• 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 development diary about Europa Universalis. Now we are very close to the announcement of the new expansion that we aim to release in June... If Frö smiles upon us....

TAWRQLR.jpg


We have switched around what we will talk about in the development diaries for now, so today we’ll instead talk about Peace!

But first of all, lets talk about a feature that is something that some have requested..

Return Province!
Sometimes you have taken a province that is the core of a rival, or someone who do not want to buy the province, or even talk to you as you are so evil.. Not that we would ever be warmongering-alliance-breaking-world-conquerers..


Now you can just return the province to any state that has it as a core. You will lose some Agressive Expansion and prestige, but it will definitely reduce the chance of them attacking you in the short-term.


Peace Overhaul

This is obviously something that is in the accomanying patch.

First of all, we removed the treaty called annex.




..

.


Well, instead we are now able to target every province an enemy own, so taking all provinces is an annexation.

You will also always be able to demand the capital in a peace treaty, and you also do not need to occupy territory to demand it in peace, however unoccupied territory is more expensive to claim.

Revoking cores will no longer cost diplomatic power.

Diplomatic Power Cost, War Score Costs and Prestige gain for each province now scale with the province’s development, instead of being fixed costs.

Overextension and Agressive Expansion also looks at development instead of base tax.

And finally, you’ll be able to demand gold even while “annexing”.

Wumr9lM.jpg
 
Sounds good! Anyone who recognises the man on the picture? That is most likely an obvious hint for the name of the next expansion.
next expansion has been revealed and its named "Common Sense" after Thomas Paine's book . the man in the picture doesnt resemble Thomas Paine so idk who he is but its def not a hint towards the name
 
  • 2
Reactions:
next expansion has been revealed and its named "Common Sense" after Thomas Paine's book . the man in the picture doesnt resemble Thomas Paine so idk who he is but its def not a hint towards the name

He's Charles V. There's been a discussion about his merits going on for the past few pages.
 
Because the extension is far from being centered around England, and even less Great Britain (also not sure where you got Cromwell being related to GB, so that contributed to my confusion about your post)
Oh sorry about that, I have litterally no idea when england became known as GB.


Nope its Catherine the great of russia you are talking about
Oh I see my bad. Big woman in a white wig, can't tell them apart.

No. The only loading screen women are Isabella (Spain), Elizabeth (Great Britain) and Catherine the Great (Russia).
Yes as someone else said I must have mistaken Catherine the Great for her.


Is there the option of declaring a war to force release a colony?
Although the colony did not want

Force portugal release Brasil, Or convert Brasil To spanish colony by the force

It would be interesting
It would also be very ahistorical. No one in europe wanted the colonials to start thinking about those things. Or likely had even considered the possibility of a free colonal nation.


Charles, you had to wait, but finally you are recognized by this game.
The Emperor.

Probably on the top three of the most important european character of the game timeframe, probably also of the world in general.
Probably plenty of philosophers and scientists who have had a way greater impact at the direction of mankind than any king or emperor.


So Charles V will be the "frontman" of this DLC :) nice :)
I wish we had Spanish Netherlands more often :)
You might in this expansion since only the personal unions will go to austria when the burgundian inheritence fire.


We I'm not sure, also becouse Austria was managed by his brother Ferdinand. Charles rapresent "The Empire", the ambition of a "Res public christianorum", the apex and the fall of universalism (he fit perfectly to the name EU)

Is not about a country, he controlled various jurisdiction (like many characters during the age), the famous quote "I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men, and German to my horse." is a perfect example of his polycentrism. He was without a fixed court, and without a proper capital, was itinerant, even if used often Bruxelles, and was talking flemish, becouse he spent his young years in that lands. This is also why was considered a stranger in Spain with a revolt, but was also supported there after that, and had enemy in the Empire cause Lutheranism.

Charles was hated and loved in every area where he ruled more or less, Castille & Aragon, Italian kingdoms and duchies, flemish provinces, Holy Roman Empire etc... probably Charles V cannot be appoint to one country\nationality he was the last universal emperor or europe, only after him the empire was condemned to be only a private things of german princes.
Except he never said that. He suposedly according to fairly contemporary sources said that "the language of the Germans was military; that of the Spaniards pertained to love; that of the Italians was oratorical; that of the French was noble"


There is a mission you always have to get claims on both of those provinces.....
Maybe post AoW, pre AoW I'm fairly sure you didn't.
 
Last edited:
That's all that guy with 0 posts does. I haven't got behind the reasoning for his disagreements and couldn't spot any pattern, so I decided to just not pay any attention.

I wish they would get rid of the agree/disagree system. It was cool at first, but now it's just annoying. Few defend their disagrees and many try to kiss Paradox employees rears by agreeing with everything they say.
 
  • 4
  • 2
Reactions:
I wish they would get rid of the agree/disagree system. It was cool at first, but now it's just annoying. Few defend their disagrees and many try to kiss Paradox employees rears by agreeing with everything they say.

What bothers me is that there is no "like" or "dislike" besides agree/disagree/helpful. I felt kind of forced to click "agree" if I liked whatever I read in a post. Agree isn't necessarily a same thing as "like", at least in some circumstances.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Who cares if people disagree? If you post something and get 97 disagrees it means nobody likes your idea, not necessarily you personally.

What I really want addressed directly by the devs beyond speculation:

If I go to war with a major lucky nation's OPM ally, and I 100% that ally and wait 5 years, can I take land off the completely untouched ally including potentially their capital so long as the point cost is under 100%?

If my ally decides to just throw in the towel in a war, and my personal holdings are completely untouched, can they still negotiate away my completely and totally untouched holdings?
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Who cares if people disagree? If you post something and get 97 disagrees it means nobody likes your idea, not necessarily you personally.

The problem is, that the people just disagree... and don't explain why they disagree... That's not constructive...
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
But that's the whole point of the system. You don't have to make +1 or -1 posts if you don't have anything to say.

And that's bad! I don't see anything positive in it, if nobody expains what they disagree with and why.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
What bothers me is that there is no "like" or "dislike" besides agree/disagree/helpful. I felt kind of forced to click "agree" if I liked whatever I read in a post. Agree isn't necessarily a same thing as "like", at least in some circumstances.
Yeah, I tend to generally use 'helpful' in those cases since it carries no connotation of either opposites just that the post itself was interesting(tend to use that for dev posts for example). Still makes things like joke tricky to put in either though.
The problem is, that the people just disagree... and don't explain why they disagree... That's not constructive...
People that don't comment wouldn't have commented anyway. It is why while I take all agrees into account(you don't necessarily have anything to add and thus refrain from a useless post) I ignore disagrees that don't carry a comment. Well unless for flame baiting in that case it is obvious enough why so many people only click it.
 
And that's bad! I don't see anything positive in it, if nobody expains what they disagree with and why.

The positive is that I no longer have to wade through countless +1/-1 posts just to find someone with an actual comment. It does a lot to make threads more readable.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
The positive is that I no longer have to wade through countless +1/-1 posts just to find someone with an actual comment. It does a lot to make threads more readable.

Of course. But I still would prefer an explanation, why somebody disagree with a post of me. It's not only because of ideas... But also because of other ideas. I post something and people start to disagree. For exemple I wrote 'Paradox should take time to make the patch' and get disagreements... Something like this is just... strange.
 
Oh sorry about that, I have litterally no idea when england became known as GB.

Probably plenty of philosophers and scientists who have had a way greater impact at the direction of mankind than any king or emperor.


Except he never said that. He suposedly according to fairly contemporary sources said that "the language of the Germans was military; that of the Spaniards pertained to love; that of the Italians was oratorical; that of the French was noble"

We were talking about characters in the loading screen, so I was talking only about "rulers", but is true that without specification was not so clear.

Oh sorry about that, I have litterally no idea when england became known as GB.

Except he never said that. He suposedly according to fairly contemporary sources said that "the language of the Germans was military; that of the Spaniards pertained to love; that of the Italians was oratorical; that of the French was noble"

That quote was linked to Charles becouse fit with his universal rule, and fit also the version you are reporting. Was exactly the point of my post, Charles cannot be considered a character of a specific country. He was itinerant and not governing from a center that full embody the identity of Charles' rule, was King of Castille as was Holy Roman Emperor as was linked to Flanders
 
So, Common Sense after "these features should have been added a long time ago, it's just common sense"?
 
  • 1
Reactions: