• 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:
  • Having one tech being more than 2 techs behind another.
  • Being more than 1 tech behind a neighbour.

Worst idea you guys have ever had...

Seriously... This is sure to break the game when you get 2 very bad monarchs in row. Seriously. Or when not playing a western nation.

If I get a 5/0/4 monarch during a diplo idea I'm screwed... Because I'll probably go 3-4 diplo techs behind.
 
  • 15
  • 2
Reactions:
Worst idea you guys have ever had...

Seriously... This is sure to break the game when you get 2 very bad monarchs in row. Seriously. Or when not playing a western nation.

If I get a 5/0/4 monarch during a diplo idea I'm screwed... Because I'll probably go 3-4 diplo techs behind.
You also could have started diploannexing something big. Say when your previous monarch was 3/6/3 and you wanted to compensate his outstanding diplomatic abilities. RNG wasn't on your side though and you end up with 0/0/0 regency for 3/2/1 heir 1 year old.
Yeah, sounds terrifically fun!
 
  • 9
Reactions:
A lot of people are complaining about the corruption received from being behind in technology, but do we actually know how big the penalty is per tech? It might be more easily manageable than some of you are assuming.
 
  • 4
  • 2
Reactions:
It's also realistic that a lot of terrible rulers weren't allowed to take the throne in the first place by their family/advisors or were ruler only in name. Whereas in game ruler stat line is paramount and can only be influenced by a couple rare events or a civil war.
What if you could pay a monthly legitimacy cost to temporarily boost your monarch's stats up to average? That is, if you had a 1/4/2 king, you could pay -1 Legitimacy per month to make the king effectively a 3/4/2 or a 2/4/3, with each extra point costing 0.5 legitimacy per month. That could simulate the king having members of the court doing his ruling for him, making him seem a less legitimate ruler.


Corruption is not automical increase for being behind in tech. It just means you may be forced to spend more money keeping it down.
Did you mean to say "automatic increase"?
 
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
Not really a fan of these changes from what I've read, but I don't fully understand them so I won't say they're bad until I've actually played with them.

  • Being more than 1 tech behind a neighbour.

I'm assuming the corruption gained from this is tied to tech group neighbors, but if so how would this affect westernization? In order TO westernize, I'm going to be several techs behind the western nation I'm westernizing off of. So as soon as I westernize am I going to experience several MORE decades of problems due to corruption increase as I catch up on my tech? If so, its going to make nations with very poor tech groups (specifically New World nations) extremely boring for a very large time frame. 20-30 years of doing pretty much nothing while westernizing, then another several decades of catching up on all of your tech while struggling with your corruption gain.

And if this ISN'T tech group based then every nation that borders a nation with a better tech group is going to suffer substantial corruption problems after a couple decades of gameplay FOR THE ENTIRE GAME until they westernize, which even then the problems I mentioned in the previous paragraph still apply.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Spending money to fight corruption? Sounds like throwing meat to scare off a tiger.

Seems like there is some exchange program working behind the scenes: shattered retreat and coalitions come to CK2, now vassal limit and de jure make their way to EUIV. Stellaris is probably involved as well since payment for state upkeep sounds more like Stellaris than CK2.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
The feature creep is real. Hopefully it'll be on the marginally useful/not terrible end of the sprectrum rather than the terribad end.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
A lot of people are complaining about the corruption received from being behind in technology, but do we actually know how big the penalty is per tech? It might be more easily manageable than some of you are assuming.

Regardless of how much or how little it hurts, its a flawed concept precisely because it penalizes a player for something with more of that thing. There are two possible routes that can end with for a mechanic, and neither of them are good (spirals or trivialized).

There is a difference between design and implementation flaws. Let's say for example that clergy estate works pretty well overall. From a design standpoint you have incentive to use it, but not necessarily always. If you gave it a value like "demand administrative support gives 10000000 monarch points" it would not be *conceptually* flawed, but the implementation would be nonsensical.

That is a contrast from choices that buff nations that are already too strong, nerf weak nations, or otherwise run counter to stated intent. When a given mechanic gives you some value x, and x is bad for all values conceivable on the spectrum, you're choosing between "bad and less bad". It doesn't matter if you choose less bad, it's still bad. For actions that are effortful, choosing either "bad" or "less bad" is poor.

If so, its going to make nations with very poor tech groups (specifically New World nations) extremely boring for a very large time frame. 20-30 years of doing pretty much nothing while westernizing, then another several decades of catching up on all of your tech while struggling with your corruption gain.

To be clear, thanks to some chain nerfings since 1.9 the new world nations already experience that. 80 years of waiting to westernize (60 if lucky), then another 20ish westernizing, then another 80ish (give or take) to catch up. If you finish westernizing ~1600 you will only be catching up on ideas/tech by ~1700 if you have 3/3/3 advisors, or slightly faster if you quite literally do nothing but stock points.

That's without corruption, and with overseas coring as primary expansion method. How much worse corruption makes that process remains to be seen, but it's not going to make it better.

An important part of playing the game is playing the game. Waiting is something I can do even if I don't have a computer, much less EU IV.
 
  • 14
  • 1
Reactions:
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.

thank you

Ironclad ships appeared some decades after the EU4 timeline

mods for eu3 and eu4 have included iron ships for late game but have been forced to use wood ship graphics. For example the M&T mod for EU4 includes iron clad ships. The popular WWM for EU3 included iron clad ships.

If I understand correctly the most popular mod for EU4 is the extended timeline mod...... so we are not limited to the default time line.

:)
 
80 years of waiting to westernize (60 if lucky)
I wasn't even factoring in the time of simply waiting for Europe to show up so I can actually BEGIN westernizing. It's just going to make the New World completely unenjoyable. You can manage to do some things shortly after westernizing, despite being behind on tech, but not if your economy is terrible as a biproduct of your poor tech. There should be a system that prevents behind tech corruption from affecting a newly western nation for a certain time frame, dependent on what tech group they had beforehand.
 
Worst idea you guys have ever had...

Seriously... This is sure to break the game when you get 2 very bad monarchs in row. Seriously. Or when not playing a western nation.

If I get a 5/0/4 monarch during a diplo idea I'm screwed... Because I'll probably go 3-4 diplo techs behind.
So basically Castille just went from easy to difficult
 
So basically Castille just went from easy to difficult

Western tech group isn't the tech group that is taking it on the chin from these changes. Even lollertrash western starts like Athens won't feel the burn quite like, say, Venad or Taungu. Mossi and Benin will be starting to corrupt very fast...or they could use their VAST WEALTH to buy that down.

...
 
So basically Castille just went from easy to difficult


Well they were corrupt, especially with the way their colonies were administered in the Americas. Philip II was known as a super bureaucrat. He would write down everything and have a desk with mountains of papers. Latin America still today is full of corruption thanks to the Spanish colonial legacy. The strict mercantilist system put in place by the Spanish crown made colonies unable to trade with each other directly. Goods had to go to the Casa de Contratacion in Seville first to be registered and then dispatched to whichever colony needed something. This made the wait a long time, but more importantly the prices raised cause of the shipping and tariffs. The colonists in Spanish colonies remedied this through bribing officials in order to keep some of the goods from going to Seville. They also engaged in trade with pirates of other nationalities who would steal goods from merchants and resell them. Black markets also became a popular way of acquiring goods faster.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
The corruption system opens up a whole new set of things to do really. We could perhaps exchange things, such as receiving money, or monarch points in exchange for a rise in the corruption level. I suppose the administration national idea will now come with features that will lower corruption.
 
Corruption seems to be inflation for MP. So while you can make the same complaint about inflation (it lowers your income, which causes you to take loans, which causes inflation), I feel like it's a marginal enough cost that you're not really going to get a spiral. I agree that it feels like a nerf for nations that are behind in tech, which is unnecessary, but it's not a death spiral.

The difference is that you don't get inflation for being near richer countries.