Hello all.

Sadly we can't yet talk about the big feature of Common Sense, Subject Interaction.. As we are completely redoing the interface for it, so it has to wait until next week.

Instead, we'll talk about a major change to the Holy Roman Empire, and give you the new achievements for 1.12.

Imperial Authority and Reforms

Imperial Authority has had a significant rework in 1.12. The old system tended to advance or retreat authority in big lurches and was very open to exploits. It also did not take into account how well the Empire was doing overall, and there was little benefit for the Emperor to maintain a large number of member states.

This has been changed in 1.12, as many of the events that gave Imperial Authority have been replaced with ticking values. The monthly change to Imperial Authority is now displayed in the interface, and will depend on factors such as:
- Whether there is peace in the Empire
- Total number of member states
- The amount of HRE territory held by outside powers
- The amount of HRE territory held by heretics & heathens
- The number of electors and free cities

An Emperor who is doing a good job will see their Imperial Authority naturally grow without having to resort to methods such as annexing states when authority is at 0 only to release them again later, while an Emperor that allows outside powers and heretics to dominate the Empire will find themselves unable to pass reforms entirely.

As part of this change, we've also revised the old 'Imperial Integrity' modifier for having more than 25 princes. We felt this modifier was both too strong and too arbitrary, so it has been removed. Instead, the HRE reforms were buffed to provide more of an incentive for members to vote for reform.

Achievements

Baltic Crusader - As Teutonic Order or Livonian Order conquer all of the Russia Region and make it Catholic.
Neither Holy, Nor German - Get 7 free cities in the HRE that are not of German Culture, as Emperor
Colonial Management - Have 3 colonial governors directly appointed by you at the same time.
Voting Streak - Get through 11 Issues in a row in Parliament
An Industrial Revolution - As GBR, all in english region, with 25 development.

City of Cities - Create a City with 60 development.
One Family to Rule them All - Have your dynasty on 8 thrones at the same time.
This is My Faith - Become Protestant and get maximum amount of traits.
Bleed them dry - Have 10 different War Reparations being paid to you at the same time.
Subsidize my Love - Subsidize 3 different allies at least 50% of their monthly income without running a deficit.

Take that Habsburgs! - As Hungary, Conquer all of Austria.
The White Elephant - As Ayutthaya conquers all provinces in Indochina region
The Buddhists strike back - As Ceylon conquer all of India and convert it to Theravada.
Better than Napoleon - As France, conquer Vienna, Berlin & Moscow.
Big Blue Blob - As France, hold 100 european core provinces before 1500.

A Full House - Have 3 Vassals & 2 Marches at the Same time.
Black Jack - Maintain 21 different overseas Subjects with more than 5 provinces each, without anyone having more than 50% Liberty Desire - Trade Companies does not count.
A Decent Reserve - Gain at least 1M Manpower.
The Six Nations - Form a federation of at least 6 nations as the Iroqious.
The Bohemians - Conquer and core Dublin as Bohemia.

Komenoi Empire - Make Trebizond into an Empire.
Lucky Lucca - As Lucca, own Lucknow!
A Fine Goosestep - Form Prussia and get 125% Discipline.
Meissner Porcelain - As Saxony own all chinaware provinces.
All Your Trade are Belong to Us! - Have highest tradepower in Genoa, Venice, & English Channel, while gaining 300 income per month.

 

[TheDungen]

First of all, population certainly did show the potential of a nation back then and still does today. The actual strength of a nation is then judged by how effectively it can make use of its population and resources. France had both. The thing is that France (And Spain as well) suffered greatly thanks to wars, both as a state and as a region. Germany was not the one that suffered constant war through the period, no matter how devastating the 30YW was.



Complete fantasy. The Duchy of Burgundy (Which did not include HRE Burgundy, France-Comte) was an appanage of the French crown, while Flanders was a de jure vassal of the French. Other than that, there were no claims on the lands controlled by the Dukes of Burgundy and certainly not to the lands of the old Lotharingian crown or Middle Francia for that matter.



There were many other factors in play. It is impressive that the Habsburgs held France (and the Ottomans) on, yet it is also impressive that France could oppose the massive Habsburg Empire during its peak. Ever heard of the Italian wars? In spite of Spanish advancements (the Tercio), as well as the sheer power of the Habsburgs, the French would go on to keep the fight for decades and, through it, cause a Spanish bankruptcy sometime after the war.

That's a simplification, of course, but you get the hang of it. France was the major power of western Europe following Spain's downfall and its army was one of the best, which Elán is meant to reflect, IMO. If the Prussians get +20% morale and all those other modifiers, so should the French. Someone else suggested +Artillery CA, which would also work.

I'll not even mention how you were wrong about Napoleon, seeing as other people have done that arleady.

You forget facts too, the Swedes were backing up france against the "unholy alliance" as you call it. Truth is most of the european powers had loads of allies. And the major power in western europe? Despite losing all their american colonies to the brittish? Yeah really major there.

Sarcasm aside there is no one major power in western europe there are several and it's impossible to say which one was the strongest.

 

[TheDungen]

You will now have to stop France from blobbing and stop Austria from forming the HRE. Spain and GB need a buff too.

Actually those things should hopefully balance each other out.

 

[TheDungen]

What is untrue ? That France was strong enough to survive the Hasburg or that they contained French expansion for centuries ?

Not sure on which part of my post you disagreed. You post imply that France allied with the Ottois is stronger than the Hasburgs which mean it is even stronger than I suggested.

We are talking of Spain at its peak,half of Italy the whole lowland, Austria, Bohemia and a good chunk of Hungary.

That's more than half of western Europe. And the richest half !

And the Hasburg were allies with Persia too you know.

Yeah we get it you have a thing for france during this period and can't stand that reality is nuanced. Let's agree to disagree. Regardles sof how you want to sell it the point remains tat the game is less fun with the player having to babysit france (as well as other blobs like russia) at all times.

 

[IsadorBG]

You forget facts too, the Swedes were backing up france against the "unholy alliance" as you call it. Truth is most of the european powers had loads of allies. And the major power in western europe? Despite losing all their american colonies to the brittish? Yeah really major there.

When Sweden did that ? the 30 years war ?

It's actually France that came to the rescue of Sweden or it would have been kicked out of Germany earlier than in real history.

Yeah we get it you have a thing for france during this period and can't stand that reality is nuanced. Let's agree to disagree. Regardles sof how you want to sell it the point remains tat the game is less fun with the player having to babysit france (as well as other blobs like russia) at all times.

It's rather you that have a problem with France. You don't like the BBB in game ? Fair enough.

But France was a major military power (and never declined) through the whole game time span and there's not a lot of country in the game that can match that.

Maybe Russia and that's about it.

 

[Angelos]

The Komnenoi Empire seems very interesting... I also liked the Big Blue Blob. Though i Can'[ t imagine the over expansion!

 

[Duke of Britain]

You forget facts too, the Swedes were backing up france against the "unholy alliance" as you call it. Truth is most of the european powers had loads of allies. And the major power in western europe? Despite losing all their american colonies to the brittish? Yeah really major there.

wat.

The Swedes had nothing to do with the Italian wars, which I mentioned. Rather, it is the Italians, Ottomans and English who, at times, would have supported France or the Habsburgs. The Swedes never got involved in the Italian wars. So no, I did not forget any "fact" which you mention in your post, although I did not mention the fact that the Italians shifted sides during the wars or the other belligerents, given that the war was chieftly (But far from exclusively) between the Spanish Habsburgs and the French.

And no, I did not call it an "unholy alliance", seeing as that would be an extremely wrong usage of the term to refer to the Habsburgs. The Habsburg alliance was completely natural, while an unholy alliance would have been that between France and the Ottomans.

Yes, major power in western Europe. The only reason it did not possess many colonies or a powerful navy because France's focus was in the army: It simply required a powerful army to fight the Habsburgs. In fact, when I mention that it did not have a powerful navy, I am speaking of the sailors, seeing as French ships were very good.

The French had a minimal amount of colonies in the Americas, the most important of which were by far the Caribbean islands, which were extremely wealthy and cheap to maintain nearing the end of the timeframe. By the time the French and British came to the Americas, the most profitable ones (Mexico, Caribbean, Peru, Brazil...) were already under control of the Portuguese or Spanish, although the French and Dutch did at some point have settlements in Brazil. The Caribbean did become disputed, but that just proves how wealthy and desired (Far more than Quebec, such as when France preferred to gain a Caribbean island rather than Quebec) those islands were.

A far more noticeable loss would have been that of the Indian colonies, but then again: Things could easily have gone against the British in India.

You really should stop trying to claim your opinion is a historical fact, seeing that you have proven time and time again that you do not know what you are talking about. Of course, I am not a historian either, but some of the stuff you have claimed about France (And back then about Denmark in some other thread) made and still makes no sense.

 

[chrnno]

What is untrue ? That France was strong enough to survive the Hasburg or that they contained French expansion for centuries ?

Not on which part of my post you disagreed. You post imply that France allied with the Ottois is stronger than the Hasburgs which mean it is even stronger than I suggested.

The first. It was not strength alone that allowed France to do that, when it tried to do it that way it failed. It was diplomacy with other powers in the continent and with the members of the Habsburg sphere of influence. The greatest example of that(and it's absolute success) is the TYW and Franco-Spanish War of 1635-59.

And as for strength it depends on how you measure it. Both France and Ottomans were single unified(at least in comparison) countries while the Habsburg block had most of the strength in it's sphere of influence. The fact the Habsburg managed for so long to keep all conflicting interests aligned with them is feat worth of note. And that France and Ottomans reached across cultural barriers for common interests and instead of trying to match strength they undermined the Habsburg's.

TL;DR: Strength is at best one of dozen factors and that is if you ignore that most of it comes from building it up.

 

[Attelwyn]

With the new Imperial Authority will there be changes to the +IA gain national ideas too?
10% more gain out of 0.23 doesn't sound all that useful.

 

[IsadorBG]

The first. It was not strength alone that allowed France to do that, when it tried to do it that way it failed. It was diplomacy with other powers in the continent and with the members of the Habsburg sphere of influence. The greatest example of that(and it's absolute success) is the TYW and Franco-Spanish War of 1635-59.

And as for strength it depends on how you measure it. Both France and Ottomans were single unified(at least in comparison) countries while the Habsburg block had most of the strength in it's sphere of influence. The fact the Habsburg managed for so long to keep all conflicting interests aligned with them is feat worth of note. And that France and Ottomans reached across cultural barriers for common interests and instead of trying to match strength they undermined the Habsburg's.

TL;DR: Strength is at best one of dozen factors and that is if you ignore that most of it comes from building it up.

Ah yes maybe it's my fault but when I said strong enough to survive .I meant that well France as a state survived the Hasburg not that it was as strong as them (or even near that strengh),

I don't disagree with you thus my initial confusion.

 

[Falestine]

The whole thing with EU4 is broken, its a awesome game. Still the concept doesent work, not in MP and not in SP. In SP you steamroll all ai with whatever nation you pick. And in MP everyone hugboxes and watches paint dry. You need to do something that changes the way this game is played.

 

[chrnno]

Ah yes maybe it's my fault but when I said strong enough to survive .I meant that well France as a state survived the Hasburg not that it was as strong as them (or even near that strengh),

I don't disagree with you thus my initial confusion.

Oh... Was reading through posts as usual there are always people saying things like that and I picked the wrong one to contest so sorry partly my fault too. And well at least this is settled.

Really, really wish the game reflected limited wars and alliances of convenience of this period better.

 

[Plastic_Duke]

First of all, population certainly did show the potential of a nation back then and still does today. The actual strength of a nation is then judged by how effectively it can make use of its population and resources. France had both.

Potential. I think you did well by putting the emphasis on this very word. Considering her vast population and fertile territory, France surely had by far the greatest potential of any european nation at the time. And she is indeed commonly considered as the most powerful/influencial european nation following the thirty years war and the decline of Spain. This is the opinion of most historians on the matter. However I must say that considering her potential, and until the revolution and the rise of Napoleon (who is definitely somekind of an early french Hitler), France's accomplishements in the matters of warfare and politics are, at least in my (french) opinion, only mildly impressive.

But then again, before Napoleon changed all that, war in Europe was almost never about great conquests and total subjugation of entire foreign nations and people. It was much more about setting old claims and disputes between monarchs, and rarely about destroying your ennemies. I believe there was a strong inclination toward the keeping of the global status quo. Most european "empires" at the time were built stone by stone, mostly via marital unions and inheritance. In the end, even France's biggest territorial gains were made through diplomatic means. And this where EUIV still completely fails in terms of historicity. It's almost exclusively a map painter, where the most effective way to "win the game" is by aggressively expanding your borders again and again, on a scale of time and space that does not reflect at all the political mood of the era, at least in - most of - Europe.

So I say that it is only natural for the BBB to thrive and expand continuously if you give it the same potential it had historically and put it in a completely ahistorical setup where military conquest of vast territories is the norm rather than the exception. And so I say it is not France that needs to be nerfed - if one really wants to see some more historical behaviors in the game, it is the "all about expansion" tendency of the game that needs to be "nerfed". And it seems to me that is exactly what is being adressed in this expansion with the implementation of development.

 

[IsadorBG]

Potential. I think you did well by putting the emphasis on this very word. Considering her vast population and fertile territory, France surely had by far the greatest potential of any european nation at the time. And she is indeed commonly considered as the most powerful/influencial european nation following the thirty years war and the decline of Spain. This is the opinion of most historians on the matter. However I must say that considering her potential, and until the revolution and the rise of Napoleon (who is definitely somekind of an early french Hitler), France's accomplishements in the matters of warfare and politics are, at least in my (french) opinion, only mildly impressive.

But then again, before Napoleon changed all that, war in Europe was almost never about great conquests and total subjugation of entire foreign nations and people. It was much more about setting old claims and disputes between monarchs, and rarely about destroying your ennemies. I believe there was a strong inclination toward the keeping of the global status quo. Most european "empires" at the time were built stone by stone, mostly via marital unions and inheritance. In the end, even France's biggest territorial gains were made through diplomatic means. And this where EUIV still completely fails in terms of historicity. It's almost exclusively a map painter, where the most effective way to "win the game" is by aggressively expanding your borders again and again, on a scale of time and space that does not reflect at all the political mood of the era, at least in - most of - Europe.

So I say that it is only natural for the BBB to thrive and expand continuously if you give it the same potential it had historically and put it in a completely ahistorical setup where military conquest of vast territories is the norm rather than the exception. And so I say it is not France that needs to be nerfed - if one really wants to see some more historical behaviors in the game, it is the "all about expansion" tendency of the game that needs to be "nerfed". And it seems to me that is exactly what is being adressed in this expansion with the implementation of development.

I would have agreed to this post but you ruined it by comparing Napoleon to Hitler. How could you ?

 

[Duke of Britain]

Potential. I think you did well by putting the emphasis on this very word. Considering her vast population and fertile territory, France surely had by far the greatest potential of any european nation at the time. And she is indeed commonly considered as the most powerful/influencial european nation following the thirty years war and the decline of Spain. This is the opinion of most historians on the matter. However I must say that considering her potential, and until the revolution and the rise of Napoleon (who is definitely somekind of an early french Hitler), France's accomplishements in the matters of warfare and politics are, at least in my (french) opinion, only mildly impressive.

But then again, before Napoleon changed all that, war in Europe was almost never about great conquests and total subjugation of entire foreign nations and people. It was much more about setting old claims and disputes between monarchs, and rarely about destroying your ennemies. I believe there was a strong inclination toward the keeping of the global status quo. Most european "empires" at the time were built stone by stone, mostly via marital unions and inheritance. In the end, even France's biggest territorial gains were made through diplomatic means. And this where EUIV still completely fails in terms of historicity. It's almost exclusively a map painter, where the most effective way to "win the game" is by aggressively expanding your borders again and again, on a scale of time and space that does not reflect at all the political mood of the era, at least in - most of - Europe.

So I say that it is only natural for the BBB to thrive and expand continuously if you give it the same potential it had historically and put it in a completely ahistorical setup where military conquest of vast territories is the norm rather than the exception. And so I say it is not France that needs to be nerfed - if one really wants to see some more historical behaviors in the game, it is the "all about expansion" tendency of the game that needs to be "nerfed". And it seems to me that is exactly what is being adressed in this expansion with the implementation of development.

Indeed, very valid points and I agree with them.

 

[Xxhel]

The Buddhists strike back - As Ceylon conquer all of India and convert it to Theravada.

Hey! There's one of the achievements I suggested

 

[Plastic_Duke]

I would have agreed to this post but you ruined it by comparing Napoleon to Hitler. How could you ?

Narcissistic military campaigns and conquests aside ? I find a lot of similarities in the ways Napoleon and Hitler rose to power. They both benefited from a deeply confused and inexperienced democratic setup, that they both completely "hijacked" to serve their own imperialistic ambitions - which they both didn't survive. Also, I believe french and german people of those times shared a great deal of frustration as well as profound nationalistic sentiments that permited them to give their - almost - full support to those er... hum, tyrants. However (in)glorious they might seem to some. Although the ideological "excuses" they used for their imperialistic "adventures" were very different - on that I agree. Aaannnd the Napoleonic wars certainly killed a lot less people than WWII, of course.

Beyond that, I think we can say that Napoleon was the one who really opened the way to the era of Nationalism, and Hitler was the one who almost "closed" it. At least - again - in western Europe.

 

[joe9594]

Not related to the current flame war (thank god) I have a thought about the changes to the HRE and wanted to know what other people thought. In my opinion the HRE should be of the maximum benefit to its members at the start of the game and then become less useful/more restrictive as time goes on. At the moment the usefulness of the HRE is entirely reliant on the a historical passing of reforms. So it is actually designed to get stronger with time. This is really really stupid.
The HRE should start off very useful then as time passes and either the holy roman empire loses relevance and its number of members decreases and so do the benefits it provides or less likely it becomes more centralized and its starts to impose chafing regulation on its member states and it becomes less useful.
At the moment the entire system is predicated on the idea that the HRE will slowly become more and more centralized until it is eventually unified, there is really only 1 way for things to go. The game sets the most common outcome (which should be something at least vaguely historical) as HRE unification and the next expansion will just encourage that as everyone supports reform to get more out of the empire.

 

[KungDenzel]

Ah yes as I suspected my next two achievement runs will be England and Teutonic Order , cant wait

 

[wingzero890]

But then again, before Napoleon changed all that, war in Europe was almost never about great conquests and total subjugation of entire foreign nations and people. It was much more about setting old claims and disputes between monarchs, and rarely about destroying your enemies.

I honestly think this is the big problem with EU4, and am convinced that 1444-1700 is better represented by Crusader Kings, while 1700 onwards should be part of Victoria 2. The only problem is that Crusader Kings has no mechanic that represents colonies.

 

[Sir Iain]

Not related to the current flame war (thank god) I have a thought about the changes to the HRE and wanted to know what other people thought. In my opinion the HRE should be of the maximum benefit to its members at the start of the game and then become less useful/more restrictive as time goes on. At the moment the usefulness of the HRE is entirely reliant on the a historical passing of reforms. So it is actually designed to get stronger with time. This is really really stupid.
The HRE should start off very useful then as time passes and either the holy roman empire loses relevance and its number of members decreases and so do the benefits it provides or less likely it becomes more centralized and its starts to impose chafing regulation on its member states and it becomes less useful.
At the moment the entire system is predicated on the idea that the HRE will slowly become more and more centralized until it is eventually unified, there is really only 1 way for things to go. The game sets the most common outcome (which should be something at least vaguely historical) as HRE unification and the next expansion will just encourage that as everyone supports reform to get more out of the empire.

Disagree. In 1444, the Empire was rather weak, and plagued by feuds between lords and sometimes cities. Often, those feuds were local but one party had the backing of the Emperor. After the Reichsreforms 1500-1555ish were feuds were prohibited and the Imperial Chamber Court was set up, the Empire started functioning in it's early modern form. That is that the Emperor and the Reichstag shared power, while this structure enabled lords to start running their lands as small states. Only after 1740 did the Empire start to lose relevance to the larger states (Prussia, Saxony, Bavaria, Hannover) while the Empire still protected smaller states against weaker neighbors.

The current setup does indeed lead to centralization of power by the Emperor, which didn't happen. Nor were the reforms that did pass in any way meant to strengthen the Emperor. The idea that the emperor should get more useful after a few reforms does fit however.

What would be most realistic is a dubble path: an easier one that leads to a decentralized Empire with bonuses and one that leads to the Emperor taking over but that would generate more conflict and less bonusses. (For example, the princes could stop supporting the Emperor with troops (manpower) when his power becomes to great.)