EU4 Development Diary - 3rd March 2016

[sterrius]

or u can say
whats the point of corruption

Corruption is a nice way of controling the speed of expansion just for the sake of expanding. EU 4 lack a lot of things to actually make smaller countrys more desirable to play and stay that way.


Merchantilism need to be a trade off, but as it is right now i can only see it as penalty with very little benefit, even more if you get a little sucess and become a medium sized country that can control a huge chunk of a trade node without merchantlism.

Im just saying the merchantlism bonus should be worth the extra corruption, otherwise there is no point having a button to increase it unless you run for the achivement,.

 

[DominusNovus]

- Glad there is finally a downside to mercantalism. Adam Smith is relieved.

- What happens when a trade league member gets a second province? It seems to me that 2-4 province minors would still be interested in such leagues.

- If its limited to OPMs, what do we have that can help expand it? Client states are an option in the late game, but, say Venice wants to expand into Egypt. Its pretty much the standard conquest only.

- Can subjects of the league leader join?

- Can the leader vassalize or annex any members?

- How moddable is this feature?

 

[Zsar1]

Does the defensive alliance extend to attacks from same-league members?

 

[Maria Theresa]

Also 200 diplo power for 1% mercantilism especially now that it has a downside is just laughable. I'd like to see anyone ever actually click this button, i doubt we'll see that.

 

[MCBC6]

Members of the league having to be OPM is ridiculously restrictive. Why not restrict it by something else, for example, members can`t have enough to progress towards second tier of government? It would be far more organic and reasonable. We have this new shiny government ranking system, why not use it here?

The problem is that if member nations of a trade league are allowed to grow too strong then you're just making big nations more powerful.

 

[khardinal]

I hope we will be able to change the restriction on OPM in the defines, because it will really break the mechanic in some mod like M&T where there are more provinces, and so less OPMs.

 

[khardinal]

The problem is that if member nations of a trade league are allowed to grow too strong then you're just making big nations more powerful.

Just add a modifier based on power of a country. So a country like France would have -1000 to join the league due to its power.

 

[xMajkel]

Things can get interesting after this expantion

 

[Em Ay Ef]

this expansion would be a great opportunity to add a small province occupying part of the coast of Zeta, to represent the Albania Veneta concentrated around Cattaro until 1797.

(i know you guys are hesitant to split Albania, and that makes sense considering how soon into the game's timeframe Durazzo was conquered by the Ottos, but as Cattaro remained in Venetian hands until the very end of the Serene Republic, representing it with a province would be a really nice touch.)

 

[kishurki]

Well, isn`t it just bread and games? We are happy that they are introducing trade leagues, but in reality, 99% of players will not use it, cause in the first 50 years most OPMs are gone, and AI will have another feature to be stupid about and make irrational decisions.

This is actually a boost for large nations, cause 2-3 OPM alliance will not be able to conquer trade league member, but blobbers like Poland, Austria, France won`t have any problem to do so.

Sooo, it`s just another nerf for any player that wants to play OPM that does not start as merchant republic. It is as useless as Free Cities feature, at least they are protected by Emperor, which is annoying, and actually does slow down conquest of Free Cities. Trade Leagues? It is just shallow and makes close to zero impact on the game, AND only in Europe(AND only in Italy and Baltic).

Nicely wrapped gift, with an empty can inside.

 

[Darkath]

Can you make it a bit easier to become a Merchant republic ?

Filling out 2 whole idea groups make it not really worth it IMO

 

[JustMormegil]

1. Will Trade league leader be called in defensive war as co-belligerent?
2. What is the purpose to join league for OPMs? Defence only? As I understand, I won't be able to expand been league member (not leader). So leagues are useless if you don't want to seat as OPM for ever (= always useless if not leader).
Why is there OPM limitation? Novgorod was Hansetic league member and did have large territory.

 

[SignedName]

Looks great I was wondering when and how The Hansa would be returning. A little bit more motivation to remain an OPM.

I'm also glad that "Mercantilism" has some drawbacks now in EU4, in the form of "corruption", as it does in real life. Mercantilism did ruin the Spainish Empire. It's too bad Donald and his Trumpkins don't understand this.

More like the constant wars caused by inheriting the HRE, plus inflation from their silver mines.

 

[Jorlem]

That Casus Belli has been changed so that it is not possible to take territory, return cores, cancel vassals or release countries when using it.

Interesting. I wonder if any other CBs have been changed to enforce the use of them for their stated purpose, instead of a land grab excuse. I'm hoping the Colonial Independence CB gets this sort of overhaul, as I see far to often colonial nations winning their war, but remaining subjects and taking war reps and such instead.

 

[Em Ay Ef]

in reality, 99% of players will not use it, cause in the first 50 years most OPMs are gone

trade leagues may help slow down OPM disappearance, just like imperial protection over free cities does.

 

[MCBC6]

Well, isn`t it just bread and games? We are happy that they are introducing trade leagues, but in reality, 99% of players will not use it, cause in the first 50 years most OPMs are gone, and AI will have another feature to be stupid about and make irrational decisions.

This is actually a boost for large nations, cause 2-3 OPM alliance will not be able to conquer trade league member, but blobbers like Poland, Austria, France won`t have any problem to do so.

Sooo, it`s just another nerf for any player that wants to play OPM that does not start as merchant republic. It is as useless as Free Cities feature, at least they are protected by Emperor, which is annoying, and actually does slow down conquest of Free Cities. Trade Leagues? It is just shallow and makes close to zero impact on the game, AND only in Europe(AND only in Italy and Baltic).

Nicely wrapped gift, with an empty can inside.

You need to be a merchant republic to be the leader.

 

[ThrownIntoSol]

Here's hoping the new naval mission system will finally allow me to rationalize shouting, "Interdict that fleet, NOW!" at my screen.
;D

 

[MiniaAr]

What's missing for merchant republic even after this DD is the ability to build Kantors in land owned by other countries. This would solve the issue of "Novgorod can't into Hanseatic league", as Novgorod really never was in one, but the Hansa was able to build a Kantor there.
Same thing in London, Bergen, Bruges, Antwerp, Malmö, Kaunas, Pskov, etc...

Novgorod will be able to build it's own trade league though. You ave Russian minors: Yaroslav, Tver, the new country added in the expansion. And Riga might join such a league as well.

But I agree that the OPM restriction in this case is too harsch. Pskov, released Polotsk and Smolensk, Ryazan, ... should be allowed to join a Novgorodian league.

The restrictions should probably look like:

• No kingdom should be part of a trade league -> strong kingdoms is what killed merchant republics. Thus only Duchy-rank countries might join.
• 2PMs or even 3PMs are allowed to join the league, but with developement taken into account in their acceptance conditions.
• Countries leaving the league either on their own or because they grow too big should give the trade dispute CB, which should allow the option to make a country part of the league.
• I thus disagree that the trade CB should block the release of countries/return of cores. There should be a way for a league to force the release of nations so that they can join the league, or return of cores to reduce a country in size to enter the league as well.

 

[mursolini]

or maybe have the limit at two or three provinces so that countries like Mecklenburg can join. And maybe have an addition where all countries with centers of trade and in trade range to the capital of the league may "rent away" part of the trade power from that province to the leader for extra goods produced.

Or maybe we shouldn`t breed arbitrary limits.

The problem is that if member nations of a trade league are allowed to grow too strong then you're just making big nations more powerful.

Nations that are at threshold of upgrading to second tier of government are still pretty weak.

 

[MCBC6]

Nations that are at threshold of upgrading to second tier of government are still pretty weak.

A 200-300 development nation is pretty strong. That's more than double the amount France, England, Austria and various other strong nations have at game start.