• 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.
Hello, and welcome back to Europa Universalis IV. Last week we talked about features, where most of them will be in the free update, but todays feature will all be part of the next expansion.

First of all, I’d like to mention that we are adding a new government form called English Monarchy, which England will start with. It will give +0.5 Legitimacy, -1 Unrest, -0.1 Monthly Autonomy and give them access to a Parliament.

So what is a Parliament? It is a new mechanic that Constitutional Monarchies & Constitutional Republics has as well. A Parliament is a political body inside your country, which will have debates that if they pass will give you benefits for a decade.

There is quite a lot of different possible debates, and you are allowed to pick one of five random eligible ones.

To have a debate pass, you need to have a majority of the seats backing the issue. Of course, when an debate is started, all seats are against it, and you need to convince them to back it.

Every Seat of Parliament will have their own reasons you must fullfill to have them back an issue, and their reasons will be different for each issue. A coastal Seat of Parliament may want to be Granted Navy commissions, which reduces your naval tradition, while another Seat may want monetary compensation, while another want some military support, or a fourth want some more autonomy. Luckily, you only have to get half of them to support you to get the debate passed.

Any non-overseas province can be granted a Seat in Parliament and your capital will always have a Seat. There is no way to remove a seat in Parliament, unless the province is lost.

A Seat gets +10% to tax, production & manpower, while reducing autonomy by 0.01 per month. However each Seat increases stability & war-exhaustion costs by 2%.

You are also required to grant at least of 20% of your non-overseas cores a Seat in Parliament, and if you have less than that, one random will be picked for you. There is alert if less than a third of your non-overseas cores have a Seat.

If there is no current debate, nor any active benefits of an issue, you will slowly lose legitimacy & republican tradition. And if a debate fails, you will lose 20 prestige, so it is not the end of the world, but its not something you want to happen all the time.

Here are three examples of current issues that can be pushed through your parliament.

Backing the War Effort is available if you are at war, and will give you +1 stability when passed, and a 10 year benefit of -0.05 War Exhaustion, and +10% Manpower recovery

Charter Colonies
is available if you have either filled the Expansion or Exloration ideagroup, and gives a +10 year benefit of +1 colonist and +20 colonial growth.

Increase Taxes
will give you about 1/4th of a years income, and increase your tax-income by 10% for 10 years.

Of course, all of these values will change the more we playtest it.

Only countries with Parliaments will get a button, opening the Parliament View, near the Papacy & HRE buttons. And yes, the button you talked about last week, in the province interface, is the one indicating if its a seat of parliament or not.

U4wjCj1.jpg


Next week, we'll focus on why we build walls.
 
I think it may just be people checking to see how the patch impacted the HYW. It will be interesting to see how things looks in future patches with England no longer starting at war.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
By boring you probably mean "the game doesn't throw stuff at you". You just have to look foro opportunities yourself as countries like that.

Not quite. I think the biggest downside with Countries like England & Japan is they are isolated & on islands. Unlike the AI I can usually always keep the island safe by building a suitable navy, so am never really in danger. I know there are events that change things, but they are more annoying if anything. Then what happens is you usually colonise great chunks of the world, which I find quite tedious.
 
Well the England on an island thing is quite historical...

England used the fact they had a huge island and navy to bully around the entire world during this time period. I think Paradox themselves have said that Britain "won" EU4.
 

What about when England becomes GB? In the same sense, if Scotland becomes GB will it still work? I was hoping to play a Scotland game in the next expansion with the above mechanics coming in to play during the GB phase.
 
Based on the final score screen in EU4, Paradox thinks Spain "won" EU4 followed by France and then Britain. Victoria 2, on the other hand...
There is a great difference between 'how well it did during the entire period' which is what score represents(well attempts to) and 'position at the end of the period'.

A country that spends three hundreds years as the unchallenged superpower in the world then collapses to the extent it is gone by 1821 will be first in the former but won't even rate on the latter.
 
There is a great difference between 'how well it did during the entire period' which is what score represents(well attempts to) and 'position at the end of the period'.

A country that spends three hundreds years as the unchallenged superpower in the world then collapses to the extent it is gone by 1821 will be first in the former but won't even rate on the latter.

I don't dispute that they are quite different. However, isn't "how well it did during the entire period" what "winning" would be, in terms of a game where no power is eliminated and where the score is determined by performance? Highest score seems to define "winning" in most game terms, after all.
 
I don't dispute that they are quite different. However, isn't "how well it did during the entire period" what "winning" would be, in terms of a game where no power is eliminated and where the score is determined by performance? Highest score seems to define "winning" in most game terms, after all.
But not in EU4, winner is the one with best position at the end. It's like race - it doesn't matter who was first on all checkpoints, all that matters is who was first on end.
 
I don't dispute that they are quite different. However, isn't "how well it did during the entire period" what "winning" would be, in terms of a game where no power is eliminated and where the score is determined by performance? Highest score seems to define "winning" in most game terms, after all.
No, winning is meeting the goal first. In a strategy game with 8 players if one kills six by himself then dies to the 7th he will likely have better score but the winner is the 7th. In fighting games combos tend to give bonus to score so a player that does all damage in a single one will have more than a player that does no combos but if the latter kills the former he wins. In racing games items, hits, drifting, time taken to checkpoint and so on can all give score but the winner is the one who crosses the finishing line first.

Generally score only means victory when players aren't interacting such as by attacking others or by goal being met by one preventing others from getting it though there are always exceptions both ways.
 
I think you should be able to use diplomats to slowly convince provinces to vote positive in the debate.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
No, winning is meeting the goal first. In a strategy game with 8 players if one kills six by himself then dies to the 7th he will likely have better score but the winner is the 7th.
Says who? The only definition of "winning" EU4 gives you is the score. Anything else is just down to agreement between players.
 
Says who? The only definition of "winning" EU4 gives you is the score. Anything else is just down to agreement between players.

Defining "winning" as the score is also just an agreement between players :)
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Great Britain cleanly won EU4 historically, there were alot of people who did well in this time period but in the end GB won.

If you need proof of them just look at the start of Vicky 2, GB is the clear greatest nation in the world, Russia, Prussia, France, Austria, and many other nations did very well in this time period especially if you look at it from start to finish 15th century to 19th century ish

Put there is a reason that the era following the one covered in EU4 is sometimes called the Victorian Era
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Says who? The only definition of "winning" EU4 gives you is the score. Anything else is just down to agreement between players.
I was speaking generally; Risk, Starcraft, Sins of a Solar Empire and such to give spread examples which is why I used strategy by itself instead of with any qualifier, thought it was obvious due the rest of the post being general and mentioning exceptions exist but guess not.

EU4 specifically has no way to 'win' in the game at all as Kapitalisti said it is all up to player(s) though it does have a way to what would be normally considered a loss(as much as it can fit in a game with no victory anyway) which is losing all provinces.
 
Great Britain cleanly won EU4 historically, there were alot of people who did well in this time period but in the end GB won.

If you need proof of them just look at the start of Vicky 2, GB is the clear greatest nation in the world, Russia, Prussia, France, Austria, and many other nations did very well in this time period especially if you look at it from start to finish 15th century to 19th century ish

Put there is a reason that the era following the one covered in EU4 is sometimes called the Victorian Era

Some guys should really stop trying overcompensating and accept the facts...

Just my 0.02€cents...
 
Yay! They are doing my suggestions about expanding the government types and how they work.
 
  • 1
Reactions: