• 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
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.
}

Right, but my point here is to emphasize that EU4 seems to emphasize "Hey, let's build an overseas empire" as easier than "Hey, let's annex Germany" as long as you can take full advantage of overseas territories.

Not unlike EU3 where there's far less point in an overseas empire if you don't emphasize certain ideas and policies.
 
Right, but my point here is to emphasize that EU4 seems to emphasize "Hey, let's build an overseas empire" as easier than "Hey, let's annex Germany" as long as you can take full advantage of overseas territories.

Not unlike EU3 where there's far less point in an overseas empire if you don't emphasize certain ideas and policies.

Exactly. Conquering 20 provinces in the New World should have less consequences than doing the same in Europe.
 
It is done by percent. So for 1% overextension you get 1% of 20 global_revolt_risk. That would be 0.2%. :) At least that is how I understood it.

Even then, all too easy to see being 50 points (taxes) overextended, as it takes 3 years and probly costs more than a few years adminpoints.. :( even at 1 admin per percentage of extension ie taxpoint, its still pretty high.

and with the gh the number of provinces you end up with in just a few years is very high... it was tough enough holding all together just with nationalism & wrong culture & religion. All forces were busy 24/7 popping rebels.. any military action between 1450 and 1550 was completely out of the question in eu3!

Now it looks like folding and choosing defeat until 1700+ will be the right choise..


Or maybe play some entirely different nation
 
Even then, all too easy to see being 50 points (taxes) overextended, as it takes 3 years and probly costs more than a few years adminpoints.. :( even at 1 admin per percentage of extension ie taxpoint, its still pretty high.

and with the gh the number of provinces you end up with in just a few years is very high... it was tough enough holding all together just with nationalism & wrong culture & religion. All forces were busy 24/7 popping rebels.. any military action between 1450 and 1550 was completely out of the question in eu3!

Now it looks like folding and choosing defeat until 1700+ will be the right choise..


Or maybe play some entirely different nation
You're not meant to take all of the GH in one go, though. And if you did you would be massively overextended as a nation, so revolts on a massive scale is natural. I do not really see the problem. Not to mention the GH provinces are quite poor in some areas at least.
 
So an Ottoman Empire growing into Europe gets penalties for this? Meh.. Maybe the overseas thing should be reworked and other criteria should be made.

If I hold some Catholic provinces and my catholic people are happy under my rule then conquering other Catholic provinces shouldn't cause much of a problem. But when the Catholic minority is seriously unhappy conquering another Catholic province should of course be penalized. Just an example on how I think this overextension thing should work...
 
Why shouldn't you be penalized with overextension as the Ottoman Empire?

Because the Ottoman economy was mainly based on expansion. In peace times their army revolted as they got less money. There were leaders that sent the Janissaries to campaignt just because they couldn't pay them.

Besides, the OE was just an example. I don't think that expansion should be penalized in the way it is proposed here. Some nations will be hit harder than others by this rule, for example colonising powers get new provinces without a penalty when pure land force nations get penalized.. I don't think this is a good solution.
 
Because the Ottoman economy was mainly based on expansion. In peace times their army revolted as they got less money. There were leaders that sent the Janissaries to campaignt just because they couldn't pay them.

Besides, the OE was just an example. I don't think that expansion should be penalized in the way it is proposed here. Some nations will be hit harder than others by this rule, for example colonising powers get new provinces without a penalty when pure land force nations get penalized.. I don't think this is a good solution.
So you take expansion ideas. The Ottomans did suffer on administrative level because of their expansion, even if they based themselves on that. Just because a nation was able to withstand the effects of a larger empire and rapid expansion, then it does not mean it did not have problems with it.

Expansion needs to be halted somehow and I think this is a good solution - not perfect of course, but good enough.
 
@overextension and overseas provinces:

Doesn't this create the following odd situation: Let's say I'm the Ottomans and I conquer Egypt, but another country still holds the Levant. Because Egypt is on a separate continent, and non-contiguous with my empire, it produces less over-extension. Suddenly I conquer the Levant to link up my empire, and just by taking 2 or 3 provinces, my overextension will leap up the equivalent of 20 provinces!

Likewise, isn't the over-extension rules a bit harsh on a country like Russia, which conquers the Steppe, compared to a country like England that conquers India? In this situation India is overseas, but Kazakhstan is not, even though functionally both territories had a similar relationship to their conquerors. It could also be overly generous, as Russia will be able to get full Taxes and manpower from it's colonies, while England will get less from the New World.
 
That's what I said.. This rule will affect some countries worse than others. Like Don_Quigleone said there will be countries that suffer to an extend where playing historical won't be possible I fear.
 
That's what I said.. This rule will affect some countries worse than others. Like Don_Quigleone said there will be countries that suffer to an extend where playing historical won't be possible I fear.

Unless some countries that historically did lots of conquering have events, ideas, or decisions to give them a hand (which would irritate some other people, but you can't win them all). We just despite all of the information we already have don't know enough about the complete system and how everything works together. And of course Paradox is still tuning.

It is also sounding like you should always grab overseas provinces if you have the chance, they'll always benefit you.
Only if you can afford to have the naval power (and perhaps ideas) to support them.
 
Are you sure? I am not too sure but would assume that as long as they count as overseas the navy requirement to get the tariffs would still be present (http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...loper-diary-4-Your-Economy-is-about-to-change).

I suppose you wouldn't do it if you didn't have any navy at all, but since you can get a lot of trade power from having it, I'd say most people are going to build a navy if they can, and that would let them get at least some overseas territory.

You are correct, provinces in North Africa that Spain takes will be overseas and thus demand a fleet for tariffs.
*sighs* I was really hoping lands in the Mediterranean wouldn't be overseas for nations on the Mediterranean. It doesn't make any sense for that to be distant overseas, but England isn't. Plus the Western Roman Empire then doesn't make sense.
 
*sighs* I was really hoping lands in the Mediterranean wouldn't be overseas for nations on the Mediterranean. It doesn't make any sense for that to be distant overseas, but England isn't. Plus the Western Roman Empire then doesn't make sense.
For large chunks of the Empire's history, the Med was a Roman lake.
 
You are correct, provinces in North Africa that Spain takes will be overseas and thus demand a fleet for tariffs.

So, this is by pre-defined regions then? That would mean an Ottoman Empire with her capital in Constantinople wouldn't face penalties for their Anatolian and Middle Eastern holdings, despite the Empire's contiguity?
 
It is about incorporating it. And just because France already has 100 provinces won't make integrating yet another one easier.

My question about the notion of integration/incorporation still stands.

I really don't understand why would an OPM and a 100 province behemoth feel the same consequences with regard to integration of one province.

I am not competent with reading the modifiers, so I will follow the example of Wallain with regard to revolt risk for the case for stability cost. Hopefully somebody will correct me if I am wrong. So, if a province with base tax of 6 is taken, it will increase over extension by 6% then, in turn, the increase in stability cost will be 1.2% . For a country with 100 units of stability cost it will turn out to be 1,2 units and for a country with 10 units of stability cost, it is 0.12 units. It is the same province for both. Does it really make sense? [edit: I think I messed up with the percentages, but the 10-fold relation still holds]

I don't think the overall system is historically viable. For a two province minor, one province is half of it, for a large country it is a "poker chip" . "Snowballing" should, surely, to a certain extent be hindered, but the mechanics should make someone say "Yes, this must be the reason".
 
Last edited: