions, while Scandinavia is big enough to accomodate Sweden even after 100 ys of game?
Can't you see you worry over nothing?

I used to voice my criticism before I realized I should have read this post sooner:
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...-sweden-should-be-in-the-grand-campaign.1692/