• 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:
Be honest, do you truly believe that all the backlash on this diary comes from map painters hating on it because it gets in the way of their fun? If anything, states helps WC, not hinders it.
In my honest opinion the major backlash against this dev diary is from the fact that it's half-baked. States mechanic is a major change, but explanation to why they chose to implement it are scarce, never mind the details on its inner workings. And corruption whilst minor still has same issues.

I'm all for giving, us, the players, ideas of what is planned for the game's future, but without insight into development it feels more like a marketing trick, which granted any interaction with community partially is, and less like Diary written by a developer for community.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Why is corruption represented as a percentage instead of a simple 0 to 100 like legitimacy? Having numbers like "+2.5 corruption every year" is clearer than "+0.025 corruption every year". In addition, interface limitations makes small decimal values hard to display on values like republican tradition, and the same thing is likely true with corruption. It would be much easier if all such values range from 0 to 100 instead of 0 to 1.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Instead of having regions as arbitrary, static state borders, why not this:

-your capital has a certain state-range, all provinces you own within this range are part of (or can be assigned to?) your capital state (named after your capital province?)
-when you've expanded outside this range enough, you can create a new state and assign it a capital province. Provinces in range of this state-capital become part of your new state
-when state boundaries overlap, provinces become part of the state with the closest state-capital - or the capital state (since the capital state is free)

This way, states aren't bound to an arbitrary border - and small nations on the edge of said borders have no disadvantage whatsoever keeping their whole nation in one state.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
Reactions:
So if I, playing as say Morocco, maintain a border with Castile and Portugal who will by design have higher tech levels than me, I'm going to suffer for it more than I already am being in Muslim tech? That's the stupidest and worst-thought-out idea I've ever heard. Get your heads out of your asses.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Still nothing on what the next week's dev diary will be about? :X I guess @Johan trying to tempt us, eh. :p
 
Helpful doesn't mean 'Agree', it just means 'The post in question was helpful to my understanding'. Lumping that in with the 'Agree' votes is a bit of a shaky idea.

Also, people don't hate it because they're map painters. People hate it because the mechanics this diary talks about are being implemented poorly. States/Regions are based on 1821 boundaries and not 1444 ones and also are static, not dynamic; on top of this, they railroad expansion in small nations who sit alongside state boundaries rather than letting them take what they can get or forces them to sit on their hands for no reason other than magic.

Again, other than Savoy, which nations are you worried about here? Every nontribal nation starts with at least 2 states, so being on a border isn't going to limit them. Those near a tripoint will need to make decisions early on, but in all probability the tech to get the third state won't be too far in.

Corruption does raise some issues, but that is what this sort of thread is for. If something was missed that will cause death spirals, Paradox will likely look into it and tweak it before release.
 
  • 3
  • 3
Reactions:
Indeed, this should hardly affect European countries and their position as starts that don't have to worry about monarch points.

There are like 4 ways I can think of in which this patch buffs Westerners relative to everyone else.
 
Indeed, this should hardly affect European countries and their position as starts that don't have to worry about monarch points.

There are like 4 ways I can think of in which this patch buffs Westerners relative to everyone else.
This change is needed. Western tech nations are super hard to play. Western tech in general is the hardest tech in the game to deal with. Why anyone would westernize boggles my mind.

/s for anyone who didn't read that tone into it.

Yeah, this entire dev diary is just reading like a terrible implementation of a relatively good idea. The dream is that through play testing they actually change like they did with the anti-fun horde razing unrest nerf
 
  • 3
Reactions:
I wonder if this will have implications for parliamentary representation. Say, if you conquer as England/Britain the province of Gibraltar and retained it as territory, you would not be able to make it a parliament seat and therefore, no more events annoying you with a request to grant it parliament seat (as Gibraltar has never even been granted one in real-life history so why should it now in EU4?) That is, unless parliament seat mechanics is independent of state/territory concept.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I am just a bit puzzled why they are going to go with a system that lets Provence pay no cost for it's provinces scattered all about the France regions, but makes Savoy (who's provinces are all clustered in one spot) pay maintenance cost for several of it's holdings due to being in 3 regions.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Helpful doesn't mean 'Agree', it just means 'The post in question was helpful to my understanding'. Lumping that in with the 'Agree' votes is a bit of a shaky idea.

Also, people don't hate it because they're map painters. People hate it because the mechanics this diary talks about are being implemented poorly. States/Regions are based on 1821 boundaries and not 1444 ones and also are static, not dynamic; on top of this, they railroad expansion in small nations who sit alongside state boundaries rather than letting them take what they can get or forces them to sit on their hands for no reason other than magic. Corruption results in negative death spirals for backwards tech, less-advantaged tech groups, and bad ruler chains, and also forces players to play one-dimensionally.

Be honest, do you truly believe that all the backlash on this diary comes from map painters hating on it because it gets in the way of their fun? If anything, states helps WC, not hinders it.
Can you tell me why you say the borders are based on 1821 and not 1444. To me it seems very much like all states/regions are based on different types of borders from 1444.
 
Can you tell me why you say the borders are based on 1821 and not 1444. To me it seems very much like all states/regions are based on different types of borders from 1444.

That's a really good point. If the map is supposed to be based on 1821, it's doing a very bad job of it - France is missing Alsace and some provinces in the Low Countries, while it owns Savoy (which it didn't own in 1821); Britain is missing the Shetlands; 1821 Prussia is divided between North Germany, the Baltics, and Poland; and the Poland region itself is totally wrong for 1821 (historically the "Poland" region as defined by the map in the first post was divided between Prussia, Russia, Austria, and the Republic of Krakow at that point). 1821 Austria is divided into at least six regions I can see on the map.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
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.
Seriously? The last time I check, it will just make corruption even worse. The only reliable way to combat corruption is having stricter laws and more severe punishment.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Seriously? The last time I check, it will just make corruption even worse. The only reliable way to combat corruption is having stricter laws and more severe punishment.

Where do you think that money is going? You need to pay your local Sir Elliot of Ness and his untouchables after all.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Can you tell me why you say the borders are based on 1821 and not 1444. To me it seems very much like all states/regions are based on different types of borders from 1444.

Admittedly I didn't investigate too thoroughly, but Silesia's in the North German region despite being almost entirely Slavic in 1444. That'd work in 1821, but not in 1444. If what Demetrios said is true, though, then that means the States are even worse in terms of boundaries because it doesn't fit in neither 1444 nor 1821 and are instead based on who-knows-what.
 
  • 2
Reactions: