EU4 - Development Diary - 24th of January 2017

[Shock360]

Nobody's commented on it as far as I can see but I see two notifications I haven't seen before:

That house icon

What looks like a woman in a spiky crown?

Doesn't the house have to do with colonizing? Like you have to choose whether it's aggresive etc

 

[Tavior]

20 states for Russia? Does Russia REALLY need that many states to be strong? .Remember Russia has TONS of military NI so having more full state will just make it harder to fight Russia. Just wondering.

Edit: After reading about state nerf. Still my point below stand.

Artillery Bonus usually goes up to a maximum of +5 when sieging, this can be increased by this ability to +8 in this age.

I want to make sure that what I am thinking is happening here. Not something else.

Normally a level 2 fort, not in capital, requires one regiment of artillery to get one siege bonus. 4 artillery regiment for 2 bonus seige. 7 artillery regiment for 3 bonus siege. Until 9 regiment for 5 bonus siege rolls. I could be wrong here EU 4 wiki doesn't list this info when it should. All it say is total artillery regiment divide by (fort level + 1) which may be incorrect.

So to get +8 siege bonus on a level 9 fort (worst possible case). You will need 80 artillery regiments!!!!! There is NOT enough combat width to include all of that regiment in back row. Nevermind the attrition penalty in a 3 dev mountain with capital + 8 level fort.

I would actually rework that bonus to make it require LESS artillery regiment for more siege bonus up to 8.

Edit: Look like the description on wiki was confusing. 28 artillery regiment is still pretty nutty considering their cost and what not.

 

[tobias.mb]

That house icon

That looks like the "no colonisation policy chosen" alert.

 

[JustMormegil]

And it's not like russia have been famous for their great discipline and so on. So the ideas fit the nation.

Tell this Ottomans who lost nearly all wars to Russia (except Peters Azov campain) in 18th century, having x3 and more numerical advantage in all of them. Tell this France during coalition wars, who was elliminated by Suvorov in Alps. Yes, Prussia was defeated due to numerical advantage in 7 years war and Sweden lost Great Nothern war facing numerical advantage from Russia side, but troops quality was comparable.

Russian forcelimit and manpower should be high due to economical reasons: large population and huge territory. Those forcelimit and manpower bonuses in NI are too ahistorical.

Instead, strong morale bonus and maybe leader pips should be provided.

I'm completely dissapointed with PDX been unable to understand this and implement more historical national ideas and interesting blob limitation mechanic (cheers Ming, you seem to get interesting one in the upcoming patch). Instead, we keep to be ignored for the years of suggestions postings.

#ThanksParadox

 

[Ixal]

So to get +8 siege bonus on a level 9 fort (worst possible case). You will need 80 artillery regiments!!!!! There is NOT enough combat width to include all of that regiment in back row. .

It probably just means you get to add 3. So 1 artillery for +4, 3 for +5, etc. up to a total of +8.

 

[Tavior]

It probably just means you get to add 3. So 1 artillery for +4, 3 for +5, etc. up to a total of +8.

If that is true. 1 + 3*9 = 28 which is still a LOT. I think the max combat width is roughly 40 or something. That is half of that already. I am adding up to 9 for capital fort.

 

[LemonyTang]

Yeah, there is a nerf in number of states. But it seems, at least according to what i have seen in Dev clash, that they have once again increased size of states. There will be far less states in 1.20.

I took this screenshot earlier of the state screen: http://i.imgur.com/uGLT0oA.png

It's exactly the same as Upper Burma is in 1.19. So I don't think they have increased the size of states. Honestly, with such ground breaking changes I wish they would be more open about them. I'm not at all enthused by the prospect of playing with 1/2 to 2/3rds reduction in my stateable land. (Incidentally, this would be yet another buff to Prussia)

 

[JCivX]

Poland's +1 legitimacy is extremely weak even in a vacuum, but in the context of the other nation-specific bonuses it is absolute garbage. Please please please change it. If it has to be a legitimacy buff for whatever reason, at least make it +3 or +4 per year so it has at least minimal impact on the game.

There is just no reason whatsoever to keep the +1 legitimacy bonus other than maybe saving face by not admitting that it was too weak, but Paradox isn't usually that shallow and is actually very responsive.

 

[TheDungen]

50 development capital

How will this work for the AI who won't develop provinces above twice their original development or 10 whichever is higher.

    DEVELOPMENT_CAP_BASE = 10,    -- AI will not develop provinces that have more development than this or DEVELOPMENT_CAP_MULT*original development (whichever is bigger)
    DEVELOPMENT_CAP_MULT = 2,

Because there are plenty of AI nations with less than 25 starting development on their capital.

 

[Chieron]

Hm, will nation-specific age bonuses also be available to nations that switched tag away from those special nations? E.g. Austria->HRE, Poland->Commonwealth or Prussia->Germany? By the 18th century, it's likely that some of those changes have happened (and PLC is already possible in the Age of Reformation).

 

[Philadelphus]

Nobody's commented on it as far as I can see but I see two notifications I haven't seen before:

That house icon

What looks like a woman in a spiky crown?

The first notification is the one show up when you get your first colonist and have The Cossacks available, asking you to choose your colonial focus. The second is unknown, but I've seen it suggested that it means it's possible to buy a bonus with splendor.

Poland's +1 legitimacy is extremely weak even in a vacuum, but in the context of the other nation-specific bonuses it is absolute garbage. Please please please change it. If it has to be a legitimacy buff for whatever reason, at least make it +3 or +4 per year so it has at least minimal impact on the game.

There is just no reason whatsoever to keep the +1 legitimacy bonus other than maybe saving face by not admitting that it was too weak, but Paradox isn't usually that shallow and is actually very responsive.

If you look back at the first few pages of this thread, Johan mentioned that this has now been changed to +30% goods produced.

How will this work for the AI who won't develop provinces above twice their original development or 10 whichever is higher.

    DEVELOPMENT_CAP_BASE = 10,    -- AI will not develop provinces that have more development than this or DEVELOPMENT_CAP_MULT*original development (whichever is bigger)
    DEVELOPMENT_CAP_MULT = 2,

Because there are plenty of AI nations with less than 25 starting development on their capital.

I'm not sure, but wasn't that changed with 1.18 or 1.19 so that the AI will develop above that cap in order to get institutions? Perhaps a similar exemption could be made for the capital. Or the AI may just not go for it.

Edit: forgot to say that the objectives shown here look to me to be the most interesting and fun ones of the various ages so far. I'm hoping that with lots of playtesting before release all of these objectives and bonuses will be tweaked or changed to be just as interesting and fun, and am feeling cautiously optimistic about the expansion.

 

[SickologyFlvx]

This is neat.

 

[bbqftw]

State limit nerf is pretty harsh on ROTW and Eastern Europe, in which the average state is comparable in development to an average French province.

There are certain places so bad I'd rather the land be wasteland than have provinces.

Looks like first consideration for any Asian start in 1.20 is think "how do I move my capital to Europe".

Still +3 siege ability is worth the DLC for reducing level 8 fort cancer alone

 

[Pornek]

Ive just read up on all the changes you planned since Denmark. Sounds great. Whenever I start up a campaign on a new patch I end up in the same mindless blobbing spree. While there are often a bit different nuances in how it plays out, the general game-feel remains the same. Hopefully this will address this a bit and you'll keep expanding and add on these little/big goals during a campaign.

 

[Haldan]

thats one big-ass whip

 

[TheDungen]

Oh wow.... Russia will suffer greatly in next patch then. Without trade, they have no income unless you make states, might as well play Novgorod from now on then, they don't need states. Any other changes mentioned somwhere?

Well they do get them back in the last age, before 1710 can you really justify them being as powerful as they presently are?

Tell this Ottomans who lost nearly all wars to Russia (except Peters Azov campain) in 18th century, having x3 and more numerical advantage in all of them. Tell this France during coalition wars, who was elliminated by Suvorov in Alps. Yes, Prussia was defeated due to numerical advantage in 7 years war and Sweden lost Great Nothern war facing numerical advantage from Russia side, but troops quality was comparable.

Russian forcelimit and manpower should be high due to economical reasons: large population and huge territory. Those forcelimit and manpower bonuses in NI are too ahistorical.

Instead, strong morale bonus and maybe leader pips should be provided.

I'm completely dissapointed with PDX been unable to understand this and implement more historical national ideas and interesting blob limitation mechanic (cheers Ming, you seem to get interesting one in the upcoming patch). Instead, we keep to be ignored for the years of suggestions postings.

#ThanksParadox

That's because the ottomans at this point were crap, not because Russia was good.
If you want an event for General Suvorov that's fine but one brilliant leader does not mean that their entire army should be super good.
And no if Russia had had anywhere near the professional armies of sweden and prussia then they would have curbstomped them with their numerical advantage. Russia had a good solid army don't get me wrong but you can't compare them skillwise with the small but elite armies of Sweden and Prussia.
Whioe potentially true that high devleopment (due to large number of provinces) should be he reason Russia have loads of manpower and high forcelimit, what other national ideas should one give them? They don't warrant the discipline and army morale bonuses of Sweden and Prussia. The alternative is not giving Russia any military bonuses at all. Giving them diplomacy ones or economic ones. Or perhaps one more colonial one, because let's face it the colonizing of Siberia is always behind schedule, even more so if you consdier that they should be atleast starting to colonize Alaska before the game ends. Perhaps a special thing which allows Russia to ignore the arctic penalty (if they don't already).

Also I find states to be an excellent way to limit the blobbing, except there are to many of them which favours countries with high development.

State limit nerf is pretty harsh on ROTW and Eastern Europe, in which the average state is comparable in development to an average French province.

There are certain places so bad I'd rather the land be wasteland than have provinces.

Looks like first consideration for any Asian start in 1.20 is think "how do I move my capital to Europe".

It is a nerf to big countries, and playing wide early on. I think it is a great idea t halt the snowball early and as such limit how big it will become.

 

[bbqftw]

Doesn't touch big countries with high dev states. Does murder the rest of the world that has to subsist on sub-25 dev states.

Please rebalance states. Make Paris a one province state, split up monsters like Lombardy, Tuscany, and Venetia (you could blow them up into 3 states each and they'd still be better than average!!!) and make state management matter again for European starts.

 

[TheDungen]

Doesn't touch big countries with high dev states. Does murder the rest of the world that has to subsist on sub-25 dev states.

Please rebalance states. Make Paris a one province state, split up monsters like Lombardy, Tuscany, and Venetia (you could blow them up into 3 states each and they'd still be better than average!!!) and make state management matter again for European starts.

Yeah it does, because europe competes with europe who have about the same development per state all of it. Which means the powerful in europe can snowball over the weak in europe a lot less which means they are less powerful when you encounter them. Not to mention the weak they do devour are also less useful to them.

I play with a mod where I nerfed the number of states and the game becomes a lot more interesting that way. You are spectating I have played this way all along. It's like the best change i ever made since I got rid of a huge loads of blobby CBs in Ck2.

 

[Republic of Mercury]

Doesn't touch big countries with high dev states. Does murder the rest of the world that has to subsist on sub-25 dev states.

Please rebalance states. Make Paris a one province state, split up monsters like Lombardy, Tuscany, and Venetia (you could blow them up into 3 states each and they'd still be better than average!!!) and make state management matter again for European starts.

Honestly, considering all the wars fought over Italy in history, I don't think it needs a nerf. France might be a bit too strong though.

 

[TheDungen]

Honestly, considering all the wars fought over Italy in history, I don't think it needs a nerf. France might be a bit too strong though.

Well france did have a massive population didn't they? The largest one in Europe, maybee they could come with a modifier which forces them to have 5% extra nobility estate until the end of the HYW event fires. Or even until the age of absolutism.

Then again I don't really feel France is OP right now I see them destroyed more often than victorious these days. I rather feel Burgundy plus their vassals are the ones who are a bit to strong. Oh and England is also way to powerful early on.