• 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
There is a papacy influence penalty to overextension.

Yes but if Spain takes provinces in North Africa they will be considered overseas.

When you are a OPM, adding another city in your size, your total base tax will be doubled, a 100% change, there is really some extension here. When you are an empire with -say- a base tax total of 300 adding a province with a base tax of 5 amounts to a change of 1.5% and say in 5 years you've added another city another change of 1.5%, with the system coming, it will now amount to %10. It is not about handling the province incorporation, it is about the overall effect of it in the Empire, local effects aside.

It is about incorporating it. And just because France already has 100 provinces won't make integrating yet another one easier.
 
Is Subsidy still in as diplomatic option? Historically, Great Britain has very small army of all major European powers (according to a source, only 220,000 men under arms at peak compared to France's 2.5 million), though it does have powerful and large navy (probably consequence of her relatively small population, obsession with navy as its first line of defense, consequence of their distrust of standing army after the Glorious Revolution, and their relatively low tax burden compared to other Great Powers in Europe). Thus, Britain typically avoided major continental commitments for most of the times (Battle of Waterloo being a major exception) and instead pay out subsidies (colloquially called Golden Cavalry of St George) to major European powers on their side to fight, while focusing on naval warfare/blockade and seizing enemy overseas colonies.

Napoleonic Wars and Seven Years' War are prominent examples of this. Those actions serves Britain pretty well and extremely profitably. First of all, it allows her to focusing on her overseas empire considerably without committing so much to continental warfare and, second of all, disrupts her enemy's overseas trade and colonies. France, Netherlands and Spain lost some of their major colonial holdings to Britain because of this.

It's a very profitable strategy but it can't happen unless you can subsidize your continental allies to keep enemies occupied in Europe in EU4. The real question is, are AI nations capable of taking advantage of subsidies paid to them to substantially expand their armies during the war? It would be useless if AI doesn't know how to utilize the subsidies paid out to them.

Another question is, though unrelated to diplomacy, whether naval victories will earn more prestige for Britain than other less naval focused powers? If I'm not mistaken, navy seem to have far higher prestige among British populace than army does (a stark opposite from most of her European peers).
 
I reread the trade DD and my understanding is that there is no longer any merchant competition, only levels of power at nodes. So can someone explain what this means:
foreign_merchant_compete_chance = -4.0
 
It is about incorporating it. And just because France already has 100 provinces won't make integrating yet another one easier.

i have to disagree on this line. while it doesnt make it easier locally, it makes VERY little sense that the ENTIRE nation gets hurt by it. i get that locally, and on borders, it can be hard to intergate. it makes little sense to give berry lower tax for taking zeeland though. ESPECIALLY if youre preparing for taking those lands, and you regulary take provinces. by then, the bureaucracy knows the drill. send administrators there, placate influential people here. maybe send a horde of patriottic frenchmen in to give some counterweight if its a low population. it also DOES make sense that a larger nation has it easier than a small nation. if you conquer a province as a huge force wthat can spare a few thousand large garrisson with a bureaucratic might of a million that can jsut send of a part without compromising its other affairs and can spend a part of its budget to ease it its simply easier than a 30000 HRE province conquering another equal one, and now suddenly needs to keep a hostile population under control, has a bureacracy that suddenly needs to do double the work while also doing it in a hostile enviorment,which also makes it more of a strain on the budget.

point is, while it doesnt make it easy, it DOES make it easier. therefor im for strong local effects, a % of home base tax instead of flat number and no effects for the taxing of berry just because you conquered zeeland as france.

what also would make it ebtetr if we could"mark" our aimed borders like france did(natural borders!) within reason and make provinces int hat region easier to intergrate(maybe allow us to core border provinces/captured provinces before we actually get them in a peace deal) when you conquer them
 
War leaders can only change in the first 2 months of war??!?!?!?!? WOOH! no more Great britain dictating everything over its allies in war.
 
I reread the trade DD and my understanding is that there is no longer any merchant competition, only levels of power at nodes. So can someone explain what this means:
foreign_merchant_compete_chance = -4.0

You have a number of merchants that works just like diplomatic envoys, i.e. you place them in a node with a specific mission. They can then be moved around to where you want your trade focus.
 
nevermind

dev said moving capital will not help with coring
 
Last edited:
You have a number of merchants that works just like diplomatic envoys, i.e. you place them in a node with a specific mission. They can then be moved around to where you want your trade focus.

Thank you for the response. So does that mean if Venice has 10% overextension (.1 x -4.0 = -0.4) in this example, the control percentage drops from 26.0% to 25.6%?

"Venice has only one province in the Alexandria trade node (Crete) which provides +2.1 trade power, the 3 barques gives us +9.0, the powerful trade node in Gulf of Venice gives us +18.9, and our present merchant gives another +2, letting us control 26% of the trade in Alexandria, which is directed straight to our own trade node."
 
we reuse some old variables.. its basically "power in foreign nodes"

and 4.0 is 400%

Thanks for the clarification.
So I think in that example, there would be no penalty due to Venice owning Crete. But if they lost Crete in addition to the 10% overextension, they would lose the 2.1 power for the land, lose the 9 for the ships (unless they got trade rights from Egypt or someone else), and lose 0.8 from the merchant penalty, dropping them from 32 power to 20.1 (or from 26% to approx 19% trade).
 
Coalitions will have except of defensive, offensive character as well?

E.g. If Austria attacks France then I will gladly help my northern friends as Spain, but if France wants to expand, I have to go in a war with Austria?
 
I'm not sure 'overseas' is the right away to go here in determine what provinces are 'good' and which are 'bad', overextension wise.

If it works like EU3, that'll be a major advantage for some nations (ie, England), whereas others whose colonial empires are likely to be territorially continuous (ie, an Ottoman Emipire that seizes Ethiopia and colonizes East Africa), will be penalized. It seems like an odd mechanic.

I also have reservations about punishing great powers for integrating two extra provinces the same way small ones are. This is, once again, probably taking "Lets kill the snowballs" too far. Despite these reservations, I'll give it a try, but I'm not sold it'll be more fun.