EU4 - Development Diary - 7th April 2016

[bbqftw]

I will say here upfront that I did not like the corruption system which I think did not add a lot to the game. That being said I will point here constructive arguments of the problems with it. Currently it is tied to the income so you may profit from manipulating your income so you are proposing to change it to tie it with development. Ok I get where you are going, but this will cause other issues. If you consider territorial cores as development that will make corruption more expensive as you run out of states to fit your cores as you get lot less from territories then from actual cores. Also it makes trade companies far less valuable since they do count towards you total development. If you only consider actual cores as development the opposite will become true and owning a lot of territories will increase your income without increasing the amount of money needed to buy corruption down.

Finally tying corruption to the development will make high developed provinces HIGHLY valuable since you gain more from them per development. Countries that do not have access to highly developed land (either starting it or having it nearby for conquest) will suffer more than big tall countries. All those 3 development provinces in the new world will be utter garbage (you may not even want them depending of how the balancing is done) since they may give you less then what they take from you. Also gold provinces will become KING for getting corruption out of your country.

It's autonomy modified state development.

Which has its own issues of course.

No matter which scaling you use its 'exploitable'.

 

[Jurrak]

I'm sad to see the Regicide event go. I really like the idea and while I agree it's quite overpowered in it's current form, I don't think it needs to be outright removed.
I believe there are some ways the event could be nerfed instead, while still keeping it in the game:
- have it only available to countries which develop the later Espionage ideas,
- arranging the assassination should require a significant amount of money dependent on the income
- have a chance for the event to fail, with possible hits to the player's prestige, stability and maybe diplomatic reputation, as well as worsened relations with the target country

Again, I understand that the event in it's current state is severely imbalanced, but I think it would be a real shame if it was simply removed, instead of trying to nerf and fix it.

 

[Lot]

And if you think that the interwar periods are "boring" in a general sense, think again: act outside the box, maneuver both internally and on the foreign stage, master trade and how you can use it as a weapon of war...

None of this requires you to be at peace, furthermore once you've figured it out trade becomes very very bland.

 

[unillogical]

It's a shame they didn't go the other way for regencies and allow wars in some cases like CK2, maybe against Rivals only

As far as I'm aware they've never given a justification for why you can't declare wars during regencies (even if there were some sort of penalty for doing so) as was done in history and as would be far better than sitting around doing very little in game.

 

[Umbrieus]

I noticed that the "unconditionally surrender to them" button is directly under the offer peace button in the diplomacy tab. Additionally it is directly next to the offer peace deal on the diplo page that pulls up from the current wars shield button. This makes it rather easy to accidentally click on it and ruin your entire game especially in iron man. Any chance for a fix? It should be removed from those two locations and really just should be included in the actual peace deal screen under the offer tribute tab -> treaties -> "Offer Unconditional Surrender". Similarly asking for unconditional surrender from your opponent should be under demand tribute tab -> treaties-> "Demand Unconditional Surrender". I am not sure how this oversight got past the first play test.

 

[JasperClay]

As far as I'm aware they've never given a justification for why you can't declare wars during regencies (even if there were some sort of penalty for doing so) as was done in history and as would be far better than sitting around doing very little in game.

Actually, I never thought of this. I like the idea that an adult head of state is necessary to properly conduct aggressive war, but I think a penalty would be better than a ban. While I find the constant refrain of "as was done in history" to be the ultimate in anecdotal vs. statistical evidence (that is, the vast majority of monarchs who were under the cultural majority age did not declare an aggressive war on anyone, afaik) simulating the fact that a regency could do so, even with difficulty, would be better than the weird hard ban.

What about -2 stab, -25 legitimacy, for declaring war in a regency? Basically, "you better win, or there will be rebels all over." Since legitimacy gets reset when your monarch comes of age, this has the added benefit of being more punishing for doing it with an infant than a tween.