• 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:
Which would lead to corruption for the big nation with bigger distances than for small nations where maybe ruler could ride through his realm in less than an hour.

But should a bored OPM have that kind of power over a large nation? "Hurr durr look at me, I can afford to have cutting-edge tech but can't afford to have an army worth talking about and thus no real presence on the world, and yet I can still make everyone I border have corruption!"
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
It looks like nations, such as the Aztec will be greatly harmed by that being-behind-in-tech once those Europeans arrive. Is that historically accurate?

Personally, I'd hope that having the same culture in a province, being in the same culture group or something could cancel the negative effects of this territory system.
 
1)Corruption: A brilliant idea. I like that big empire have to spend more money to sucessfully adminstrate their land.However neighbor bonus and unbalanced tech make no sense at all. I mean admin-Tech i could understand,lacking behind in it would increase it,being ahead decreases it. I would rather make it more costly for bigger empires to keep investing in reducing the corruption. However i like the idea to streghten espionage

2)States and Stuff: In my opinion a wrong move.The idea of states and those regions is a rather late idea(mostly 18th century). I would just improve the estate system. Way more land has to be given to your estates and the bigger your admin-tech gets,the more percentage you can have as "crown"-land.Loyalty of estates controls than the autonomy of the land. So keeping ypur estates loyal is way more important and having them disloyal has more effect,especially for big nations. For the colonies i would just add a new estate,maybe without influence.Or just go with the concept,the more the province is away from your capital,the more autonomy it has. But those new states just limit the ways a nation can be played,limit the alternate history which alot of us are playing for. And the argumentation to stop the AI from steamrolling is mostly invalid. I now have around 1000 hours of ingametime and most likly 200 more due to being offline. I never saw an AI getting so strong that they just do whatever they want to do. We need just more events which weakens states like France in the 16th century or the Ottomans as the game start.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
So non-accepted cultures, that's your region concept. If you wanna bring conquered lands with different cultures up to the same level as your core lands, you have to have their culture accepted. Paradox could have simply scrapped the current too-cheap culture conversion and replaced their regions with cultures.
With a full set of "widely available" bonuses (adjacent province of target culture, Religious finisher, Religious/Influence policy), culture-converting a province costs almost as little DIP as diploannexing it with no bonuses does.
 
Victory cards
Both that and the current DD are very much connected to preset regions. Who thinks it's coincidence? :)
These "regions" are especially upsetting, since they represent 1821 borders more, than 1444 borders. Railroading at it's best...
Obviously they won't work with different borders either, they have no place in a game like this.

Rework it to a dynamic region system, then you can use it for a base of other features.
Until then, keep them only as an eye-candy, a terrain map-mode for players who want to roleplay in a historic way. But no features should be based on it the way it is now.
 
Last edited:
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
But should a bored OPM have that kind of power over a large nation? "Hurr durr look at me, I can afford to have cutting-edge tech but can't afford to have an army worth talking about and thus no real presence on the world, and yet I can still make everyone I border have corruption!"
Remember that a big nation that doesn't expand would be at better terms to tech than the OPM because of much more money to use on advisors. Expanding would lead to more extraordinary bad things than always being focused on stability.
 
Remember that a big nation that doesn't expand would be at better terms to tech than the OPM because of much more money to use on advisors. Expanding would lead to more extraordinary bad things than always being focused on stability.

Address the question. Should an OPM have that power over a large nation? Is it sensible and balanced that a tiny nation on your border can somehow corrupt your country?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Address the question. Should an OPM have that power over a large nation? Is it sensible and balanced that a tiny nation on your border can somehow corrupt your country?

No, it should not. This modifier should be weighed against something for it to make sense.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
That said, I don't anticipate the "state vs territory" mechanic having the same potential for damage as corruption unless the surrounding mechanics change significantly.

I only disagree in the degree of that potential damage. Actually only in parts of it.
Corruption can be made into a late-game money sinkhole for bigger countries, and into a reasonably well-working one, and I assume that was the main point of devs with it anyway.
Obviously some parts of it must be fixed/improved, especially the tech-corruption spiral, as many posters noted.
But these things are easy to correct, and very much possible after it was implemented, the same way they did it with countless new features before.
(which is a kinda disgusting expansion-policy, but not the point of this post)
The point is that IMO it can be made to something reasonably well-working.

On the other hand, the very base of region-state mechanics is flawed, which cannot really be improved after it's implemented.
It will be there railroading the game, up until they scrap/change the entire mechanics.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Everytime you do something, you consume energy. And everytime you eat you invest for future energy but it also consume a small amount of energy does it make eating a endless spiral of energy consumption ? It does affect the way you eat (you can't spend all of your time eating) but is it necessarely a bad mecanic of how life works ?

An opulent body could suggest that others don't have enough food but does it mean that they can't find their way to wealth ? And with a "well developped trading concept", opulent person are way more affected by carencies..

I'm personnally more concerned about france's state color and the 75% autonomy on territories and how it will affect certain nations
 
Last edited:
  • 9
Reactions:
Everytime you do something, you consume energy. And everytime you eat you invest for future energy but it also consume a small amount of energy does it make eating a endless spiral of energy consumption ? It does affect eating (you can't spend all your time eating) but is it necessarely a bad mecanic of how life works ?

Whoa, man. Get to the point.
 
  • 4
  • 2
Reactions:
Everytime you do something, you consume energy. And everytime you eat you invest for future energy but it also consume a small amount of energy does it make eating a endless spiral of energy consumption ? It does affect the way you eat (you can't spend all of your time eating) but is it necessarely a bad mecanic of how life works ?

An opulent body could suggest that others don't have enough food but does it mean that they can't find their way to wealth ? And with a well developped trading concept, opulent person are way more affected by carencies..
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Metaphorgotten
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Whoa, man. Get to the point.

I made my point ten page ago.
First of all : as every DD a concept is an abstraction on which Johan mentionned they are balancing values, on which he added several times that neighbouring nations won't be as much affected by corruption as we might think.
Secondly : The intention here is to affect late game empires so if this affects any other countries they will probably balance it.

@Vaximillian thank you, i don't speak english very well but i'm glad someone is truly taking me serioulsy
 
Last edited:
  • 2
Reactions:
I think reforming neighbor bonus could be a good alternative to having tech status affect corruption. One simple suggestion: no single neighbor bonus can be higher than the average neighbor bonus. Example: you have ignored ADM tech for a while in order to fill up an idea group and core some conquests, you also have dropped sligthly behind in DIP tech, but are ahead in MIL tech. Your neighbor bonuses with the current system would be: ADM -20%, DIP -10%, MIL 0%. The cap from the average bonus is 30 / 3 = 10, so with the new system the bonuses would instead be: ADM -10%, DIP -10%, MIL 0%.

Neighbor bonus would still help countries that are genuinely behind because of bad monarchs or coming from a non-western tech group, but the bonus wouldn't unduly benefit countries that just chose to temporarily ignore a specific tech.
 
I made my point ten page earlier.
First of all : as every DD a conception is an abstraction on which Johan mentionned they are balancing values, on which he added several times that neighbouring nations won't be as much affected by corruption as we might think.
Secondly : The intention here is to affect late game empires so if this affects any other countries they will probably balance it.

First of all, your post 10 pages ago isn't read by everyone.

Next, trusting PDS with proper balancing of mechanics is like trusting a brain surgeon on his first major op as the main surgeon, with you on the OT.
 
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
First of all, your post 10 pages ago isn't read by everyone.
I hope everyone is doing the same, bacause it would clearly make the world a better place and now i regret that i summarize my precedent posts. My bad.

Next, trusting PDS with proper balancing of mechanics is like trusting a brain surgeon on his first major op as the main surgeon, with you on the OT.
You are right, your metaphore is clearly more appropriate than mine.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
(Regular reader, very shy poster here)

I like the concept of both ideas presented here but I have great concerns about how they will tie to pre-existing mechanics (mainly due to DLC scattering). I will address the concept of States and Territories, corruption seems fine and I did not give it enough thoughts.

Firstly, the idea is great. I think it's a very smart move after the introduction of Estates that emphasizes the focus one emerging nation must have in the time frame of the game. I'll draw parallel with the emergence of France nation-state because, well, I'm French and I think it's a good example to discuss this mechanics.

I played EU3 and EU4 and the focus of early EU4 on conquest always seems a bit surprising to me. Sure, it's a necessary mechanics and tied to the time frame but - as far as I was concerned - it overweighted the internal strife of the feudal states moving to a more modern administration. A loud forumite could say "more peace gameplay FFS !!", not how I would say it but it express my feeling, sort of...
The recent additions and DLC satisfy my taste for this internal struggles : Estates, Parlements, Revolts, good stuff !

But let's not digress, my concern about States is the following : For a real integration to the game, in my humble opinion, it should tie to recent mechanics. And here we have a bit of a problem : DLC model will really f*** the developers leeway.

For example, we already pointed out that static historical/geographical borders for these State regions could be looked at as arbitrary, penalize the flow of the game and its sandboxy feeling. From what I'm seeing, these regions seem to be a bit too big, France as a whole region ? I was more thinking like "Aquitaine region", "Briton-Normandic Region". And there I saw it : A more culture-bound State definition.

Following problem : The map is too heterogeneous (culture-wise) to be used as border defining criteria. And what about developments ? Surely wide aride steps of same culture group could be seen as a State, a political entity in a Realm. But a few rich and developed provinces (ex german free cities, north italian provinces,...) could be seen as such too, same for the insular isles of the great Dominion of Aragon,...

Third problem : The impact and political representation of these States in the Realm. Estates represents the division of the society into classes, States should represent regional and cultural powers inside the Realm.

What I shall propose is thus the following, and I would like your feedback on that :
  • The maximum State number gives access to the nomination of "regional capitals"
  • The nomination creates a State, dynamically defining (with player choice or automatic, or a mix of the two) provinces inside this new State. The criteria for membership will follow culture group (the regional capital defining the main culture and perhaps religion ?) and a maximum total development inside the State. Leeway on those criteria could be unlock by technology (more total development, % or non-main culture,...) and/or ideas.
  • A State will have a politic influence similar to but not replacing the Estates power. As such, the State will follow the sovereign administrative duties if represented and satisfied : Taxes, Manpower, Trade power,... And if the Realm does not satisfy the State demands of representation, the State could revolt, as a whole (think CK2 multi-duchies revolts here).
  • Representation and needs of a State, as well as gratification and bonuses, could be tied to the repartition of development : militaristic state could spawn generals and ask for a military advisor minimum level or a minimum army budget (no more 0% budget), american/indian/african State for a European nation could ask for colonization or % of light ship in navy giving in exchange colonial development bonus (a bit like what trading companies ask), trade rich State could ask for merchant presence and minimum trade buildings in the provinces and gives merchants or trade bonuses,...
  • State bonuses and maluses could be scaled on the progression of Administrative technology. It would show the evolution of late feudal states to more centralized and modern government. For example scaling the tax malus for misrepresentation from -10% to -75% ? I'm not really good at balance, really...

A tight integration of the States to the mechanics will give a rewarding political administration, something to take into account in the consolidation of power that mark the time frame. And I think it is a really good mechanics that follow the recent addition to the game (Estates, geographic region redefinition and victory cards mechanics,... ). It could be the source of great late-game challenge : Holding a pan-European Nation would be very hard due to contradictory State demands with very harsh penalties, leading to fragmentation. Yeah sorry for map-painter but I'm more inclined to think that internal struggles doomed most of expansions in the time frame. I agree it is enjoyable to have an uniform border-gore-free map but I do not think it must be a realistic goal in the game.

The problem I have with my proposition is that it is WAY to reliant on the DLC mechanics and "opt out" possibilities. The proposed link between State extension and development of provinces, for example, can't work satisfyingly without the possibility of upgrading provinces with development...

This is where I defer to the developers ;) But I did foresee this problem when PDX switched from expansion to modular DLC : It would be fine and a financial success but will limit the possibilities of great new and tightly integrated mechanics after launch.

***********
TL;DR :
  • No static State boundaries
  • dynamic definition of State by nomination of a State-capital province
  • Extension of a State limited by economic (total development) and cultural (culture group) criteria
  • Bonuses of a State tied to political representation and/or investments (development, buildings, budget,...)
  • Maluses to economic production (taxes, trade, manpower) or social (revolts) for inadequate representation
  • Scaling of State bonus and malus over time (through tech ?)
  • Complementarity with Estates instead of competition
  • Reliance on DLC issued mechanics, a fatal problem
Sorry for my long rant and thank you for reading and your eventual feedbacks.
 
  • 13
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm surprised the corruption bonus events haven't really entered into this discussion yet, though I suppose that's due to lack of detail in the original post. Anyways, if the mentioned 0% events are appealing enough, siphoning off some gold may not seem like such a big deal. It won't address the lack of depth, but it could at least salvage the system from feeling strictly punitive.

What concerns me far more than the slider are random estates/ideas/etc. events adding instant chunks of corruption that must then be slowly burned off. How frustrating is it going to be to have some corrupt nobility event suddenly crank up all your MP costs by 10%?