• 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.

EU4 Development Diary - 25th February 2016

Hello and Welcome to another development diary for Europa Universalis IV. Today we’ll talk about features that will be part of the next patch, and will enhance the historical feeling of the game.

The first of these major paradigm shifting concepts is what we refer to as States and Territories. A large part of the game has been related to what you can do with a province depending on if it is overseas or not. With the overseas concept, there have been very many limitations that have reduced immersion.

What we have now, is that every region you own and control is represented as a Territory. Provinces in a Territory, unless the Territory is upgraded to a State, is considered overseas for almost all previous rules when it comes to things like coring, autonomy, trade companies etc. So why would you not just make everything into a state then you ask?

Well.. First of all, each state that is not your capital has a maintenance cost in gold, which is dependent on its development, the distance to the capital and if it is on another continent or not.

Secondly, there is a limit on how many states your empire can control. Everyone can have at least 1 state in their realm, with a Kingdom being able to add 1 more state, and an Empire 2 more states. All non-tribal states can also add another state, and the Celestial Empire can have 2. Administrative technologies can add up to 7 more states to your realm, and if you get the administrative ideagroup fully filled out, you get another state as well.

You can at any time abandon a state to become a territory, but then it’s autonomy will grow to 75% immediately, while it takes time for it to decay down after making a territory to a state.

Your capitals region is always a state, and can not be downgraded to a territory. Another benefit from this is the rule change when it comes to capitals. You can now move capital to any province in a state that is your core.

Coring in a Territory is 50% cheaper, but the cores created are “colonial cores”, which require an instant upgrade cost when it becomes a state. If a province is still a colonial core and not upgraded when a state, the autonomy will not go below 50%.

While doing this we have revised the setup of regions on the map, so they are more similar in the amount of provinces they contain.

uw9kMf4.jpg



Our second large feature from today is Corruption. Corruption is a state in your country, easily seen in the topbar. The higher corruption you have the worse off your country becomes. Corruption affects all power costs in a country by up to 100%, and it also increases minimum autonomy by up to 50%. Corruption also affects your defence against hostile spies and your capacity to build up spynetworks in another nations.

Corruption increases include the following.
  • Mercantilism
  • Being an Empire
  • Hostile Spy Action
  • Having one tech being more than 2 techs behind another.
  • Being more than 1 tech behind a neighbour.

Corruption is reduced by the following.
  • Investing money, you now have a slider indicating how much money you want to spend on combating corruption. This cost is scaled like advisor costs are scaled through time.
  • Being ahead of time in administrative or diplomatic technology.
  • Being a Duchy
61T6yeq.jpg


The actual numbers are still in the balance phase here, so won't mention them just yet..

There are alerts indicating if corruption is growing or not, and there are plenty of events triggering and/or affecting corruption. Having no corruption, and not having corruption growing can even trigger some really beneficial events.

Finally, one of the remaining espionage actions we mentioned in an earlier development diary is related to corruption. You can for a very high cost of your network place down a spy to increase corruption in the target country for five years. Of course, only one can do it in the target at a time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 307
  • 216
  • 55
Reactions:
no it dosnt since even ROTW nations have money they can spend on reducing corruption. if your behind in tech you just need to spend more.
Dosnt it make sense that nations that have for example worse administrative tech have a harder time administrating their country and thus have to use more ressources to keep corruption down ?

Also this is not confirmed but i believe the behind in tech is only applied to nations of same tech groups since that would make sense.
We have no idea how the numbers will work for how much you gain per ducat spent on corruption reduction other then that its relative to advisor costs. That means anything beyond a trivial reduction is going to get real expensive real quickly. This just seems like another major disadvantage the ROW has to put up with, and not one I see a reason for. Just another expense for a player making it less fun, and another death blow to the ROW AI.

It makes some sense of course that admin tech would improve administration.... but then again, Castille is usually ahead of Ming China in adm tech, and nobody ever said Spain was better run then China. Even Yuan China was better run then Early Modern Spain.

They might make it tech group specific, but they didn't mention it.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
no it dosnt since even ROTW nations have money they can spend on reducing corruption. if your behind in tech you just need to spend more.
Dosnt it make sense that nations that have for example worse administrative tech have a harder time administrating their country and thus have to use more ressources to keep corruption down ?

Not really. Being worse at administering your country doesn't necessarily correlate to corruption. Getting less out of your country does not imply that someone is taking parts of it; you could just not be utilizing it as well as you could. This is independent of your tech. You could have cutting-edge administrative technology and still have corruption within your ranks.

The correlation between tech and corruption doesn't make sense, period. Especially when you realize that the very nations who are going to suffer the most due to the tech penalties were technologically superior to Europe for much of the time period. Especially when you realize that there's zero logic behind penalizing players with corruption for having one tech behind the others.
 
  • 7
Reactions:
Maybe I am not understanding the changes. I like to recreate the british empire with a few provinces here and there world wide and then slowly expand. So If I have 3 provinces in NW africa, 3 in the carribean, a few in south africa, some more in various parts of India from Bombay to Madras to Calcutta, one or two more provinces in east asia, and a few more in new england how does the new limits impact this? I do not want to expand by full regions - I want to own a few provinces all over then expand.
In this regard you won't see a difference as you already had the overseas modifier applied to them [which this system replaces]. The difference now would be that you won't be able to make entire continents spanning empires with 0% LA such as Africa+Asia+Europe empire or North+South America empire.

Also a naval DLC that added graphics for late game iron ships would be nice.
Ironclad ships appeared some decades after the EU4 timeline
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Corruption is not automical increase for being behind in tech. It just means you may be forced to spend more money keeping it down.

Notably, you are less likely to have said money if you are behind, since techs add production and trade efficiency in addition to a 20% bonus for being current.

If you don't have said money, you then pay more for techs, which cost more because you don't have said money. This is very much unstable equilibrium in concept; someone playing well and/or lucky will have the advantage magnified; for nations with poor starts or struggling players you're double-dipping penalties (higher tech cost, less income, larger expense to keep higher tech cost down).

It will ultimately boil down to losing monarch points because you lost monarch points previously, unless it's tuned to the point where it is a pure cash sink. However, there isn't much need to make nations that are lagging in tech (particularly non-western) have less money than western nations, which already have more money and end nodes. Experienced players are probably going to work around this, but this kind of thing massacres your non-veterans. Picture trying to explain this to a newbie and having them falling more behind because they're already behind, and not having them get discouraged from playing at all. I've had a hard enough time just trying to bring someone up to speed on estates and manpower/cash management.
 
  • 10
Reactions:
I did not read all thread, so maybe this concern was already voiced.
Many feel that minor countries at borders will be penalized at the game start; if you are tribal, yes.

My concern is slightly different: 1 + 1nontribal +1kingdom +2 for empire + 7 from admin tech +1 for idea group = 13 States, 15 for Ming player. And look at the map: those regions are huge, owning even five regions depicted in center (2 German, Low countries, France and Italy) makes you unstoppable. And you are allowed double and more your area without facing any penalty.

@Johan says it is "historical feeling" and "immersion". How historical is centralized, efficient rule over those 5 regions in EU4 times? EU does not work this way even now in XXIst century.
I know that is is step in right direction, but all these panic voices that WC will be impossible are without and ground.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
I'm so glad I've already decided to not buy the DLC accompanying this patch.
How is that related to the patch and this diary? Or did you decide it in relation to this patch?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
It is rather 0.76 Ducats for the whole France region and 0.30 Ducats for Low Countries if you use your equation 0.01 Ducat for 13 Develpment.
You are right; I forgot to divide by 13 :(
The correct numbers are 0.55 and 0.23 respectively [edited original post with math].


Edit: Frankly, the numbers seem quite low, but it may be due to regions being in close proximity to Britain. I assume the bigger hit would come from really high distance + different continents and not as much from high development.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
Reactions:
Static colonial regions already create ridiculous situations when colonizing. Do we really have to bring those problems to the rest of your country?
 
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions:
I know that is is step in right direction, but all these panic voices that WC will be impossible are without and ground.

Who the heck is going to pay more ADM for proper states past a certain point when going for WC with the rules as stated? High LA is a small price to pay for cheaper coring when you can steamroll the flummery out of people already. I will say that based on rules as stated the 1-tag crowd will not being going to their cap in states, or at least will be delaying doing so --> working them into estates immediately after converting to immediately ignore one LA component.

The annoyance that is cropping up on this thread is generally not about WC.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
The annoyance that is cropping up on this thread is generally not about WC.

Far from it, in fact; I almost feel like WC benefits from this at everyone else's expense.

Almost.

Cheaper coring is typically already actively sought after in WCs, so who in their right mind would turn that down?
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Far from it, in fact; I almost feel like WC benefits from this at everyone else's expense.

Almost.

Cheaper coring is typically already actively sought after in WCs, so who in their right mind would turn that down?

Only early game I suspect, when you really need the money.
 
I like some of this, as it could prevent silly nonsense blobbing such as France carving a one province line to Denmark or Poland (I have seen both). I'll have to see some of these mechanics in action before I can judge one way or another. Does anyone know if there are live stream plans before the Expansion is released?

Corruption makes me REALLY nervous though. As many have said you can expect Africa and Asia to have obscene corruption ratings. Somewhat valid historically but overall how much of a limitation this is we will see upon release.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Might be relative to whether a country is Western, Indian, or etc.

It says neighbouring bonus.
Say you are relatively "good" playing in Eastern Asia. And now some pesky Europeans started to build colony next to your land. Suddenly your corruption skyrockets and everything, tech s etc. is more expensive (not forgetting that you have chinese group from the start).

Does it make much sense?
It is doubly-penalizing "poor" countries (starting with crappy rulers, wront tech group etc), as TMIT said.

You can easily observe "light version" of it in Europe in 1444. Some republics start with god-rulers with 6-es. After 10 years they are at the bring of reaching tech level 5 (or already reached it), while stupid monarchies with sub 2 stats are closing to tech 4. And say that you want to play monarchy with useless monarch and equally incompetent heir. You are guarenteed 50 years of constantly gaining corruption, after which it might be that you have effectively fallen down say 2 tech groups down.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
If I am a 2 province nation that just so happens to be on the border of these regions, with 1 province each right next to each other in 2 different regions, but a government that only allows one 'state', does this mean my 2nd province is going to be considered 'overseas' or a 'territory' now?

If this is the case, it seems like its a major kick in the nuts to minor nations since it'll limit directions of effective expansion early game.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
This just looks to me like it shifts the immersion problem elsewhere, and above all, doesn't look very fun.

Now, looking at your map of Europe and how the regions (and consequently states) are defined, if I'm a minor dukedom in the Luxembourg area, I could theoretically have provinces as I grow in North Germany, South Germany, the Low Countries and France. But, I can only have one state, and if I grow to a Kingdom and want to make another, I start incurring maintainence costs. This just seems like it'll force borders into what are very arbitrary locations. I can see lots of situations where I end up with random provinces on the outskirts of a nation which have random penalties because they "aren't a state", despite them being direct neighbours (and possibly same religion and culture) with provinces that you govern directly.

Corruption also looks self-defeating. You incur corruption if you lag behind in tech, which then makes it more expensive to purchase tech? That may well be an accurate representation, but it doesn't make for a fun game mechanic.
 
  • 8
Reactions:
Corruption is probably going to be something that is either ignored (see inflation) therefore irrelevant and pretty much a waste of everyone's time. Or it's going to annoying, and it will nerfed to become irrelevant. There is nothing engaging about Corruption. I could be interesting if it wasn't just "slide to the right to fight corruption" and pray for events. As is, it's, dust.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Finally, after 4 games and like 20 expansions, Paradox remembers that running a government costs money.

Now if only Paradox would make the States system dynamic so you could assign provinces to states as you desired. Although I'm sure there's a perfectly valid reason for why that isn't possible. I mean I'm sure it's completely impossible for a game to have a system of dynamic states. No other game being made has Dynamic States after all.

Seriously though, States and Territories should not be based on your arbitrary 50 times larger than they should be "Regions". Let us assign States as we desire and so long as they are contiguous, which is itself an ahistorical restriction but whatever, they can be made and instead just have downsides;

* Give each State its own Capital. Each State should have an Admin Cost (as should territories, just a lesser cost), including the State of the National Capital, with the cost of each individual province increasing dramatically the further it is from the State Capital. This discourages overly-large States but allows them to happen.

* Give each State its own Culture, and provinces in the State not of that culture get a Minimum Unrest level.
* Same thing with Religion

* You can keep as many States as you want, however for each State you have there is a rising "Base Cost" to encourage you to keep the number down. non-Capital States also have an increased Base Cost dependent on their distance from the Capital.

This is a far more logical and dynamic system, and actually allows the player some choice in the political composition of their country.

And now, to make this system somewhat interesting and give States a Positive Effect;

Add a "Governor" type Leader alongside Generals and Admirals that can be assigned to States. Each Governor will have four stats; Tax, Trade, Manpower, Construction, rated from 0-6 like Generals and Admirals, which provide boosts to that particular area.
 
  • 31
  • 1
Reactions:
I see the phrase "depending on whether the territory is on a different continent or not" and you've used the word "region." So that means this screws with expansion in Europe too, and is not just for people who want to colonize? So as Milan if I take all of Savoy, is their one province which is inexplicably in the French region instead of Italian going to be split off as a territory?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
My concern is slightly different: 1 + 1nontribal +1kingdom +2 for empire + 7 from admin tech +1 for idea group = 13 States, 15 for Ming player.
Your math is a little off as some of additions are interchangeable. From what I have calculated you can have at most 12 states.