• 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.
Today is thursday, the day of the God of Thunder, so what is a more appropriate way to celebrate than with a development diary for Europa Univeralis IV. We’ve talked about development and politics the last few weeks, so now its time to talk a bit more about warfare again, before going back to more peacetime-related activities.

All of this mentioned in this development diary will be in the free update accompanying the next expansion.

Fortress Rework
Connecting a bit to the previous reveal of our change to how building works, we have overhauled the fortress system.

There are now four different forts, one available each century, providing 1, 3, 5 and 7 fort-levels each. A newer fort makes the previous obsolete, so you only have 1 fort in each province. Each fortress also provides 5000 garrison per fort level, so besieging a fortress now requires a large investment.

Forts now also require maintenance to be paid each month, which currently costs about 1.5 ducats for a level 1 fort per month in 1444. Luckily, you can mothball a fortress which makes it drop to just 10 men defending it, and won’t cost you anything in upkeep.

Garrison growth for a fort is also a fair amount slower than before, so after you have taken a fort, you may want to stick around to protect it for a bit.

What is most important to know though, is that forts now have a Zone of Control. First of all, they will automatically take control of any adjacent province that does not have any forts that is adjacent and hostile to them. If two fortress compete over the same province, then the one with highest fort-level wins and in case of a tie, control goes to the owner of the province. Secondly, you can not walk past a fortress and its zone of control, as you have to siege down the blocking fort first.

Each capital have a free fort-level, but that fort will not have any ZoC, as most minor nations can not afford a major fortress.

fH0WehV.jpg



Looting
As we promised, we have now completely revised how looting works. Now there is a “pile” of possible loot in a province, which is directly tied to have developed the province is.

At the end of each month, all hostile units in a province attempt to loot, and the amount they loot depend on how many regiments you have there, and what types they are, where cavalry is by far the best. Some ideas and governments increase the amount you loot each month, where for example Steppe Hordes gains a nice boost.

A province starts recovering from being looted when 6 months have passed since last loot, and it takes up to a year until it has fully recovered.

Of course, the penalty on a province from being looted is still there until it has fully recovered, but it is scaled on how much have been looted.

Ea5YCKh.jpg


Committed Armies
One of the major complaints we have had on the combat in Eu4, has been the fact that you can fully abort your movement whenever you liked. This have been changed, and now you can’t abort your movement if you have already moved 50% of the way. After all, its just common sense that a unit that have already moved halfway between the centers of two provinces is already in the second one.

Force Limits
We felt that the calculations of forcelimits where far too hidden from the player, Players saw stuff like “+25.87 from Provinces”, which based based on projections of base-tax amongst other things, and sometimes those dropped for no obvious reasons.

Now you will be able to see in each province how much it provides to your forcelimits, and we have cleaned up the logic.

Each level of development gives 0.1 land and naval forcelimit.
Overseas will provide -2 land and -2 naval forcelimit
Inland provinces will not provide any naval forcelimit.
However, a province will never be able to provide negative forcelimits.

A nation also have a base value of +3 land and +2 naval force limit, and there are some other ways to get direct forcelimit increased, that are not just percentage increases.

IRmTjoZ.jpg



Next week, we'll be back and talk more about The Devout.
 
But what about destructible buildings? What if I construct a fort somewhere inland, and then I no longer want it?
This is more of a march 27th DD question but...
If you go back to the 27th March DD, in the screenshot you can see a red cross over a golden checkbox on top of a already built fort button.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that if you'd click there you will be prompt about whether you want to demolish the building or not. Just a guess though
Because the city in that picture is a capital, this likely inst the most representative case. but there you have it.
 
When did strategy and micromanagement became exploits?
There has to be a reason to NOT do that. Increases expenses to fill forts perhaps? If spamming forts and mothballing the ones in the back until you need them becomes the legitimate tactics then the game adds needlessly complexities.
 
  • 8
Reactions:
There has to be a reason to NOT do that. Increases expenses to fill forts perhaps? If spamming forts and mothballing the ones in the back until you need them becomes the legitimate tactics then the game adds needlessly complexities.
Do remember that building slots are valuable resources now, spamming forts comes with huge opportunity cost.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
There has to be a reason to NOT do that. Increases expenses to fill forts perhaps? If spamming forts and mothballing the ones in the back until you need them becomes the legitimate tactics then the game adds needlessly complexities.

That is exactly what is expected.

Also, filling forts will take longer time. Mothballing those in the back can be very risky.
 
There has to be a reason to NOT do that. Increases expenses to fill forts perhaps? If spamming forts and mothballing the ones in the back until you need them becomes the legitimate tactics then the game adds needlessly complexities.
I mean the reason not to do it would be you have to build extra forts throughout your empire that you likely don't plan on using since personally speaking I don't normally go into wars planning to lose territory.

There are some circumstances where you fight a more defensive war but very rare do you need to fight a defensive war but had enough cash to throw around to build extra forts behind your front line and that money couldn't have been used more effectively than that on something like mercs or advisers or other buildings

Also I just realized now defending got a huge buff as your enemy needs to get past your fort to advance into your territory and if you place your army on your fort and your fort is in good defensive terrain you pretty much make them fight you on your terms, For example the French-Spanish border can be controlled by one for in the middle of the Spanish side (I think) by building the fort there and having your army wait there assuming you have naval superiority over France which you should, Spain can force France into a battle in the mountains in order to cross the border
 
When did strategy and micromanagement became exploits?

When did countries build 5k - 20k fortresses in every province?
And filling / emptying huge forts is not strategy. Look at the French, in WW2. Why they did not build a Maginot Line from 200 to 200km?
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Committed Armies
One of the major complaints we have had on the combat in Eu4, has been the fact that you can fully abort your movement whenever you liked. This have been changed, and now you can’t abort your movement if you have already moved 50% of the way. After all, its just common sense that a unit that have already moved halfway between the centers of two provinces is already in the second one.

This just replaces one type of non-sense for another. My troops can't turn around on the road? They have to wait until they arrive at their destination to turn around and come back? If an enemy just leaves their province and my army is half-way there, my army should have more time to leave that province than the enemy should take to arrive, but this system assumes otherwise.
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
I agree. While I love the rest of the changes, this 'no halfway turning back' thing is kinda stupid. Because it simply makes zero sense, although it would if the army would be disorganized and immobile for a while to turn back.

It makes the game really tedious for the player while adding nothing. Accidentally right clicked to move your army from Moscow to China and forgot about it for a while? Sorry, no possible way. Now it will march thousands of kilometer without a clue on how to stop their legs.

Really bad.
 
  • 7
Reactions:
It makes the game really tedious for the player while adding nothing. Accidentally right clicked to move your army from Moscow to China and forgot about it for a while? Sorry, no possible way. Now it will march thousands of kilometer without a clue on how to stop their legs.
So you march your army from Moscow to China and then after about 5 minutes you look back and as they're over 50% to the very last province you suddenly remember them and can't stop it... which ruins the game? This raises several questions like how did you forget about your army for that long? How did you accidentally select your army and move them to China? In no way did you remember them in the like 5 actual minutes they were running to Chain? That VERY last province is the one that ruins you?
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I agree. While I love the rest of the changes, this 'no halfway turning back' thing is kinda stupid. Because it simply makes zero sense, although it would if the army would be disorganized and immobile for a while to turn back.

It makes the game really tedious for the player while adding nothing. Accidentally right clicked to move your army from Moscow to China and forgot about it for a while? Sorry, no possible way. Now it will march thousands of kilometer without a clue on how to stop their legs.

Really bad.

You can stop and return your army at next province bordering your initial starting position. Well at least I hope so.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
I agree. While I love the rest of the changes, this 'no halfway turning back' thing is kinda stupid. Because it simply makes zero sense, although it would if the army would be disorganized and immobile for a while to turn back.

It makes the game really tedious for the player while adding nothing. Accidentally right clicked to move your army from Moscow to China and forgot about it for a while? Sorry, no possible way. Now it will march thousands of kilometer without a clue on how to stop their legs.

Really bad.

Read the OP again. The change affects traveling from one province to another. If you send an army from province A to province B and they have traveled more than 50% of the distance between these two provinces they can't go back instantly.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:

It seems to me that particular siege was more of a naval siege than anything, hence why it lasted so long. I kind of wish naval units had more of a role in this game other than taking away two added defense points. For example, why can't a partial blockade take away one of those points? Why can't super large naval armies turn that former positive number into a negative? Why do winning naval battles that sink an entire opposing fleet provide almost no warscore and thus have little affect on your eventual victory? I would think losing an entire naval fleet would have to be an ultimate morale blow for a nation.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
Read the OP again. The change affects traveling from one province to another. If you send an army from province A to province B and they have traveled more than 50% of the distance between these two provinces they can't go back instantly.

I still think this should be modified so if you are over 50%, you can return in as many days as you are past 50%. My earlier example: If it takes 20 days to go from Province A to Province B and your armies are 14 days of the way, then turning around should be allowed, however, it will take you four days to get back to province A. Just as it's logical to assume you are in the other province after 50% of the travel time, it's also logical to assume that you are near the border if only a few days after passing the 50% mark.

*addition* They word it that at 50% you are committed. I think it should be >50%. Simply because 50% should mean you are on the border and can theoretically go either way. That would only apply for movements with odd number of days.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
50% locked movement change is AI thing, it is supposed to help the devs code the AI much easier, hopefully improving it significantly. In current EU4 version where you can change movement in any moment its kind of impossible for AI to predict what will happen next and it happens that AI is often lost and murdered/manipulated by player. You can play ping-pong with them, intercept them etc. Naval AI for example now looks around two sea zones away (magical radar) to evade your fleet since sea movement is often faster.

This will probably be still the case even with the change - players will find new ways to fool the AI - but devs wouldn't make the change if they don't think that it will be improvement.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
So in your same example, an army which has marched 19 days into a province which contains an enemy army, should then be able to turn back on day 19, and walk 9 days out of the province and we're supposed to simply imagine that the enemy army just sits in the province wondering where they got to. The point is, once you're 50% through, you've crossed the rubicon so to speak, there's no turning back as you're already committed to the move.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Naval AI for example now looks around two sea zones away (magical radar) to evade your fleet since sea movement is often faster.


Two sea zones? I've had fleets in the Baltic Sea (when I've controlled every coastal province there) and selected them to move to occupied sea zones in the English Channel only to see their navies instantly begin moving away after having sat there for a while. Now I select to move them next to their sea zone, but that too often causes their navies to flea. Although, recently a bug has occurred where navies are easy to destroy. If they are in port and you've had them blockaded for a while, then as you attempt to leave, they inexplicably decide to attack you. I've noticed this sometime after 1.10 was released but don't remember it from before that.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
So in your same example, an army which has marched 19 days into a province which contains an enemy army, should then be able to turn back on day 19, and walk 9 days out of the province and we're supposed to simply imagine that the enemy army just sits in the province wondering where they got to. The point is, once you're 50% through, you've crossed the rubicon so to speak, there's no turning back as you're already committed to the move.

If you are at day 19 of 20, you are technically in the other province and if an enemy army is there, they should be able to engage you. The difference should be that if you win the engagement, you have to finish the movement before going to another next door province.
 
And the more I think about it, this is going to be majorly exploited. Anytime you want to catch an AI army, just wait for it to be just over halfway to a next door province then send your armies marching there. They will never escape in time. Then again, maybe that's a good thing. Will prevent small stacks from walking near you for no reason. Perhaps the best solution to this is to limit the amount of armies you can field in total. Not regiments. Armies.

*edit*

This is my suggestion from the suggestions forum that I think would make this new fort mechanic a lot more exciting and less exploitable:

WhiskyGlen said:
It appears to me that while these are some of the best ideas I've ever heard of for this game, there are going to be exploits. Obviously, like anyone else, I don't know what other balancing changes are going to be made yet, but I have an idea. In Empire Total War, you could field as many different armies as you want and leave small garrisons in ever city if you prefer. However, in Rome Total War II, they changed it so you could only field so many armies at a time. Any garrison was automatically there and could not be adjusted. As you grew, you could field more armies.

Since it seems carpet sieging is on the way out, there is no longer a need for small stacks. Instead, there should be a limited number of total armies a nation can provide (maintain the force limit mechanic to fill the armies with). So say you are Denmark and have annexed Sweden and Norway. Perhaps that is large enough to field four different armies. Each army must have a general (lessen or do away with the amount of generals you can have without penalty). So if you have four armies, then you have four generals and you can put any number of regiments inside those armies. You could have three stacks of 10,000 men and one of 50,000 men, for example. This would allow for more decisive large battles and no more concern about all the mini-stacks roaming around. Would lead to more war exhaustion and slightly quicker finishes to wars.

To keep the idea of army tradition, you would have the option to attempt to upgrade a general. At that point, you roll the dice like you do now and a pop-up appears with your new generals stats, your old generals stats, and the states of the generals of your other army. The options are as follows for the above example with four armies:

1) Keep generated general and replace old general.
2) Boot generated general and leave old general.
3) Replace general in army 2
4) Replace general in army 3
5) Replace general in army 4.
 
Last edited:
  • 4
Reactions: