EU4 Development Diary - 25th February 2016

[wthree]

I like the idea and concept of states, as it means your empires are divided into home territories and imperial territories (think almost roman empire), which is a cool idea. But there is an issue where you will be forced to expand into certain areas, especially if your capital is on the border of a region. If you then happen to be on the edge of a region, but share that region with a powerful enemy, you are in serious trouble because of the malus' from expanding outside of your state. Being able to assign states I think would be much more interesting (albiet more complicated to implement).

The corruption mechanic just seems utterly pointless and annoying. It just seems like nothing but arbitrary maluses, I dont like the look of this at all. While I like the idea of corruption being captured, the ways it implemented makes no sense. Where not being the best country in the world, having a spy network, and not being incredibly rich all mean you are corrupt. I would argue a better way to show corruption would be if you did not pay attention to autonomous provinces

 

[Sun_Wu]

I have heard that states are switching from based on regions to areas, is this true?

 

[Barnacle Bill]

Not exactly sure where you get "pre-iron age tribes" from. Just because they were not industrialized does not mean they were still relying on bronze tools.

If you mean pre-Columbian America, they didn't even have bronze tools to rely on. Nor did they have writing systems as advanced as those of old world Bronze Age civilizations such as Egypt, Sumer or China (linguists classify what they had as proto-writing). Nor did they have the wheel, draft animals capable of carrying or pulling a heavier load than a human, ships even as advanced as the thousand launched by Helen's face - all of which the old world civilizations had in the Bronze Age. So, rather than "pre-iron age", I'd say Neolithic.

 

[Dakka]

I have heard that states are switching from based on regions to areas, is this true?

Yes, and the number of states you can have has been tweaked accordingly. The new system IMO is better

 

[Frogbait]

If you mean pre-Columbian America, they didn't even have bronze tools to rely on. Nor did they have writing systems as advanced as those of old world Bronze Age civilizations such as Egypt, Sumer or China (linguists classify what they had as proto-writing). Nor did they have the wheel, draft animals capable of carrying or pulling a heavier load than a human, ships even as advanced as the thousand launched by Helen's face - all of which the old world civilizations had in the Bronze Age. So, rather than "pre-iron age", I'd say Neolithic.

I wouldn't really call them Neolithic. Neolithic implies wandering hunter-gatherers who relied on a stone hand axe. Meso and South America had a long history of empires rising and falling before Columbus very similar to the Near East. Their technology differed than European due to available resources and the industrial revolution.

They had written languages for quite some time. No idea where you're pulling the proto-writing from.

Pre-Columbus American civilization is not my expertise for area of study. But I do know enough about it to say that calling them a pre-iron aged society who were essentially Neolithic in nature is rather ignorant for southern and Meso America at the bare minimum.

 

[Frogbait]

I have heard that states are switching from based on regions to areas, is this true?

Yes this is true

 

[grommile]

I wouldn't really call them Neolithic. Neolithic implies wandering hunter-gatherers who relied on a stone hand axe.

That's the Paleolithic.

The Neolithic is "you have houses and farms and maybe even pottery and domesticated livestock, but you still use stone tools".

 

[Frogbait]

That's the Paleolithic.

The Neolithic is "you have houses and farms and maybe even pottery and domesticated livestock, but you still use stone tools".

My ignorance of anthropological terms is showing I suppose. I was under the impression Neolithic referred to the age of Neanderthals and ended when they did - so hunter gatherers stopped being a thing after the end of the Neanderthals as far as I am aware.

Regardless, the natives did have writing systems and metal smithing for at least gold. Point still stands that they were by no means stuck in the Neolithic age of technology. Their irrigation systems were also fairly advanced from what I recall.

Again though, I am speaking in regards to Meso and South America. I know next to nothing about the northern natives.

 

[CrabHelmet]

I wouldn't really call them Neolithic. Neolithic implies wandering hunter-gatherers who relied on a stone hand axe. Meso and South America had a long history of empires rising and falling before Columbus very similar to the Near East. Their technology differed than European due to available resources and the industrial revolution.

They had written languages for quite some time. No idea where you're pulling the proto-writing from.

Pre-Columbus American civilization is not my expertise for area of study. But I do know enough about it to say that calling them a pre-iron aged society who were essentially Neolithic in nature is rather ignorant for southern and Meso America at the bare minimum.

There wasn't actually a written language in South America. They had qhipu, a system of beads and knotted strings, that could record mnemonics and the like, but that was about it. I mean, they weren't Neolithic, no, but they were probably at technologically comparable stage to the Ancient Near East circa ~3200 BC (i.e., both had bronze, cities, and tributary empires at this point, neither had developed writing). "Early Bronze Age" is probably a better rough characterization (not that these things are uniform).

 

[Afinati]

Paradox seems bent on destroying their games very late on. We didn't ask for or need this. Stop trying to George Lucas everything in EUIV and CK2; you're making the games unplayable.

 

[Frogbait]

There wasn't actually a written language in South America. They had qhipu, a system of beads and knotted strings, that could record mnemonics and the like, but that was about it. I mean, they weren't Neolithic, no, but they were probably at technologically comparable stage to the Ancient Near East circa ~3200 BC (i.e., both had bronze, cities, and tributary empires at this point, neither had developed writing). "Early Bronze Age" is probably a better rough characterization (not that these things are uniform).

I could have sworn we had at least Mayan written stories and what not from the distant past. The one that comes to mind is the one that talks about the king and queen self inflicting harm to gain the gods favor.

 

[Barnacle Bill]

For "proto-writing" see here...

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

"Neo" = New
"Paleo" = old

Gold has a significantly lower melting temperature that what is required to work bronze, and is too soft for tools or weapons. You can make neither swords or plowshares out of it. Iron requires higher temperatures than bronze. Steel requires higher temperatures yet.

Neolithic Egypt and Mesopotamia had irrigation, too.

Mesoamerica at the time the game starts was where the most advanced (at the time) civilizations of the old world had been thousands of years before.

 

[Norpheus]

I dont know where this discussion started, but eu4 is already very biased for the american nations. If it was to be historically correct, the first time an american nation made contact with a european one there would be "old world diseases" event which removes 95% of the population and reduces all province development to minimum, as well as destroying most buildings and killing all dynasties. Wonder why they havent done this yet?

 

[fetusthebard]

There wasn't actually a written language in South America. They had qhipu, a system of beads and knotted strings, that could record mnemonics and the like, but that was about it. I mean, they weren't Neolithic, no, but they were probably at technologically comparable stage to the Ancient Near East circa ~3200 BC (i.e., both had bronze, cities, and tributary empires at this point, neither had developed writing). "Early Bronze Age" is probably a better rough characterization (not that these things are uniform).

They also built cities and supply routes hundreds of years more advanced than European analogues before they even landed on the continent. That's Meso and South American civilizations. Their architecture was easily some of the most robust in the world, and we've struggled to replicate their craft even in this century. And the ability to subside with these monumental (for the time period) populations in cities without extensive land-clearing is completely unprecedented.

 

[Sun_Wu]

I dont know where this discussion started, but eu4 is already very biased for the american nations. If it was to be historically correct, the first time an american nation made contact with a european one there would be "old world diseases" event which removes 95% of the population and reduces all province development to minimum, as well as destroying most buildings and killing all dynasties. Wonder why they havent done this yet?

The death toll occurred over a hundred and fifty years

 

[Norpheus]

The death toll occurred over a hundred and fifty years

That's not how even diseases work, and further as noted in guns germs and steel, ex. smallpox doesnt slowly grow on a population killing more each year. Rather the death toll starts high, and slowly decreases.

"In the meantime smallpox devastated the Aztec population. It killed most of the Aztec army and 25% of the overall population.[39]"
"1617–1619 Killed 90% of the Massachusetts Bay Indians"
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_smallpox#cite_note-39

So smallpox alone destroyed 25% percent of the population in a single year. What do you think all the old world diseases togheter did? Just becuase it took 200 years for the native americans to build resistance, that doesn't mean that the diseases was not instantly a hard to blow to the population as a whole.

So to go back, Eu4 is already heavily biased FOR native americans as the germs aspect isn't even handled.

 

[grommile]

So to go back, Eu4 is already heavily biased FOR native americans as the germs aspect isn't even handled.

It... kind of is handled, actually. An awful lot of province development values do not reflect the pre-Columbian population levels of the Americas.

 

[Norpheus]

It... kind of is handled, actually. An awful lot of province development values do not reflect the pre-Columbian population levels of the Americas.

I think this low development refers to the low technical development of the provinces, as one point in production in the west cannot be measured as one point of production in pre-columbian america. A strong inca or aztec can still put up about 30,000 men or more with luch and skilled preparation, somewhat reflecting the military prowess of american nations.

 

[fabeto]

Is there by any chance that you guys read my post from 5th of November on overseas territories and how it brakes immersion?

If yes, can I have a Beta key for Stellaris? : )

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-manage-provinces-as-overseas.890091/

 

[Theswedishone]

Honestly the states mechanic ruins the game IMO, it is not very fun to play as a big country like the Ming dynasty since you can't expand. It is also kinda stupid that states cost maintenance. I'll keep playing 1.15 instead which is sad sine I do like all the map changes.