EU4 - Development Diary - 17th of January 2017

[princeseth]

nice DD ...thanks Johan

 

[Druplesnubb]

You say that like going revolutionary is a bad thing...


Ugh, do those bothersome liberals have to ruin everything? L'Etat c'est moi!

This might be the most schizophrenic post I've ever read.

 

[ecrurudesby]

English Monarchy currently is at -30.

Not sure I agree with this. The Stuart belief in the divine right of kings was a major cause of the Civil War, not to mention the Tudor Henry VIII was also partial to a bit of Absolutism. It was only after this war that the power of the English king was heavily curtailed. But the player is unable to keep the English Monarchy after the disaster ends.

 

[Druplesnubb]

Also, seconding the questions of replacements for the "emperor of China" and "win the religious war" objectives for nations that can't complete them. Especially since the latter is exclusive to players who bought Art of War.

 

[riadach]

No chance you could give a nudge to CK2 developers and inform them this could be a nice addition to their game too?

 

[Zoston]

May have been answered in a previous dd, but has it been said if it is possible for modders to script dynamic age transitions, so the start of an age isn't linked to a year but to flags? The years feel too railroady for some of the more fantasy mods, but could work great with dynamic triggers.

 

[SignedName]

This really seems like another nerf to republics and buff to monarchs (on top of the insanely useful disniherit ability in the last expansion). I am really hoping that republics get some more interesting mechanics as well at some point (given that they will probably have a hard time getting lots of absolutism).

Also Prussia can now gets to 120% discipline without picking up any military ideas.

Also also I am guessing that the name of this DLC is going to be leviathan.

I have a feeling republics are going to be really strong during the Age of Revolution.

 

[bitmapmedivh]

So we can now make a few guesses as to what the elusive China number mechanic was from the last DD. Seems likely that is a counter for this new Mandate. Oddly enough, in the screens it seems Britain is halfway to having fulfilled the objective though, being either Emperor of China or having atleast 50 Mandate.

But Emperor of China is new aswell. Does it simply refer to the tag that uses the Celestial Empire government type? Or is it something new entirely? The way it seems to be constructed, being an Age objective and all, would suggest that it's a title that is easier to usurp than before. There's a reason it's one of the objectives and the Manchu are one of the nations given a specific bonus for this age. And it looks to be a military bonus aswell, to help them in their conquests.

My guess is that this new Mandate mechanic is a combination of some of the ideas that I and a few others suggested in one of the China threads in the EUIV forum. That means a HRE-like system, with Mandate instead of Imperial Authority, but without China being divided into several independent tags. Mandate either gives bonii or malii depending on its level, or it allows the current emperor to do certain things like in the HRE. Low Mandate would presumably allow other tags in the Chinese tech group to claim the Emperorship, giving unique CB's and so on. I'd guess low Mandate also increases revolt risk and separatism and so on, thus being more likely to cause an implosion. The system then helps one of the tags in the area claim and conquer China so that a new Empire can arise instead of the current situation, where China usually implodes and then either stays imploded or Ming reconquers its cores one bit at a time.

I'm thinking the Banners alluded to here is a unique mechanic exclusive to the Manchu to give them enough manpower to conquer China. The Manchus didn't only have the Eight Banners, but also the Green Standard, which was made up of foreigners (read: Han Chinese) that fought for them. So perhaps the game system is a sort-of inverse of the Condottiere system, where Manchu are able to draw foreign manpower up to a certain size to field in their armies.

 

[Subbak]

Not sure I agree with this. The Stuart belief in the divine right of kings was a major cause of the Civil War, not to mention the Tudor Henry VIII was also partial to a bit of Absolutism. It was only after this war that the power of the English king was heavily curtailed. But the player is unable to keep the English Monarchy after the disaster ends.

Meh, you can probably still go pretty high on absolutism if you want to. In the screenshot, they have 52% max absolutism.
It's possible that the parliament might go mad though (in particular, you won't want to assign new seats, also I guess you might have more trouble winning debates. Which is pretty realistic all things considered, given how well that went for the Stuarts.

 

[DominusNovus]

Well, it would seem that the Imperial system of China has been decoupled from the Ming tag, from reading between the lines. Hurray

I also just want to say that I hope that there's some alternative to always trying to max out absolutism. The final period of the game is the era in which our modern conceptions of classical liberalism came into being. States like the US, Switzerland, the Commonwealth, and Venice were designed to specifically foil attempts at forming an absolutist government.

Perhaps only in the final period might there be an option there.

 

[Karl Ilitch]

Be on victorious side of the religious war.

Does it mean that religious war won't fire before 1620?

 

[Llyw olaf]

I really hope it's a mechanic, but there is the possibility that he just referred to the liberalism event chain (is it a disaster? Can't remember.)

I'm also hoping liberalism is a new mechanic, it could help with the "The Age of Revolution" having actual A.I revolutions, revolutions rarely happen in my campaigns.

 

[Republic of Mercury]

This might be the most schizophrenic post I've ever read.

The revolutionary disaster great. The liberalism disaster is just a pain.

 

[The_Meme_Man]

Since I am figuring that the number at the bottom is the Mandate number, and there is the goal to "be Emperor of China", I wonder if there will be a "warring states" mechanic to encourage pan-Chinese consolidation from the warlords after the Ming explode?

Or can only the Ming and Qing be emperors?

 

[seriousgigi]

It won't. Absolutism and ages are both free features (it's just splendour that's an expansion-feature)

ages are free feature? ages is just a name, it is empty wihout splendor.

 

[Republic of Mercury]

ages are free feature? ages is just a name, it is empty wihout splendor.

Ages still affect certain events, which disasters can fire, mechanics like crusades and now, absolutism.

 

[seriousgigi]

we haven't seem them yet, maybe they are just an empty events.

 

[Me_]

Not sure I agree with this. The Stuart belief in the divine right of kings was a major cause of the Civil War, not to mention the Tudor Henry VIII was also partial to a bit of Absolutism. It was only after this war that the power of the English king was heavily curtailed. But the player is unable to keep the English Monarchy after the disaster ends.

It is possible that Constitutional Monarchy (one of the possible outcomes of the Civil War) has an even bigger penalty to Absolutism.

 

[Lysistrata]

So what government type will former absolute monarchies have?

 

[Mackus]

Since republics also get absolutism mechanic, does it mean that republics with high absolutism are more likely to become monarchies?
Or shouldn't high absolutism give penalties to republican tradition?