• 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.
Welcome to another Europa Universalis IV development diary – Number 23 in fact. We have already done three more development diaries than we’d done for Europa Universalis III, and we still have about 30 more possible diaries to write.* There is still a lot to talk about when it comes to diplomacy, naval combat, westernization, economy, the Reformation and more.* And yes, we also need to make country guides for Poland and Norway.

Today, however, we’re talking a little more about diplomacy, where we introduce a new concept, and talk about how a few others have changed.

Coalitions
Sometimes you simply do not want to ally with someone because they are likely to drag you into a bunch of wars that you have no interest in, but, at the same time you think they would make a great ally for the war you do want to wage.

EUIV addresses this problem with the coalition system, a mutual alliance that is directed against a single country. You have an alliance leader, say the Papacy, who organizes an alliance say directed against Venice. Then they sign up countries like France, Milan and Austria. The alliance only fires in the event of war with Venice but if war does erupt all countries in the Coalition will be called in.

Initially, this power is only open to Catholic countries and can only be organized by the Papal Controller, reinforcing the idea that the Pope is still quite important in the early centuries of the game. Later on though, advances in diplomatic technology will allow any country to organize its own coalition against a common rival. Some Dynamic Historical Events can form some historic coalitions if the stars are aligned properly, as well.

Coalitions become, then, a great way to contain a growing threat or hated neighbor since everyone signs on to fight before the war starts. It can be challenging to get a coalition moving, since you need your potential allies to see the strategic threats in the same way you do. But it is a valuable tool that reinforces common interests.

Relations
We talked earlier about the change from bilateral relations to a system where you can hate me, but I don't hate you. (I don’t hate anybody!) This means we had to devise ways to change the asymmetrical love-hate relationship.

- Improve Relations
To improve relations, you send a diplomat to their capital, and he will slowly increase their opinion of your country. There is a cap though, currently at +200 approval, on how much a diplomat can affect what a country think of you, so you may need to address or wait out the other reasons why they dislike you as well if you want to get perfect relations.* Your diplomat stays in the foreign capital until he is recalled, so this does limit your diplomatic freedom a little. If you recall your diplomat, the 'improved relations' opinion will slowly decay by about 3 points each year.

- Insults
If you want to make some not like you, and maybe poke them into a war, say something mean. Insulting someone, reduces their opinion of you by -25 for ten years, and will also give them a casus belli on you for a year.

Overextension
In dev diary #13, we talked about how overextension worked.*This has now changed after lots of testing and tweaking, as the original design punished early expansion, while ignoring the problem of mid and late-game landgrabs.

Now, your overextension is now a value directly related to the amount of basetax you earning from non-core provinces. So a basetax 6 province gives you 6% overextension, no matter how big you are. So, even a normal conquest in a major war, say taking 2 or 3 rich provinces, can net you a significant overextension penalty which calls for a period of consolidation.

Coring Provinces
Since overextension changed, so has how you add provinces to your core. First of all, the price in administrative power points scales depending, again, on the basetax of the province. There are several ideas that decrease it for you, and increase it for your enemies. Secondly, coring is no longer instant. It takes 3 years, not counting any modifiers, to core it. All the while you still have the overextension penalties to cost of stability and to your revolt risk. Larger countries core province much more slowly, as each non-overseas province you own will increase coring times by 5%.

An overseas province of your own culture (such as a colony) is still instant to core, and costs 10% of the normal cost to core. We don’t want to discourage you from settling the New World because of delays in adding them to your core list.

For those of you who can read our script files, this what you pay for being overextended, with each factor mulitplied with the overextension percentage.
Code:
over_extension = {
	foreign_merchant_compete_chance = -4.0
	stability_cost_modifier = 2.0			
	papal_influence = -10
	mercenary_cost = 2.0
	diplomatic_reputation = -10
	global_revolt_risk = 20
}

Hope you'll enjoy a quick World Conquest now that you know how easy it will be.. And here is a completely unrelated screenshot.. just cause you know..

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • eu4_12.png
    eu4_12.png
    2,5 MB · Views: 30.329
Oh well, and here I was all excited waiting for EU IV.
But the only reason for me to play EU lately was to attempt a world conquest, which you seem keen on stopping.
More expensive coring, over extension for every conquest. Doesn't sound too good to me.
Sure WC is not historical, but who cares. I loved EU3 for the freedom to choose your "end game" and after thousand of hours played, I've had various other "end game" goals, but WC seems the toughest choice and it was fun.

They've just made it much harder, hardly impossible.
 
They've just made it much harder, hardly impossible.
I didn't say it was impossible, I just said they are putting more and more breaks on it.
Will not be able to say how hard or if it is impossible until we play, but I was just pointing out my dislike for the changes to over extension, cause coring, compared to EU3, seems like it's going to be faster anyway, but still slower for bigger countries.
 
Why do so many people want to lessen the impact of overextension on large nations? It might not make complete historical sense, but it seems a good solution to the issues of blobbing and snowball effects. Making the impact of overextension depend on the size of the country counteracts that.

The scaling would only make sense in a game where the internal diversity of nations influences all the economical and bureaucratic aspects that overextension handles. But EU4 does not seem to be that game.
 
And overseas provinces don't count towards overextension? Why not?

Overseas provinces work differently compared to your normal provinces. You get very little tax from them, no production income and need a powerful fleet to get its tariffs. Also, should an overseas province of yours not have a core it will give no tax and no manpower.

Austria was blobbing continuously all while being in cahoots with the pope. So yeah erm :S

Well Austria didn't go on a conquering spree but gained most of its territory through diplomacy. But even so, has anyone said that Austria won't be able to reach its historical size?

I agree with on the overextension feedback. It seems rather silly a giant, sprawling and flourishing empire would suddenly collapse in on itself because it decided to diplo-annex a 3-province state.

The word is hyperbole...

SO, i wonder, when poland DD will be given to us. I hope it will be historical, and start in succesion crisis.

Poland starts with an interregnum and Lithuania is independent, and there are some content that might bring them together in the same way as happened historically.

I am fairly sure this is not how "oversee" works. It is not about territories literally across waters, but about territories not in the same continent. Thus, GB won't have a greater advantage than, say, France.

Yes.

while it makes no sense to claim that a large nation is not better at coping with the strain on the bureaucracy than a small nation.

So China and Russia are inherently better at integrating a new province because of their size than say the smaller Prussia or Austria...?
 
Will some ideas (I believe there was an 'Expansion' idea group?) help mitigate overexpansion at all? To some extent, Narrowminded and Decentralization helped in EU3 IIRC, so it would make sense to see some ideas impacting it.

This could, in turn, help justify why some large nations did better than others at integrating large swaths of land.
 
So China and Russia are inherently better at integrating a new province because of their size than say the smaller Prussia or Austria...?

Not really, but I would think the idea of rebelling against a much larger and powerful nation would make them think twice about it unless said nation is already disorganized and divided already.
 
The point is not to remove cascades, they are a good mechanic.

Strongly disagree. I've reverted to HTTT because of them, and knowing they're still in moved EU4 from a guaranteed pre-order to 'wait for reviews/demos on this issue' for me.

Hardcoded cascading alliances is a deal breaker unless they very seldom kick in. If its moddable, I have no issue with it, though.
 
Strongly disagree. I've reverted to HTTT because of them, and knowing they're still in moved EU4 from a guaranteed pre-order to 'wait for reviews/demos on this issue' for me.

Hardcoded cascading alliances is a deal breaker unless they very seldom kick in. If its moddable, I have no issue with it, though.
Wow, such a minor feature is a dealbreaker? :confused:
 
So China and Russia are inherently better at integrating a new province because of their size than say the smaller Prussia or Austria...?

Sorry for making my statement ambiguous, but what you said is not what I mean. I didn't say that large nations should find it easier to integrate new land. But this is already reflected in the constant cost for new cores/flipping culture/changing religion, which I have no problem with. What I am saying is that IF a country FAILS to integrate a province (i.e. allowing a province to remain uncored), the resource drain or other crippling effect caused by the uncored province should be spread over the country. When the same effect is spread over a larger country, the relative damage to the larger country should be smaller.
Under the current definition of overextension, adding something like 2 admin points for a point of overextension to the stability cost would make sense, while having a +0.2% stability cost modifier would not. Adding the same constant to two values and modifying two values by the same percentage have very different meanings and implications.
One last thing: it would actually be better to remove the percentage sign of overextension, because the current scheme is about the absolute amount of uncored base taxes, with nothing in relative sense attached in the meaning.
 
Last edited:
Overseas provinces work differently compared to your normal provinces. You get very little tax from them, no production income and need a powerful fleet to get its tariffs. Also, should an overseas province of yours not have a core it will give no tax and no manpower.
The DD states that it is base tax that influence overextension, so I thought it would be calculated before modifiers and extra tax from buildings(and other stuff). So it is calculated from the total amount of tax that the province yield?
 
The DD states that it is base tax that influence overextension, so I thought it would be calculated before modifiers and extra tax from buildings(and other stuff). So it is calculated from the total amount of tax that the province yield?

I think you misread my post. You asked why overseas provinces wasn't included in the overextension value. I was just trying to explain why those provinces are considered to be something very different from your home territory and how they have their own burden (ships for tariffs, no mp without a core etc.)
 
I think you misread my post. You asked why overseas provinces wasn't included in the overextension value. I was just trying to explain why those provinces are considered to be something very different from your home territory and how they have their own burden (ships for tariffs, no mp without a core etc.)
Ah that way. So they are counted completely separately from provinces on your own continent (or connected)? What about overseas territories in the Old World? Shouldn't they get an administrative cost towards overextension? I mean not counting towards overextension makes sense with colonies, but I do not think it makes much sense for conquered lands in say Egypt or Persia. Shouldn't there be some kind of distinction between colonies and conquered overseas territories in the Old World?
 
One developer reply for how to lower relationships said get a CB. Does that mean (assuming these are still in the game), the universal CBs like imperialism will cause you to have lower relationships with all nations?
 
I agree with on the overextension feedback. It seems rather silly a giant, sprawling and flourishing empire would suddenly collapse in on itself because it decided to diplo-annex a 3-province state.

Funny how some people fail to understand that such game mechanics and rules are for a more balanced game. Without them we would hardly have a game at all. Snowballeffect would be immense.