• 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.

Europa Universalis IV - Development Diary 28th of February 2023 - Great Britain

Greetings! A new week, a new Dev Diary, and this time it is about our final big country of the DLC, England, and its follow-up nation of Great Britain. Similar to Russia, England and Great Britain received their content update with 1.25 which is now almost 5 years old. While the British mission tree was one of the most extensive in its time, it has become quite outdated and was in dire need of receiving an update in order to keep England on the same level as the other great powers which are seeing a liftover with 1.35.

So, let’s get started!
british_missions.png

These are all the missions you have available as England and as Great Britain. These missions are available to everyone who forms GB.

The mission tree is split into several themes:
- The internal affairs and issues of England, which were the War of the Roses, the English Reformation, and of course the English Civil War
- The classic conquest of the British Isles
- Trade Dominance in Europe
- Colonizing the New World
- The conquest of India
- Internal development

Starting with the classic missions, the British Isles conquest missions are what their name suggests: unifying the British Isles under your banner. The highlight of these missions is the ability to unlock the “Act of Union” which is a unique parliament issue to form Great Britain - more on it later. Also a ,QoL addition has been added to these conquest missions: if you conquer Scotland you can get the following event if Norway did not sell Orkney to Scotland yet.
flavor_gbr.2.png

The AI is very likely to accept as long as they don’t have any negative opinion of you.

The missions regarding colonizing the New World are also quite self-explanatory. However, these missions do have some unique rewards which make colonization a little bit more interesting. The mission “Found the Royal Navy” grants you +33% Colonial Range and the ability to recruit explorers and conquistadors for 25 years. It also unlocks a parliament issue that gives you the same modifiers once the mission reward runs out.

“Discover the Americas” unlocks another Parliament issue with a rather experimental and unique effect:
colonial_venture.png


As long this modifier is active and you fully colonize a colony you get the following event:
colonial_venture_event.png

You get a selection of trade goods to choose from. The province will then start producing the selected trade goods. The first option keeps the current trade good if you don’t want to select any new production.

Keep in mind that the trade goods you can choose from have the same requirements as they would normally have when you colonize a province. In other words: you cannot select every province in North America to be a gold province out of nowhere.

Speaking of gold: selecting a certain trade good to be produced has a price that is calculated by the following formula: (1 + <the times you selected the trade good>) * 5 * <base cost of trade good without any modifications from events>.

In this example, we decide to create our own Fish & Chips monopoly, so we choose fish for every colonized province:
colonial_venture_event_2.png


Some trade goods are inherently more valuable than others. If a trade good has a higher base cost than 2.5 then it will also have an Administrative cost in order to be produced:
colonial_venture_gems.png

Note: The admin cost will be rounded down to 7.

Again, the formula for this is also rather simple: (<base trade good price> - 2.5) * 25 * <the times you selected the trade good>.

Now of course I have to address the elephant in the room: Gold. In order to avoid a world where a Great Britain player would put a gold province in every single eligible province of the New World, I decided to give Gold an “estimated value” of 10 Ducats base cost. This is reflected in the price you have to pay for a Gold province in the new world:
colonial_venture_event_gold.png

The only limit for how many gold provinces you want in the end is not any hard block but your tolerance for pain in paying for the establishment of another gold province.

Of course there is a decision which toggles this off if you are not interested in micromanaging every single colony you create:
colonial_venture_toggle.png

The missions “Settle in America” and “Colonize the Caribbean” modify your colonial capabilities even further with more unlocked parliament actions:
taxation_vs_representation.png

gold_act.png

Note: You have access to a sugar and spice version of this Parliament Action in the mission tree.

Finally, the mission “Dominate the New World” gives a permanent modifier which also benefits your colonial subjects too.
new_world_domination.png

Note: The Trade Efficiency might look weird considering that you siphon the trade from the New World, but Tariffs in their current iteration are calculated from the production income + trade income. As such, this bonus is an indirect bonus to how much tariff you receive from your colonies.

Of course a British mission tree would not be complete without a trip to India. The mission “East India Company” gives you an early choice of how you want to manage your territory in India.
east_india_company_event.png
The first option will release a unique subject in the form of the East India Company and it gives all permanent claims you get in India to your subject. The second option lets you keep the claims, but you won’t have access to your new subject, while the third option is for the purpose of role-playing where you can play as the company yourself, which might be an interesting campaign for some people.

The East India Company starts with a unique version of the Merchant Republic:
trade_company_reform.png

And of course it has its own set of ideas:
Code:
EIC_ideas = {
    start = {
        global_prov_trade_power_modifier = 0.2
        tolerance_heathen = 3
    }

    bonus = {
        global_trade_power = 0.15
    }
   
    trigger = {
        tag = EIC
    }
    free = yes        #will be added at load.

    eic_governors_general = {
        global_unrest = -1
        governing_capacity_modifier = 0.1
    }
    eic_indian_trade = {
        global_trade_goods_size_modifier = 0.15
    }
    eic_chartered_merchants = {
        merchants = 1
        placed_merchant_power = 10
    }
    eic_presidency_armies = {
        global_manpower_modifier = 0.1
        global_sailors_modifier = 0.2
    }
    eic_intercontinental_trade = {
        trade_steering = 0.25
        trade_range_modifier = 0.1
    }
    eic_colonial_monopoly = {
        trade_efficiency = 0.1
    }
    eic_colonial_exploitation = {
        trade_company_investment_cost = -0.1
        build_cost = -0.1
    }
}

This trade company subject has some special properties which aim to make it competitive to the trade companies we already know and love. A trade company behaves in many ways like a colony, which means it is able to declare its own wars, it will pay tariffs to its overlord and you can use the “Modify Subject Relationship” on them (modifications for Self-Governing Colonies are applied here). However, when an external nation attacks your Trade Company you are called into war. There are also some additional subject interactions which are not available to normal colonies such as “Siphon Income” and “Fortify Subject” (in the past it was March, but it has been renamed now).

“Masters of India”, which requires you to own or have a subject own 200 provinces in India, gives an additional bonus to your trade company subject:
masters_of_india.png

These were the colonial missions. Now we move on to the internal missions.

The missions of the “War of the Roses” path are all about your religious internal affairs. Depending on what is your stance towards the clergy, you unlock one of the two government reforms for the 4th tier:
religious_reforms.png
The missions “Strengthen the Kingdom” and “Acts of the Parliament” play heavily into the conflict between the monarch and the parliament during the Age of Absolutism, which eventually led to the English Civil War.

Completing both missions give you access to both mutually exclusive government reforms:
more_reforms.png

Speaking of, in order to properly represent the struggle between crown and constitution, you will eventually receive the following event as you enter the Age of Absolutism:
strife_king_and_parliament.png

absolute_power.png

Note: Background UI is still work in progress. The Monarchists will start the civil war when it reaches -100, not 100. Not shown in the image: if the value drops below 0 the modifiers change to: +4 Global Unrest, -10 Years of Nationalism, -10% Idea Cost and -1 Yearly Absolutism.

Resetting Debates, letting debates fail and revoking parliament seats increase your Absolute Power while giving away seats and letting debates win decrease Absolute Power. There are two ways of handling the mechanic altogether: you either juggle with the Absolute Power until the Age of Revolution starts or you try to reach either direction as fast as possible in order to trigger the following event:
escalation_event.png


If this event fires then the conditions to fire the English Civil War change to the following:
new_disaster_conditions.png

The disaster itself has seen little change per se. Pretender rebels on the parliament side have been replaced with a new, Parliamentarian rebel type which are basically Pretenders, but republican versions of them. The big change for the disaster is the end reward when you go through them.

If you side with the Royalists and end the Civil War without breaking to rebels you get the following reform:
absolute_britain.png

Letting the Parliamentarian win and choosing to become a republic will unlock the following reform:
parliamentarian_republic.png

And finally, if you let the Parliamentarians win, but decide to become a monarchy after Cromwell’s death:
british_monarchy.png
If you complete the mission “The Three Kingdom Wars” (which really should have been called “Wars of the Three Kingdoms”, but there was no space for it) by going through the hassle of the English Civil War, you unlock the following reward:
english_civil_war_mission_reward.png
These parliament issues are unlocked as you also unlock your national ideas. You have up to three issues which negate one of your national ideas in order to introduce a new strength.
ideas_altering_issues.png
These issues are, however, limited to three national idea groups in total though - they do not cover you if you form a nation which would not be typical in your England run like, let’s say France or Spain.

Of course you can toggle them off with a decision in order to have the space of your parliament issues not be occupied with them anymore, and you can revoke all of the adjustments - though at a heavy cost:
toggle_off.png

Note: Forming a different country will automatically revoke these modifiers. I am also considering making this cost a lot less severe though in order to promote flexibility. Maybe 75 ADM cost per adjusted idea is more manageable.

While these were the internal disasters and issues, there is more to the mission tree. The mission “Issue the Royal Warrant” goes more into the economical direction of your country. While the mission itself can be completed rather early, its big reward is more something you will unlock later on as you get the following reform unlocked for tier 8:
royal_charters.png

trade_protectorate.png

Note: Numbers are not final, as usual.

As it is somewhat of a running theme with 1.35, another mechanic of the old EU4 has returned once again, though this time it is a little bit different. Trade Protectorates are a voluntary relationship between you and the target country, and some AIs might even request to become such a subject in order to be protected from foreign forces. The Trade Protectorate and the overlord are free to annul the treaty, though they have to pay with 1 Stability unless the liberty desire is 100.

Only countries whose capitals are within your trade range are eligible to become your protectorates.

I should also mention that these Protectorates are not Great Britain only as any country which “Confirms Thalassocracy” unlocks the following government reform, which is part of the free update:
thalassocracy.png

The missions following “A House Divided” (which is more a reference to how the “House of the Parliament” is split into the House of Common and the House of Lords) are more internally related missions. Highlights here are “Expand the Royal Navy” which unlocks the special unit of your country:
expand_royal_navy.png

man_of_war.png

Note: The color should be actually green as a reduced Engagement Width means more ships are in combat at the same time.
You have 20% of your Naval Force Limit available for constructing Man of War.

The mission “The Royal Marines” makes your marine units to be the “special land unit” of your country as it gives -10% Shock Damage Received and +5% Discipline while “The Redcoats” is a flat +10% Infantry Combat Ability until the end of the game.

Now that was the British Mission Tree. As you have seen, it is relying heavily on colonization and overseas ambitions. But not everyone might enjoy this kind of playstyle. Because of that there is a second path of the mission tree which is unlocked as soon as the Hundred Years’ War goes into its final phase. The mission “The Hundred Years’ War” fires an event which gives you the choice to play England in a new way which focuses a lot more on the continent:
angevin_path.png

This will of course update your mission tree accordingly:
angevin_missions.png

All of the colonial missions are replaced with missions which nudge you into conquering vast territories of Europe. Of course, your first target is France and securing the personal union over it. In order to complete the mission “Shatter French Nobility” you will have to enact a unique Parliament Action which might cause pain in the short run, but ensures France’s loyalty to the English throne:
curtailed_nobles.png

I mentioned earlier about the Acts of Union. For players, the Acts of Union will be an actual parliament issue which is available to you when you complete this mission “Unify the Isles” and have reached Administrative Technology 10.
acts_of_union_britain.png

gb.png

The AI will keep its decision though.

For the Angevin path we have something similar. The mission “The Angevin Kingdom” unlocks the English-French Acts of Union parliament issue which allows you to form a new tag:
acts_of_union_issue.png

angevin_kingdom.png

Note: Historically speaking, it would make more sense to have it as a name change as the “Angevin Empire” was mostly a name for the possessions of the Plantagenet dynasty and not a real political entity per se. For the sake of gameplay, however, I decided to make a new tag for it with unique ideas, colors and, most importantly, the flag.

angevin_flag.png
You might have noticed that the Angevin flag is already included in the already used English flag. We are aware that it can feel kinda weird when you form the Angevin Kingdom and your flag, which was previously a combination of the Angevin and the French flag, just returns to being the Angevin one.
Because of that we request your opinion on that matter, and want to know what you guys prefer:
  1. Keep the way it is presented here (same flag for England, three lions for the Angevin Kingdom).
  2. Give the Angevin Kingdom the current English flag and give England the three lions as starting flag.
  3. Give the Angevin Kingdom the current English flag and give England the St. George cross as flag.
  4. Other ideas / suggestions.
With that being said, let's take a look at the ideas:
Code:
AVE_ideas = {
    start = {
        global_manpower_modifier = 0.2
        improve_relation_modifier = 0.3
    }

    bonus = {
        years_of_nationalism = -5
    }
   
    trigger = {
        tag = AVE
    }
    free = yes        #will be added at load.

    angevin_decentralized_rule = {
        core_creation = -0.2
    }
    english_common_law = {
        global_tax_modifier = 0.15
        num_of_parliament_issues = 1
    }
    lessons_of_the_anglo_french_wars = {
        discipline = 0.05
    }
    the_many_thrones = {
        heir_chance = 0.5
        years_to_integrate_personal_union = -10
    }
    reformed_angevin_infantry = {
        infantry_power = 0.1
    }
    seneschal_of_france = {
        governing_capacity_modifier = 0.15
    }
    rule_of_the_plantagenet = {
        legitimacy = 1
        devotion = 1
        horde_unity = 1
        republican_tradition = 0.3
        meritocracy = 1
    }
}

Note: England and Great Britain too received a +1 Number of possible Parliament Issues. The Horde Unity and Meritocracy (as well as Devotion / Legitimacy / Republican Tradition) have been added to all ideas which give one of the 5 government measurements in order to promote more variety in campaigns where you can switch your governments without feeling at a disadvantage because of it.

From here on out your path is set to conquer Iberia and Italy, as well as pushing into the Lowlands and the HRE. Each of these regions unlocks a “Crown of <Region>” Parliament issue which lets you decide how to properly deal with your newly conquered territory:
the_three_crowns.png

îberian_crown.png

italian_crown.png

imperial_diet.png

Note: There will be a tooltip saying that you unlock HRE related parliament issues.

These issues will affect the HRE as a whole and not just your country.

Another highlight would be the ability to adapt the British culture group into the French culture group with the mission “The Angevin Culture”:
anglois.png


A final highlight would be “Claim the Empire Title” which gives your country a name fitting to your situation.
empire_name.png

republican_name.png

theocratic_name.png

And if you, somehow, manage to fall from grace…
sadge.png

That was it for mission tree content. However, there is still a lot more to talk about. As you might have noticed, the parliament plays a large role in the content. As such, it was only natural to improve the parliament mechanics in general and then to add something special to the parliament of England / GB / Angevin to make it stand out from the other parliaments.

So, let us take a look at the general improvements for the parliaments. First thing first, parliaments have now the ability to reset a debate.
reset.png
You can reset a debate only every 20 years and it brings some penalties with it. Still, it can be a nice QoL addition when you accidentally select the wrong debate.

Secondly, parliament bribes will no longer spawn for an issue which would give this resource as an effect when the issue gets passed. Example: the parliament issue “The Draft” which gives manpower scaled to the seats will never have any parliament bribe which requests you to pay with manpower.

Thirdly, the prices of bribes have been revisited and have been tuned down to a manageable number.

Fourthly, parliaments of a size of 40 seats unlock new bribes which have “National” in their name. These bribes are more expensive than their local version, but have the bundled effect to automatically flip all seats with this kind of bribe in favor of the bribe. This way parliaments of big nations with many seats are not as annoying anymore as they were in the past.
national_bribes.png
Finally, manually placing a parliament seat no longer reduces absolutism. Getting seats assigned automatically, on the other hand, does cost absolutism.

All of these parliament updates are available if you have Common Sense (the original DLC which unlocks Parliaments) or the new DLC (which unlocks Parliaments too in case you don’t have Common Sense).

Now back to England / GB which have a bit more refined version of their parliament. Most issues they have access to now scale in their effect power with the influence of one of their estates:
influence_scaling.png

Note: I consider to push this all one level up, so that the 100% of the normal effect would be achieved between 20% and 40% already.

This has not an effect on the modifiers from the issues themselves though, only on the instant effects, so keep this in mind.

Bribes, on the other hand, scale with the loyalty of the estate:
loyalty_scaling.png
If an estate is disloyal, the cost of the bribe increases by 100%. However, if the estate is loyal then the bribe gets reduced by 50%. This stacks with the government mechanic of halved parliament issue costs, so it is possible that a single bribe might be as cheap as 1 Monarch Power.

Now with that all being said, let’s end this dev diary with the additional events England / GB / Angevin receives:
flavor_gbr.3.png

flavor_gbr.4.png

flavor_gbr.5.png

flavor_gbr.6.png

flavor_gbr.9.png

flavor_gbr.7.png

Note: This event is the starting point of 8 events in total which depict the different ways of how the English monarchs handled the reformation. Each option leads to different events. The AI always picks the one option which fits their ruler’s religion - even if it is against their country’s religion.

flavor_gbr.8.png

flavor_gbr.10.png

Note: the conditions for this event to happen are similar to the ones for its Reformed equivalent.
flavor_gbr.11.png


chapel_ENG_DD.png

And that was it for this week. Next week @Pavía will present content for the minor Great Powers, unique government reforms and additional estate privileges.

Until then I wish you all a nice week!
 
  • 116Like
  • 44Love
  • 18
  • 9
  • 3
  • 2Haha
Reactions:
Let's explain this simply and concisely. From Wikipedia:
This reinforcement of the aristocracy and the emerging sense of national identity must be seen in conjunction with the war in France.[78] Just as the war with Scotland had done, the fear of a French invasion helped strengthen a sense of national unity, and nationalise the aristocracy that had been largely Anglo-Norman since the Norman conquest. Since the time of Edward I, popular myth suggested that the French planned to extinguish the English language, and as his grandfather had done, Edward III made the most of this scare.[86] As a result, the English language experienced a strong revival; in 1362, a Statute of Pleading ordered English to be used in law courts,[87] and the year after, Parliament was for the first time opened in English.[88] At the same time, the vernacular saw a revival as a literary language, through the works of William Langland, John Gower and especially The Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer.[89] Yet the extent of this Anglicisation must not be exaggerated. The statute of 1362 was in fact written in the French language and had little immediate effect, and parliament was opened in that language as late as 1377.[90] The Order of the Garter, though a distinctly English institution, included also foreign members such as John IV, Duke of Brittany, and Robert of Namur.[91][92]

It's amazing that from your claim that Edward III was the one to make English the court language. No, it was during Edward III's reign that English experienced a revival, including the making of English the language in law courts. Parliament opened for the first time in English. Yet we can see that the very statute making English the language to be used in law courts was written in French. Parliament continued to conduct its affairs in French until 1377. The monarchy remained Francophone as its native language until Henry V.

France indeed colonised parts of the New World, but it was, as emphasised before, a matter of investments made with only slight interest. Colonisation was a peripheral interest for the French, who built a relatively small colonial empire that while claiming massive amounts of land, actually controlled only a small portion of it. In fact, Britain did more for the spread of French in North America by ensuring that the Province of Quebec (1763-1791) remained Francophone, which also gave the Metis a way to spread West into the Prairies. Again, it has been stressed enough that you can certainly make a colonial empire as the Angevines, you just need to take the appropriate ideas and not have the mission tree hold your hand.

One last point: forming the Angevine Empire is really an affirmation of England's commitment to its French claims and being the legitimate French state in the person of the English King. The Hundred Years' War is a period in which England was hyper focused on France, and successfully conquering France is a confirmation that it is worth it for England to be intimately intertwined and directly shaping how things should go in Europe, rather than being the peripheral player that England really was. England's successes in this period are rarely continental, and much of England's continental affairs involve being defeated multiple times by the French and only in 1714 becoming the Hannover Electors. The Napoleonic Wars were a massive act in cooperation with the other European powers, and even then success was only found after 1812. If England becomes the Angevine Empire, it is taking France's place, and France was at this time seeking to compete with the Holy Roman Empire and the Spanish kingdoms. Another major goal was being the deciding power in Italy. If that isn't more proof that France's interest in overseas colonies in the New World was peripheral and even uninterested. One doesn't see, for example, France grasping for Quebec, despite the defeat of Britain twice with the American War of Independence and the Treaty of Amiens. The remaining empire was, like the French colonies in the Americas, a collection of trading posts, with little interest in establishing any settler colonies. This is why Quebec, Acadia and Lower Louisiana were unique for having larger free settler populations.

The biggest problem I see is that you are giving the English far too much credit for their capabilities than what actually existed.
Let me start with a point I see raised repeatedly and where people do not seem to get my point. The fact that you can go colonial as Angevin is of no concern to me as I do not and never would want to play as Angevin, I want to play as England/GB, the fact that I have to play as a completely different country to get missions that allows me to play in the way that I have up until this point been able to play as England/GB is the main thing I have a problem with. There might be some people who do not care what country they play or players for whom different countries just represent different playing experiences and are otherwise fungible but there are some of us for whom that is most definitely not the case.

As for the language question, there is not a specific date when everything changes magically from French being dominant to English being in the ascendancy. It was a gradual process which has started well before the EUIV time period under Edward III and was largely (though not completely) done by the end of the 15th century. However, It was not until the beginning of the 18th century that the final widespread use of French in e.g. the law courts was abolished. (reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo... the language of,most of the English nobility.). But I do not think that anyone would claim that had Britain somehow conquered France up until that point then the English would just have become France or the country would just have become France. You yourself mention that by the time of the EUIV timeline the English Monarchs were no longer (albeit recently so) Francophone. Furthermore, if England would just have become France and France was so much more prestigious then why did Henry VI and the noblemen who ruled on his behalf in his minority not do so from France rather than staying in England? I am not saying that what you suggest could never have happened, just that it is far from a forgone conclusion. Nor should it be for the player.

Regarding British vs. French colonies you are right that the nature and growth of the colonies were different with the population of the British colonies being much larger. However, this is in part down to how these colonies were administered, and the role of religious minorities in settling these colonies. It is perfectly plausible that even if English king's had managed to take the French throne colonisation would still have followed the English/British model rather than the French.

Finally, I would make the point that this is a game that have and should allow the player to go beyond what countries managed historically, something which is also included in the mission trees of many other countries including France and Spain. The idea that England/GB should be precluded from having missions that allows it to go beyond what it achieved historically is frankly absurd in this context. Neither Spain nor France has to give up their culture or name to access those missions, so why should England/GB? If the concern is that having both the colonial missions and the new Angevin missions would be OP relative to other countries then just allow GB to retain its current missions regarding France. After securing France you could then give the player the option to 1) adopt new missions focusing on further expansion on the continent and abandon the colonial ideas, and 2) whether they want to change the name of the country and get new ideas or stay as GB. That way you would allow player to 1) play England/GB much in the way that we can now, 2) play England/GB with a focus on the continent, or 3) play as Angevin. This way you do not take away freedoms the player currently have, but give extra options to the player to play the country the way he or she wants to play it. The problem with the current plans is that if you want to play as England/GB you do not have the same options to go for the continent or do both as you currently do under the existing mission tree. So while both Spain and France gets more options, England/GB gets less.
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Thank you for trying some new content regarding trade companies and navies. Here is some feedback:

This trade company subject has some special properties which aim to make it competitive to the trade companies we already know and love.
Three reasons why this probably won't be the case:
(i) The goods produced bonus form merchant republics is 50% throughout the whole game and only affects other countries. While the bonus from TC's scales up to 200% and can also affect your own provinces. Which makes MR quite bad in comparison.
(ii) The MR government synergizes badly with the EIC and with the AI in general, as the EIC can't and the AI often does not want to assign provinces to a TC. Therefore, most provinces of the EIC will be states and not TCs. This means an additional 25% province governing cost in most of the provinces.
(iii) No or very few TC investments, due to the subject mostly having states. Again this does not synergize well with the last EIC idea.
“Masters of India”, which requires you to own or have a subject own 200 provinces in India, gives an additional bonus to your trade company subject:
The -75% malus in non-home nodes is very interesting. Although there are a lot of scenarios where collecting in non-home nodes is the better choice even without this bonus.

Can we expect some other innovative trade related bonuses? A trade steering bonus which only applies when steering from a certain node (like the TC investment) or when steering towards a certain node would be interesting. Or modifiers which increase incoming or outgoing trade value in a specific node.
As it is somewhat of a running theme with 1.35, another mechanic of the old EU4 has returned once again, though this time it is a little bit different. Trade Protectorates are a voluntary relationship between you and the target country, and some AIs might even request to become such a subject in order to be protected from foreign forces.
The -20% tech cost is interesting. Are there any institution/tech disparity requirements for Trade Protectorates? If so, one should note that by design there wont be any such disparities for large parts of the game. Therefore, one would mostly be unable to use the feature.

Requiring Thalassocracy is a pretty steep requirement, considering that nations like the Ottomans also had protectorate like subjects. One should also consider replacing a tier 8 reform has different opportunity costs for monarchies/republics/theocracies while balancing the feature.
Highlights here are “Expand the Royal Navy” which unlocks the special unit of your country:
The -1 engagement width is too strong. It has been underestimated before in the galley buff in 1.31 which got quickly reverted. The crucial point is, that due to the way naval combat works, engagement bonus do not give linear but almost quadratic increases in strength. For example going from 3 to 2 engagement width is roughly as good as +100% combat ability, which makes galleons look very sad in comparison. Maybe going from 3 to 2.5 would be more appropriate (this is approximately as good as +40% CA) ( 1.31 showed that non-integer values are possible.)

As another example and suggestion consider the following:
Heavy Galleass a special galley ship for Italian states (especially Venice). These were used very successfully in the battle of Lepanto (the example for a battle with galleys) and played a pivotal role in the victory of the Holy League. For more information see for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lepanto. They were larger and far heavier armed than normal galleys.

In game the suggestion would look like this:
Base type: Galley
Modifiers:
Ship Engagement Width: +1
Ship Cannons: +150%
Ship Hull Size: +100%

Doubling ship engagement width is slightly better than a modifier of (1/2)^2=1/4 (actually something like ~1/3,6) and the cannons and hull modifiers are equal to 2,5*2=5. Therefore, the power increase is approximately 5/3,6~1,4, i.e. as good as +40% CA, which seems balanced compared to the galleon.

I think it is clear that the modifiers fit thematically.

One more very important question regarding special ship types: Is the AI able to build and use them? (This is of course also relevant for special land units. Are there any plans to make the AI able to recruit them?)
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
Between 1444 and 1821, it is best not to assume that England was on a par with France. France was the richest and most populous country in Europe, while England, though moderately rich, was no match for France.
France's national power allowed it to have everything it wanted at the same time, whereas England did not. The fact that England is now seen as an equal rival to France is a result of England's continued success with fewer resources.
For large parts of that period you are right. During the early part of the period there is no doubt that the area now called France was richer and more populous than England though England was generally better organised and more integrated which is in part what allowed England to be a real rival to France during the 100 year war. Also during e.g. the age of Louis XIV there is no doubt that France was the foremost European power, with England often paralysed by internal issues. However, by the end of the period GB is clearly the worlds leading power having overtaken France in terms of both wealth and resources, though not manpower) and already throughout the 18th century GB is able to rival and on many occasions best France. So looking at the period as a whole, it is GB that is the historical winner of the period not France.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Let me start with a point I see raised repeatedly and where people do not seem to get my point. The fact that you can go colonial as Angevin is of no concern to me as I do not and never would want to play as Angevin, I want to play as England/GB, the fact that I have to play as a completely different country to get missions that allows me to play in the way that I have up until this point been able to play as England/GB is the main thing I have a problem with. There might be some people who do not care what country they play or players for whom different countries just represent different playing experiences and are otherwise fungible but there are some of us for whom that is most definitely not the case.
By playing Great Britain you are basically chosing the historical way - sit on your islands and colonize, if you want to expand in europe, then just pick some other nation or expand without missions
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
By playing Great Britain you are basically chosing the historical way - sit on your islands and colonize, if you want to expand in europe, then just pick some other nation or expand without missions
Why not give the player the option to do both as is currently the case? Why should GB be confined to missions that only follow its actual historical path while other countries like Spain and France get missions that take them beyond that. Also, how many times do I have to make it clear that I do not want to play as some other nation, for some of us nations are not fungible.
 
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
Thank you for trying some new content regarding trade companies and navies. Here is some feedback:


Three reasons why this probably won't be the case:
(i) The goods produced bonus form merchant republics is 50% throughout the whole game and only affects other countries. While the bonus from TC's scales up to 200% and can also affect your own provinces. Which makes MR quite bad in comparison.
(ii) The MR government synergizes badly with the EIC and with the AI in general, as the EIC can't and the AI often does not want to assign provinces to a TC. Therefore, most provinces of the EIC will be states and not TCs. This means an additional 25% province governing cost in most of the provinces.
(iii) No or very few TC investments, due to the subject mostly having states. Again this does not synergize well with the last EIC idea.
I agree. I am hoping that the EIC has some special modifer built in that allows it to TC its own super region. (That way its last idea makes sense) Without that, I can't see how it will be more useful to have the EIC than to hold it and TC it yourself. You're going to be fighting most of the wars there for them anyway so you might as well handle it yourself entirely. By the time you get to India all the small kingdoms are gone and there are only 5-6 big countries left, and there is no way the EIC is taking them on by itself.

All that said I love the inclusion of the EIC and hope it is better than it looks.
 
Why not give the player the option to do both as is currently the case? Why should GB be confined to missions that only follow its actual historical path while other countries like Spain and France get missions that take them beyond that. Also, how many times do I have to make it clear that I do not want to play as some other nation, for some of us nations are not fungible.
England also get's missions that are not historical - and it's Angevin kingdom patch. Also Spain and France gets mission that let you choose between diplomatic and conquest option for areas that these nations really tried to get to (or actually did that), the difference is that England has to choose at the start if it wants to go colonialism or European domination while France and Spain can change from Diplomatic to conquest
 
  • 5
Reactions:
By 1801 it might have been a complete fiction but Henry VIII certainly tried to reclaim the French throne albeit unsuccessfully. Also Edward III changed the language used in the government of England to English 80 years before the start of the EUIV timeline. As for forming colonies similar to France, France has vast overseas colonies before the Seven Year War, including Louisiana and Canada, as well as possessions in India. So I really do not buy the argument that continental entanglements preclude a vast overseas empire.
Just, go check the french population in its colonies compared to the Anglo pops in their colonies, and compared how big they were both. I think it will help you to understand how Anglo wouldn't successfully colonize if they had french union
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I really think the Devs are trying to be as experimental as possible and seeing what works and what doesn’t, in preparation for EU5.
 
  • 5
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Just, go check the french population in its colonies compared to the Anglo pops in their colonies, and compared how big they were both. I think it will help you to understand how Anglo wouldn't successfully colonize if they had french union
There where many factors that contributed to the larger population in the British compared with the French colonies and it was not entanglements on the continent. There is no reason why an England/GB controlling France could not have pursued the same kind of colonisation. That is not to say that it definitely would, but it would certainly have been possible.
 
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
England also get's missions that are not historical - and it's Angevin kingdom patch. Also Spain and France gets mission that let you choose between diplomatic and conquest option for areas that these nations really tried to get to (or actually did that), the difference is that England has to choose at the start if it wants to go colonialism or European domination while France and Spain can change from Diplomatic to conquest
No England gets to choose between being England or something else. France and Spain does not have to make such a choice. The name of the country you play matters to some of us. Also even if you retained the same name and culture, you cannot compare the choice between diplomatic control or conquest of an area with having to choose between a colonial or conquest focused mission tree. The latter has a much greater impact.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
No England gets to choose between being England or something else. France and Spain does not have to make such a choice. The name of the country you play matters to some of us. Also even if you retained the same name and culture, you cannot compare the choice between diplomatic control or conquest of an area with having to choose between a colonial or conquest focused mission tree. The latter has a much greater impact.
as England you get to choose between playing as Union of England, Wales and Scotland or Union of England and France. And having to choose between Diplomatic and Conquest has a huge impact because you either don't control the provinces but get powerful buffs or control provinces but don't get buffs + it takes your gov cap
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
No England gets to choose between being England or something else. France and Spain does not have to make such a choice. The name of the country you play matters to some of us. Also even if you retained the same name and culture, you cannot compare the choice between diplomatic control or conquest of an area with having to choose between a colonial or conquest focused mission tree. The latter has a much greater impact.
I agree. I think the Angevin missions should be something like the Crusader path for the Teutonic Order.

If you complete the "End the French conflict" by losing the war if you fight for Maine or giving up Maine outright the Angevin missions stay locked. If you win and Union France then you unlock the Angevin Missions. That's pretty easy.
Later, if you want, when you Integrate France you can choose to change the name or stay as Great Britain. If you change the name then you get the unified culture group, but otherwise not. It seems the best of both worlds.

The options are there for those who want them and the AI "might" be able to do it, but highly unlikely. That way if the AI decides to go crazy and try to take over France it is not locked out of its colonization missions.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Actually now I think about it, does the new Great Britain path mission tree have anything related to Hannover?
Maybe there is something in the "Mainland Alliances" mission that pushes you towards Brunswick. :p But it doesn't look like Hannover is getting any love.
 
Funny that the “Acts of Union” debate do exactly the opposite of what they are supposed to… which is the union of two kingdoms ruled as a personal union, with separate parliaments, into a single country with a single parliament

It should rather be, let’s vote to integrate “Scotland” within England and rename it.

Hence unifying Britain and Spain or Britain and France as the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and X”, not splitting of as a personal union a state already directly administered
 
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
my preference is either:
Give the Angevin Kingdom the current English flag and give England the three lions as starting flag.
Give the Angevin Kingdom the current English flag and give England the St. George cross as flag.
 
Let me start with a point I see raised repeatedly and where people do not seem to get my point. The fact that you can go colonial as Angevin is of no concern to me as I do not and never would want to play as Angevin, I want to play as England/GB, the fact that I have to play as a completely different country to get missions that allows me to play in the way that I have up until this point been able to play as England/GB is the main thing I have a problem with. There might be some people who do not care what country they play or players for whom different countries just represent different playing experiences and are otherwise fungible but there are some of us for whom that is most definitely not the case.
England didn't even really have missions targeting the continent anyways...? Win the Hundred Years' War with France and that's pretty much it. Unless you play with mods, but that's not really the point at this junction.
As for the language question, there is not a specific date when everything changes magically from French being dominant to English being in the ascendancy. It was a gradual process which has started well before the EUIV time period under Edward III and was largely (though not completely) done by the end of the 15th century. However, It was not until the beginning of the 18th century that the final widespread use of French in e.g. the law courts was abolished. (reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Norman_language#:~:text=English became the language of,most of the English nobility.). But I do not think that anyone would claim that had Britain somehow conquered France up until that point then the English would just have become France or the country would just have become France. You yourself mention that by the time of the EUIV timeline the English Monarchs were no longer (albeit recently so) Francophone. Furthermore, if England would just have become France and France was so much more prestigious then why did Henry VI and the noblemen who ruled on his behalf in his minority not do so from France rather than staying in England? I am not saying that what you suggest could never have happened, just that it is far from a forgone conclusion. Nor should it be for the player.
You just did a major backtrack... and it's England in the context of the Hundred Years' War. Britain is arguably the consequence of being more focused on the affairs of Great Britain and Ireland than the continent. In the case of Henry VI and his nobles not ruling from France, that's mainly because it was only during the Hundred Years' War that the English reconquered Normandy and Aquitaine through the Angevine claims. Having your seat of power in contested territory is not productive, to say the least. Despite the fact that the mother tongue of Henry V and Henry VI being English, that does not mean that they weren't Francophone. They had their duties to fulfil as Dukes of Normandy and Aquitaine, and that required being Fraconphone.
Regarding British vs. French colonies you are right that the nature and growth of the colonies were different with the population of the British colonies being much larger. However, this is in part down to how these colonies were administered, and the role of religious minorities in settling these colonies. It is perfectly plausible that even if English king's had managed to take the French throne colonisation would still have followed the English/British model rather than the French.
Doubtful, given that there is more likelihood of those from England and Wales going to the continent and integrating into the Francophone populations than the historical necessity of leaving Britain for the New World that was lacking amongst the French. Hard to get people to leave when they can just go to the regions of the empire that have more room, such as Continental Europe.
Finally, I would make the point that this is a game that have and should allow the player to go beyond what countries managed historically, something which is also included in the mission trees of many other countries including France and Spain. The idea that England/GB should be precluded from having missions that allows it to go beyond what it achieved historically is frankly absurd in this context. Neither Spain nor France has to give up their culture or name to access those missions, so why should England/GB? If the concern is that having both the colonial missions and the new Angevin missions would be OP relative to other countries then just allow GB to retain its current missions regarding France. After securing France you could then give the player the option to 1) adopt new missions focusing on further expansion on the continent and abandon the colonial ideas, and 2) whether they want to change the name of the country and get new ideas or stay as GB. That way you would allow player to 1) play England/GB much in the way that we can now, 2) play England/GB with a focus on the continent, or 3) play as Angevin. This way you do not take away freedoms the player currently have, but give extra options to the player to play the country the way he or she wants to play it. The problem with the current plans is that if you want to play as England/GB you do not have the same options to go for the continent or do both as you currently do under the existing mission tree. So while both Spain and France gets more options, England/GB gets less.
Neither Spain nor France had ambitions to conquer another nation to outright become that nation. And their missions are pretty rooted in history, as their targets are plausible continuations from if their ambitions in Italy and the Holy Roman Empire are successful, with Spain having more focus on its colonial ambitions because it indeed was a prolific coloniser. I will emphasise it again: the missions are rooted in historical reasons. It's a reason why the GBR tag currently lacks England's Hundred Years' War missions, or have you failed to notice? Great Britain gets to target, like in history, Malta, Gibraltar and the Ionian Islands, just as it did historically during the period when it became a major player, and even then we see that the scale of historical England/Britain's continental ambitions were aimed at naval bases and being able to contain their worst enemies, whether it be Bourbon and Napoleonic France or providing a way to cut off the Mediterranean fleets of Spain from connecting to the Atlantic fleets. What would you like? To have all of Andalusia? Malta and Sicily? All of the Balkans and Thrace? England after the Hundred Years' War didn't have neither the resources nor reason to try to mount any sort of massive conquests of European powers, and strategic land grabs (all of which I have listed occurred during the Napoleonic Wars) were the extent of England's European empire-building.
 
  • 4
Reactions: