• 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 - 1st of November 2016

Hi everyone, and welcome to another development diary for Europa Universalis IV. This time its rather meaty and is about major gameplay changes for the 1.19 patch.

While we were reasonably happy with how Fort and Zone of Control has played out since introduced over a year ago, it has had one major drawback. The rules have so many cases to keep track of that it was practically impossible to make all cases clear to the player. This causes much confusion amongst players, who also had an experience that was not as great as they had hoped while playing.

So now Zone of Control have changed completely. Instead of affecting a province and sometimes blocking passage in adjacent provinces, Zone of Control rules are now area based.

Areas = The same map division that States/Territories are organsied around. And which 1.19 will show thicker borders around.


A Forts is:
  • hostile if it is controlled by someone you are at war with.
  • friendly if it is controlled by you, or by someone on your side in any war, unless you are at war with them (should not happen).
  • neutral otherwise.


An area is:
  • friendly if it has at least one friendly fort and no hostile fort.
  • hostile if it has at least one hostile fort and no friendly fort.
  • contested if it has at least one hostile fort and at least one friendly fort.
  • neutral otherwise.

Zone of Control blocks an army to move between two adjacent provinces if they belong to different areas, one of which is hostile and the other being either hostile or contested.

(Note that movement within areas is never blocked by Zone of Control)

An occupied province without a fort will flip back to its owner's control if there is in the area at least one non-besieged fort controlled by him but no hostile forts.

To ensure an army can always reach the fort that is blocking it from moving and then come back after sieging it down, all armies can ignore Military Access in all non-neutral areas

Rebels never impact hostile rules, and yes, Capital Forts now work like all other forts.

In order to stop the enemy from reaching the interior of your country, you will often need to have one fort in every area.. Even without that though, forts can force the enemy to make detours unless they first siege down some forts.

While doing this, an average country ends up with more forts than before, so maintenance have been halved.

While doing these changes, we have tweaked the map dramatically, adding in lots of wastelands to give natural borders, and also made a big revision to the area setup, so now areas are pretty much all between 3-5 provinces, giving a more even balance.

eu4_131.png





We have added a new peace treaty as well in 1.19, called “End Rivalry”. This peace option force the enemy to remove one of their Rivals. The removed Rival cannot be added again until 15 years after removed.


We play the game quite a lot every week, and read far more on what issues you as players have. So we keep balancing and changing things to make for a greater player experience. In 1.19 we have some rather important changes to how you play the game.

Combat has been changed a bit as well in this patch, as we removed the combat width penalties from terrain, as it made battles last way too long, and was a double defensive bonus combined with diceroll penalties.

Sieging units will no longer get a rivercrossing penalty if a relieving force engages them, even if they did cross a river a few days, months or years earlier.

We have changed the chance to increase colonysize from colonist being placed to instead being a lower the bigger the colony becomes. Previously it was pretty much a no-brainer to keep it as long as possible, as it became better the bigger the colony is. Now íts more of a choice..

Another complaint was the fixed levels of liberty desire that got applied to vassals and marches as they grew past certain arbitrary limits. Now it is scaling by development of the subject so you can always judge impact of their growth.

For those of you that care about score, Great Powers are now likelier to be getting score each month, as they have a default +5 rating in each category. Also maintaining enough forts is now an impact on your military score gain.

Corruption is now not entirely 100% bad, as a country with 100 corruption will now get -20 unrest in their realm.

Courthouse & Town Halls no longer affect unrest but instead reduce state maintainance by 25% and 50% respectively, while their building costs have been halved.

The Casus Belli from Expansion and Exploration Ideagroups did not really work as great as before with the new technology system, so in 1.19 they are getting changed. The Casus Belli themselves are gone..

Exploration Finisher now allows you to fabricate claim on another continent that is in your capital in a colonial region. (Colonial Subjects can do it everywhere in a colonial region.)

Expansion Finisher now allows you to fabricate claims inside any trade company region that is on another continent than your capital. (Without Wealth of Nations, it is any overseas port not in a colonial region, and not in europe.)

At the same time, distance impact on building spy networks have been dropped to 1/10th of before.

For those of you that have Rights of Man, we are now adding even more things. In 1.19, Trade Goods will have a local impact. A Grain Province gives +0.5 Land Force Limit, Iron gives 20% Faster Building Construction & Ivory gives 20% cheaper state maintenance.

We have also improved the “trading in good” - bonus, where some are almost twice as powerful as before, and some have changed completely.

Next week we'll be back talking about all interface improvements for 1.19.
 
  • 239
  • 57
  • 26
Reactions:
So for 200 gold (town hall) I can get a reduction of 0.0035 per development per month.

To return the investment in 100 years, that province would need to have 47.6 development (a little less if the province is far from your capital).

I guess I might build one in Paris...

The autonomy reduction is still there. If it's newly conquered, that's a big difference. A province with 7/7/7 dev, 20% bonuses to tax and production income, a trade good worth 2.5, and a temple and workshop(so moderately rich, but nothing crazy) produces 1.43 ducats per turn before autonomy. If it was conquered without a claim, it starts at 50% autonomy, and takes 500 months of peace to reach 0 without a government building. Assume you're at war 1/4 of the time, and have no other autonomy mods. Over the 667 months it'll take to reduce autonomy to zero, it'd produce 716.13 ducats without the town hall, or 889.36 with the town hall. That's a difference of 173.23, or almost the whole cost of the building. Toss in the 49.02 more ducats you've saved from the state maintenance reduction, and you've more than paid for the building by then, which is about 55 years. That's not a bad ROI, and that's before you factor in the manpower or trade power you get.
 
  • 11
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm waiting for a Dev response to this. I don't like the idea of an enemy army walking around the inner areas of my country without even sieging forts on the border. And possibly easily reaching the capital fort without sieging anything else.

Hmm yeah, that doesn't really sound intended. It seems like the definition of what makes an area 'neutral' should use some tweaks. A fort-less area should be considered hostile if it is full of uncontested enemy provinces. Once you gain access to it from the outside area, it's perfectly reasonable to say that it loses that hostile status easily if any of the provinces are then occupied, but you shouldn't just be able to stroll through the area with a fort.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
The autonomy reduction is still there. If it's newly conquered, that's a big difference. A province with 7/7/7 dev, 20% bonuses to tax and production income, a trade good worth 2.5, and a temple and workshop(so moderately rich, but nothing crazy) produces 1.43 ducats per turn before autonomy. If it was conquered without a claim, it starts at 50% autonomy, and takes 500 months of peace to reach 0 without a government building. Assume you're at war 1/4 of the time, and have no other autonomy mods. Over the 667 months it'll take to reduce autonomy to zero, it'd produce 716.13 ducats without the town hall, or 889.36 with the town hall. That's a difference of 173.23, or almost the whole cost of the building. Toss in the 49.02 more ducats you've saved from the state maintenance reduction, and you've more than paid for the building by then, which is about 55 years. That's not a bad ROI, and that's before you factor in the manpower or trade power you get.
This works as long as you don't plan to give the province to an estate. It also arguably helps an enemy that conquers the province later more than the country that initially built it.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Corruption is now not entirely 100% bad, as a country with 100 corruption will now get -20 unrest in their realm.

How is this even logical?

Courthouse & Town Halls no longer affect unrest but instead reduce state maintainance by 25% and 50% respectively, while their building costs have been halved.

Bad. I liked the possibility to trade money for lower revolt risk. Was especially worth it to build in provinces with non-accepted culture and wrong religion.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm really not a fan of this ZoC change. Whenever they use hard-coded regions things become more arbitrary, and that's not good for a game that's supposed to be about alternate history. Let's say you have a border with your enemy, forts all along your side, forts all along their side. When you enter their territory, can you move laterally from one fort to another, or do you have to retreat back to your territory? The answer depends on whether the border happens to fall within PDX's pre-defined states or between two of them. That's leaving aside the question about whether you need a double row of forts (the dev diary seems to define states with no forts as neutral territory, even when entirely within a single belligerent's territory, which would mean you can waltz right by a fort).

The problem with ZoC is that it interacted poorly with neutral territory and was buggy in the implementation. The answer isn't scrapping the system, it's implementing it the way it was originally described. If you are adjacent to a fort, you can only retreat back towards your own territory. If your path back to your territory is blocked by a recaptured fort or neutral territory that you no longer have access to, your army is trapped. This system works, and makes sense, the problem is just that often the game would lose track of which direction you could safely retreat to, or allow you to move past a fort when you shouldn't be able to.

Don't scrap a system that makes sense for one that hard-codes pre-defined borders, just fix the system you already created.
 
  • 17
  • 1
Reactions:
But is the auto increase maintenance on forts upon war bug fixed so that the AI doesn't get to move freely passed border forts cause their move paths were fired before the game maintained the forts? Cause THIS is the bug that was causing the most headache. And if its still present, even though your statement holds, you will get repeated complaints that you guys failed to make the AI follow zone rules.
It's not AI cheat. I as a human player have been able to take advantage of this bug several times.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
This works as long as you don't plan to give the province to an estate. It also arguably helps an enemy that conquers the province later more than the country that initially built it.

Isn't that true of all buildings? If you conquer them, you don't have to pay for them. The autonomy resets when they conquer it, remember.

How is this even logical?

How the heck is that supposed to work...?

It makes sense for some rebel types and not others. Peasants would be more restive in a corrupt state, but the bigger players would like you more. It'd make more sense if it gave estate loyalty or something.
 
I have a suggestion to make.
1)Make forts block access through that province, but none others as well as it's new uses. This way they can still create chokepoints.
2)Make any enemy territory not bordering friendly areas hostile.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
2)Make any enemy territory not bordering friendly areas hostile.
That sounds like "please let me get away with not building interior forts".
 
  • 9
  • 1
Reactions:
That sounds like "please let me get away with not building interior forts".
Nah, if you try that without interior forts then as soon as you lose the exterior wall, they'll be able to run rampant. One one-month siege per area is not exactly a barrier, given that armies take almost that long to march around anyway.

Also, fortifications were mostly built on borders. Who fortifies the centre of a land empire, other than maybe the capital or a nation that's got a lot of rebellions to worry about?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Oh, cool new peace treaty. Have you thought about other treaty options? Demilitarizing some area like "Tear down a fort" or destroying buildings in provinces?
 
  • 8
Reactions:
Combat has been changed a bit as well in this patch, as we removed the combat width penalties from terrain, as it made battles last way too long, and was a double defensive bonus combined with diceroll penalties.

This is so bad, the combat width modifier just makes sense. You can't have the same amount of men fighting at the same time on a mountain pass as a wide plain. It's such an easy and organic way of making terrain matter.
Removing sensible modifiers instead of balancing them is just malpractice.
 
  • 20
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm skeptical about the ZoC changes, but I'm willing to see how they work out in practice. One big concern is that this model works well for large nations (think Commonwealth vs Muscovy), but breaks down when you have narrow fronts or tiny countries at war (which is actually much more common). A single fort now blocks nothing at all.

The combat width change basically renders terrain meaningless again (which is a real shame, given the chokepoints that the map changes introduce). If there are no real differences between mountain and plains for combat, then we might as well do away with that abstraction altogether. It should be painful to attack through mountains and easy to defend there.
 
  • 7
Reactions:
Nope. It's a way to partially unwind the hatchet job that the Institution system did to the effectiveness of two idea groups' finishers.

(And if you were taking Exploration purely for the CB at the end, you're very strange.)
exploration may not be taken purely for the CB, but i did take the expansion over the other admin groups purely for the CB. admin, economy and religious/humanist were 3 very good choice to take admin ideas early so making room for expansion was a huge opportunity cost.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
That sounds like "please let me get away with not building interior forts".
It just doesn't make sense that you need to double up on your forts. And you would still need more forts to be effective due to being able to break through after one fort is down
 
  • 1
Reactions: