• 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
Okay, on release the race is on for the Ironman mode WC.

Go fourth my Ryukyun horde.

Amusingly, with the apparently enormous focus on whether provinces are overseas or not in this system, Ryuku may now be in a substantially advantageous position :p I assume better-sized island nations, like GB and Japan, will be favorites of would-be world conquerors.
 
I doubt overextension can stay like this. How Austria/Russia/Ottomans are supposed to expand with such penalties. Russia/Muscovy never makes it to the Pacific already, and even Ottoman rule in Hungary lasted 150 years, is this not supposed to be 'core' territory? It appears having overseas empires or core-inheriting within the HRE will be even more annoying gimmicks that will make playing peripheral countries even more unfun.

And it doesn't make historical sense either. Portugal declined exactly because of overextension for grabbing a bunch of tropical sh*t all over the world. Austria was blobbing continuously all while being in cahoots with the pope. So yeah erm :S
 
Last edited:
I doubt overextension can stay like this. How Austria/Russia/Ottomans are supposed to expand with such penalties. Russia/Muscovy never makes it to the Pacific already, and even Ottoman rule in Hungary lasted 150 years, is this not supposed to be 'core' territory? It appears having overseas empires or core-inheriting within the HRE will be even more annoying gimmicks that will make playing peripheral countries even more unfun.

And it doesn't make historical sense either. Portugal declined exactly because of overextension for grabbing a bunch of tropical sh*t all over the world. Austria was blobbing continuously all while being in cahoots with the pope. So yeah erm :S

ya i am a big cautious about it... i hope russia is able to expand as fast as it did historically... but this overextension might be a problem
 
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.
 
SO, i wonder, when poland DD will be given to us. I hope it will be historical, and start in succesion crisis. Anyway it should start electoral monarchy from the start, as starting from Jagiełło, all Kings were ELECTED, even thou until later, they were members of Jagiellon dynasty. But there were several possibilities of non Jagiellons, being elected to the throne of poland(like in 1444, prince of mazovia was one of pretenders).
 
Amusingly, with the apparently enormous focus on whether provinces are overseas or not in this system, Ryuku may now be in a substantially advantageous position :p I assume better-sized island nations, like GB and Japan, will be favorites of would-be world conquerors.

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.
 
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.

Yeah, I think this is how it will be. Each province will probably be part of a "grouping", so my guess is GB will be part of the "old Europe" grouping.

To the people talking about Russia and the Ottomans, maybe they will be in a different grouping and Europe will be "overseas" to them.
 
What does overextension represent? Diplomatic damage, or strain on the bureaucracy, or both?

Currently, the overextension affects 6 things:
1.foreign merchant compete chance (diplomatic);
2.stability cost modifier (bureaucracy);
3.papal influence (diplomatic);
4.mercenary cost (diplomatic);
5.diplomatic reputation (diplomatic);
6.global revolt risk (bureaucracy).

Note that it makes sense for a large nation to suffer the same amount of diplomatic damage for having equivalent non-cores to a small nation, 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.

IMHO, the word "overextension" should be dedicated to represent the situation when the size of bureaucracy is insufficient to cope with the size of the nation. We already have a EU3 term dedicated to the diplomatic damage caused by expanding too fast, and it is called "infamy".

My suggestion is to add a parameter called "bureaucratic capacity", which is the maximum size of a nation that its bureaucracy can deal with. Growing over this limit would result in "overextension", with penalties in stability cost and revolt risk. It is just like growing over the land force limit. "Bureaucratic capacity" could be increased slowly by investing admin points, and the ruler's admin could have a large impact on "bureaucratic capacity".

For those diplomatic penalties, I would suggest restoring the term "infamy", while dropping its many relics carried by the EU3 sense and working along with the new regional effects of EU4. Breaking the infamy should not cripple a country internally, but instead automatically causes the threatened and the rivals to form a coalition against it. As long as one can defeat all its enemies, the country should not be crippled by those freak sentiments from the within purely because of the country being threatening to the others. For example, the Greeks would not want to break free from the Ottomans purely because Hungary just fell under Ottoman control. Those indirect administrative strain should be represented by the deficiency of "bureaucratic capacity".
 
Some comments about countries like Russia and Ottoman empires suffering a penalty for having their provinces all connected to the capital, thus suffering more overextension. Even assuming "oversea" works exactly like EU3, one have to remember there is advantages attached to the province not being overseas. I frankly don't know which they are (I barely played EU3), but considering people talk about moving the capital to the new world in EU3, I assume having them to count as not overseas is advantageous. Therefore, a huge all connected empire may be harder to maintain at first, but gives larger rewards than a oversea empire. Furthermore, I presume there will be national ideas focused on expansion, so a country dedicated to conquest won't suffer as much from the oversea penalties.
 
Yes but if Spain takes provinces in North Africa they will be considered overseas.

Okay, I gotcha. In fact, correct me if I'm wrong, but this means that overseas expansion (colonialism in the New World, Africa, and Asia) will be more attractive because I get worse penalties from annexing Navarra than I do from annexing Mysore.
 
Okay, I gotcha. In fact, correct me if I'm wrong, but this means that overseas expansion (colonialism in the New World, Africa, and Asia) will be more attractive because I get worse penalties from annexing Navarra than I do from annexing Mysore.

Well, at least in EU3, overseas provinces were far less useful than normal provinces.

Code:
overseas = {
	local_tax_modifier = -0.90		#90% penalty if overseas.
	local_missionary_cost = 0.75		#75% more expensive overseas.
	local_spy_defence = -0.05		#5% penalty on defending in overseas.
	regiment_recruit_speed = 0.5		#50% longer time to build troops
	ship_recruit_speed = 1.0		#100% longer time to build troops
	garrison_growth = -0.05			#5% penalty on garrison growth
	local_manpower_modifier = -0.5		#50% penalty on manpower.
}
 
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.