• 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:
Yeah, corruption looks intended to hit your ducats, not your Monarch Points. If you actually let it grow and impact your MP expenditures, you've probably messed up!

Unless Paradox limits the anti-corruption expenditure slider to drastically small amounts, which I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt on at this time.
 
  • 10
Reactions:
Yeah, corruption looks intended to hit your ducats, not your Monarch Points. If you actually let it grow and impact your MP expenditures, you've probably messed up!

Unless Paradox limits the anti-corruption expenditure slider to drastically small amounts, which I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt on at this time.

I think that the hit on your mana is just a way to force the player to consider managing corruption and not a "i don't care" feature which for my part estates could be much more penalized for.
 
  • 5
  • 3
Reactions:
Yeah, corruption looks intended to hit your ducats, not your Monarch Points. If you actually let it grow and impact your MP expenditures, you've probably messed up!

Unless Paradox limits the anti-corruption expenditure slider to drastically small amounts, which I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt on at this time.

Ducats and mana are directly related through advisors, events, culture, etc.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Ducats and mana are directly related through advisors, events, culture, etc.
There are mechanisms of exchange, but they're fairly limited.

I have lots of thoughts on how the exchanges might be impacted and what this would mean for balance and decision-making, but frankly it's all too speculative to really get into. So much depends on the details of the implementation - specifically, how much each of the various elements cost & how they scale over the life of the game and size of the nation.

This could be tuned in such a manner that it's ruinous to nations that aren't extremely wealthy or have fantastic rulers, or it could be tuned such that no one, even poor nations, cares very much. I think there's a sweet spot in between, but it could be a bit narrow due to varying circumstances around the globe. Rather cynically, I expect it'll take a balance patch after the first feature implementation patch in order to get it right.

I get a sense that -tech cost ideas are going to be more important than they used to be. I might take Admin ideas first every time, even as a colonizer, though that probably will still depend on my starting ruler.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
There are mechanisms of exchange, but they're fairly limited.

In which way are they 'fairly limited'?

Advisors tie MP gain directly to ducats. Probably the majority of events in the game have either gold or MP as choices. Unrest and tax income are tied to diplo points through culture. Whole idea groups (trade, economic, etc.) exist as MP sinks that pay off in ducats. Universities. Development in general.

Fairly limited? C'mon.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
In which way are they 'fairly limited'?

Advisors tie MP gain directly to ducats.
Up to a hard cap; there are no +4, +5, +6, ... advisors.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Up to a hard cap; there are no +4, +5, +6, ... advisors.
Agreed, monarchs are a little bit too impactful. A weak king should be able to compensate by having strong councilors. I am pretty sure Cardinal Richelieu happened.

Would be nicer if the base gain was 4 and monarch stats just went up to 5... That way you would still be happy about a good monarch, but wouldn't cry tears of blood over the all too common 1/1/1 ones.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
In which way are they 'fairly limited'?

Advisors tie MP gain directly to ducats. Probably the majority of events in the game have either gold or MP as choices. Unrest and tax income are tied to diplo points through culture. Whole idea groups (trade, economic, etc.) exist as MP sinks that pay off in ducats. Universities. Development in general.

Fairly limited? C'mon.
Well, by comparison an unlimited connection would be something like "pay X ducats to gain Y MP, and pay W MP to gain Z ducats."

Advisers are limited to a modifier range of +0 to +3, and the costs are drastic enough that they're typically used in different game periods. By late mid-game you're running all +3s with plenty of ducats remaining, generally speaking, and no directly controllable way to funnel more in. Events are semi-random, and culture is an indirect mechanism. Ideas are also indirect and contain more than just ducat gains throughout the groups (notably, Economic is an MP saver if you're going tall). Development is probably the best example here, but it's one-way, and that direction is the least desirable in most cases (MP to ducats, and at a fairly ineffective rate at that).
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Development is probably the best example here, but it's one-way, and that direction is the least desirable in most cases (MP to ducats, and at a fairly ineffective rate at that).
Don't forget coring and diplomatic annexation.
 
casuals downvoting lol

I love the direction the game is going. This is an implementation of an administrative efficiency I've been longed for since EU4 launch. This is fantastic since a nation's strength won't be 100% proportional to its size with the change as it was before. That means less snowballing, and longer time frame in which playing your nation stays interesting before it becomes a chore. This change might help me play full 400 years without losing interest.

Corruption reminds me of Magna Mundi the Game. Adding features like this can make people who grew tired of the game return again. Yet another helpful and interesting internal management mechanics.

This DD made me stop the current playthrough. Keep up the good work, Johan.
 
Last edited:
  • 9
  • 9
Reactions:
casuals downvoting lol

I love the direction the game is going.
Au contraire. Casuals are hardly going to go for world domination, which is really what some of these mechanics make more difficult.
 
  • 4
  • 3
Reactions:
Au contraire. Casuals are hardly going to go for world domination, which is really what some of these mechanics make more difficult.
Well, sort of? It removes the Ottoman easy route and the vassal-blocking strategy for cheap overseas, but it lets you use the Territory feature to rapidly expand without having to jump through those hoops. The core cost benefit is smaller than overseas, but it's easier to apply and in all directions.

I think lots of starts will actually find it easier to world conquest, though your nation won't be as overwhelmingly powerful quite as early.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
casuals downvoting lol

I love the direction the game is going.
No better way to absolutely discredit the rest of your post, how ever meaningful it may be, than to blame those mythical „casuals“.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
No better way to absolutely discredit the rest of your post, how ever meaningful it may be, than to blame those mythical „casuals“.

That's true and I am aware of it, but I needed to vent my frustration after 'casualization' destroyed CK2 for more than a year for me. Many people were actually happy that vassals no longer posed a threat and faction rebellions became a joke. I thought the whole point of CK2 was vassal management and negating that was unthinkable from my perspectives, yet it somehow made many very happy that vassals don't 'bother' them anymore. Not gonna say they are wrong since we have a different stance on what the game should look like, but they are casuals.

Also take a look at how people complained about autonomy when it was initially introduced. As a general rule of thumb I am pretty certain that anything which enhances realism and difficulty is a good game mechanics in a long term.
 
Last edited:
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions:
and longer time frame in which playing your nation stays interesting before it becomes a chore

The same content spread over a longer period is not more content.

If every single duration in the game was increased 10x it would not be a positive change that you get to play any given campaign for 10x the length.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Not gonna say they are wrong since we have a different stance on what the game should look like, but they are casuals.
Contradiction or hypocrisy?
 
  • 1
Reactions: