• 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:
How the heck is that supposed to work...?
If you let your local nobles be corrupt, they prefer to leech of the population rather than revolt against you?
 
  • 9
Reactions:
Nice changelog that leaves me with two questions:

Firstly, when you said you reduced the number of provinces per area, did you increase the number of states we can have or are we going to have smaller countries from now on?

And secondly, if we need more forts, are we somehow going to be able to offset the drawbacks that come with less building slots available for money/manpower buildings? (For example getting a new building slot every 8 dev instead of 10 or something?)

Edit: Also I wanted to say that I like all the changes pretty much, I'm a bit concerned of the impact of removing the combat width modifiers though. Hope this won't be too much of a nerf for defenders.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Firstly, when you said you reduced the number of provinces per area, did you increase the number of states we can have or are we going to have smaller countries from now on?
If they haven't changed the number of states we can have, we aren't going to have smaller countries unless we are fanatically dedicated to only owning States. If we aren't fanatically dedicated to only owning States, we're going to have larger (more of our provinces will never incur the ADM cost of upgrading the core) but less efficient (fewer provinces will be below 75% LA) countries.
And secondly, if we need more forts, are we somehow going to be able to offset the drawbacks that come with less building slots available for money/manpower buildings? (For example getting a new building slot every 8 dev instead of 10 or something?)
Given the payoff times, many provinces are too poor to justify any building that isn't a fort.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I love the fort changes, much more clear (despite the expense that we have lost the ability to force a chokepoint in some places ie Navarra)

However, not a fan of the new explore/expanse finishers. Seems like a pretty hefty nerf and the loss of two great CBs for expanding overseas. In addition, not a big fan of the loss of combat width modifiers. It made battles in mountains all that much better for smaller nations, and this seems to just buff the already strong blobs.

In addition, is anything changing for Ottomans? They have a whole bunch of things skewed in their favour and the 6/6/6 ruler with a 6/5/6 heir removes any hope for a tech advantage on them late game :S
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Well before you kept the colonist there until it was finished, now you get the added fun of solving a math problem to determine the optimal time to pull him out.
Agreed with this sentiment - the change to colonist growth just increases the need for micromanagement rather than enhances the game. By default that means the change is lame. This is an unhelpful change to say the least.
 
  • 6
  • 2
  • 1
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.

What?

@Johan, the combat width mechanic is a wonderful mechanic for strategic thinking. You can hold passes with smaller armies if you know your max width on Mountains!

Please rethink doing this. This is not a good idea.
 
  • 17
Reactions:
Agreed with this sentiment - the change to colonist growth just increases the need for micromanagement rather than enhances the game. By default that means the change is lame. This is an unhelpful change to say the least.

In my opinion micromanagement is an enhancement of the game. It's not a math problem (anymore than the entire game is). There are situations where you want to pull the colonist earlier, and situations where you don't. It's also possible that simply reversing the graph doesn't even change the average time for a colony to pop, so you're just fine completely ignoring the change.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
You don't get added breach chance? The modifier is always between 0 and 5, while the negative modifier from L8 fort is -7? I think. You do get siege bonuses that aren't available in the early game, but artillery bonus on forts maxes out very early. L8 forts are horrendous.

I'm taking that data from the wiki. The article says that if the sum of dice+arty bonus+obsolete fort bonus is 14+, you get a breach. No mention of penalties for bigger forts. I've noticed breaches getting more common as time goes on, though I admit that I haven't looked into this stuff in detail.
 
This changes to forts need to be SERIOUSLY tested out and thought out.
It's just plain crazy to double the amount of forts. Wars will take forever and will benefit even more the big blobs with manpower to spare sieging down forts.

(ottos just got yet ANOTHER buff, and they sure as fuck need more smh)

I do agree that the way forts work right now is great, it just needs to be debugged.
If the warscore will be the same as now (where forts are worth much more) I'll go back to having no forts at all. What's the point in having almost every poor area with one? And where am I gonna get the gold to build all those?

Sometimes it seems like you don't even play the game...

EDIT: And changing the settler chance for colonists? Why? Just why?? Yeah it won't be such a "no brainer" And you think that automatically means it's fun? IT'S NOT! who wants to be micromanaging colonies??
 
  • 7
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
This changes to forts need to be SERIOUSLY tested out and thought out.
It's just plain crazy to double the amount of forts. Wars will take forever and will benefit even more the big blobs with manpower to spare sieging down forts.

(ottos just got yet ANOTHER buff, and they sure as **** need more smh)

I do agree that the way forts work right now is great, it just needs to be debugged.
If the warscore will be the same as now (where forts are worth much more) I'll go back to having no forts at all. What's the point in having almost every poor area with one? And where am I gonna get the gold to build all those?

Sometimes it seems like you don't even play the game...

EDIT: And changing the settler chance for colonists? Why? Just why?? Yeah it won't be such a "no brainer" And you think that automatically means it's fun? IT'S NOT! who wants to be micromanaging colonies??
It's not like they're adding it into the game right away. They are testing it out in public beta first.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
If they haven't changed the number of states we can have, we aren't going to have smaller countries unless we are fanatically dedicated to only owning States. If we aren't fanatically dedicated to only owning States, we're going to have larger (more of our provinces will never incur the ADM cost of upgrading the core) but less efficient (fewer provinces will be below 75% LA) countries.

Given the payoff times, many provinces are too poor to justify any building that isn't a fort.

Well first off, depending on your country you might be limited more by your AE than your ADM and therefore won't have a bigger country but just less money and manpower etc.
But on the other hand you're probably right that I worded my thoughts a bit unspecific.
I meant less state provinces.
It still feels like a nerf because a territorial core costs me 50% of the ADM that a state core would cost but only gives me 25% of the benefits due to the autonomy limit, assuming both provinces have the same development of course.

And your second point is also only valid for some countries.
Playing as the Netherlands for example it's very possible to fill out every building slot and therefore be limited by that fact if you need more forts than before. (Granted, I possibly won't be at my state limit anyway with them.)
 
Yes, you need a second line of forts. That's why maintenance is reduced :)
It's also why there will be a lot more placed forts in 1444.

Which is only useful for a country that is large sized, every small-medium sized country won't have an interior area to protect, all of their areas will end up being border areas. So you could build more forts in your border areas, prolonging how long until it becomes a 'neutral' area, but it would be pointless since the enemy would have access anyway via it being a bordering area and could just carpet siege you and walk anywhere within your country, preventing you from spawning any new regiments and hunting down any of yours that have to retreat. There's no blocking ability with this concept.
 
  • 11
Reactions:
Which is only useful for a country that is large sized, every small-medium sized country won't have an interior area to protect, all of their areas will end up being border areas. So you could build more forts in your border areas, prolonging how long until it becomes a 'neutral' area, but it would be pointless since the enemy would have access anyway via it being a bordering area and could just carpet siege you and walk anywhere within your country, preventing you from spawning any new regiments and hunting down any of yours that have to retreat. There's no blocking ability with this concept.
It seems a bit more like a hybrid between the old (pre ZoC) and new styles. I don't mind it too much, personally.
 
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.
I really don't like the sound of this.
 
  • 10
Reactions:
At first the fort changes looked good to me. "Finally, they're reducing the stupidly high fort maintenance costs", I thought to myself. But no, now you instead need to have twice as many forts. This supposedly means that you'll also effectively be spending twice as much time sieging forts.

I also really don't see why terrain's effect on combat width was removed. If battles last too long, make them progress faster, don't just take defensive bonuses away. That'll only serve to weaken the ability of smaller countries with smaller armies to fight back against stronger foes. Was anyone actually asking for this?

I seriously hope these changes are reconsidered. The combat width issue could maybe be addressed by adding other defensive bonuses to offset the change. The forts, on the other hand... I fear this change will actually amount to a step back.
 
  • 12
Reactions:
At first the fort changes looked good to me. "Finally, they're reducing the stupidly high fort maintenance costs", I thought to myself. But no, now you instead need to have twice as many forts. This supposedly means that you'll also effectively be spending twice as much time sieging forts.

I also really don't see why terrain's effect on combat width was removed. If battles last too long, make them progress faster, don't just take defensive bonuses away. That'll only serve to weaken the ability of smaller countries with smaller armies to fight back against stronger foes. Was anyone actually asking for this?

I seriously hope these changes are reconsidered. The combat width issue could maybe be addressed by adding other defensive bonuses to offset the change. The forts, on the other hand... I fear this change will actually amount to a step back.

I wonder if the width change is connected at all to the permanent defense on owned forts. That plus the removal of the crossing penalty for besieging armies makes me think they don't like how easy it is to slaughter the AI with a mountain fort. Not that is much fun for the player, either. Try playing Oman and siege down Sana'a, for example :). The supply limits won't be changed I'm guessing, so there is still that.
 
  • 1
Reactions: