EU4 - Development Diary - 5th of September 2017

[ep1c_fail]

'Propagate religion' is possible in Trade Companies only, as stated in the Dev D. So it won't have an effect in Constantinople or Ragusa.

Yes, very true I misread it.

 

[Elzephor]

Its awesome to see the trade system get some love! But can we see the RNW's trade system get some tweaks as well? The way the generator draws trade routs and zones is seriously immersion-breaking.

I may or may not have posted an alternative algorithm for this a while ago

 

[YuriiH]

Is this a problem in reading comprehension

I can ask something different as well: Is it a problem with logic?
I play as Holand in the Channel, and I've just won my independence and grabbed another TC from Brabant here.
Kindly find ANY reason to have +5% tradepower in the English Channel for the time of my next war with Burgundy/Utrecht/Gelre?

Another example. I play as Venice. Now I fight Mantua guaranteed by co-beligerent Milan or Ferara who allied Austria. Are there any reasons to have +5% tradepower in Venice when I can slaughter everyone in Treviso?

Yet another example. I play Genoa fighting Crimea. Do I have any reasons to have more tradepower there compared to MUCH better rolls?

And the bonus stacks with the Age of Discovery +1 to rolls.
Insane.
5% of trade will never be better, unless I have a long trade chain. But in this case, it does not matter (on Normal at least)

 

[durbal]

All religion should probably spread passively through trade and proximity anyway but then we're dealing with more of a Vicky 2 system than EU4.

 

[VorpalNeko]

What is the logic behind trade policy giving a combat bonus?

It seems like it should be an attrition reduction bonus for your troops instead. At least that way, logistics and trade are vaguely related.
And being able to field a bigger army without attrition is in itself a significant but indirect combat bonus.

 

[Metz]

Should trade centers be more susceptible to conversion due to the tolerance in the environment created by the presence of foreign merchants?

Regarding Christians, Spain for example was very regulatory on who came to its colonies. Same with French Canada. Maybe for Catholics, they could make conversion harder in the node.

Protestant religions on the otherhand encouraged diligence and worship.

In a node, Lutherans could lower development costs, Calvinists could raise productivity, and Orthodox boost manpower pool.

 

[Metz]

It seems like it should be an attrition reduction bonus for your troops instead. At least that way, logistics and trade are vaguely related.
And being able to field a bigger army without attrition is in itself a significant but indirect combat bonus.

Maybe a siege bonus based on the merchant's indirect recon and intel of the node?

Although less attrition could be good as it could represent a merchant's cooperation towards getting an allied army the supplies it needs.

 

[Metz]

@Trin Tragula

To avoid rival or enemy merchants giving boosts, can we embargo them as a way to kick them and their influence/abilities out of the node (that is if we own it)?

Any changes to piracy/privateering?

 

[bigaristotel]

Have to wait and see new Islam machanics but for now free features are way more exciting than DLC itself IMHO

 

[holyvigil]

Interesting update. The 33% requirement for combat bonus is a big buff to big counties.

This seems like it is going to be the Muslim India patch. I also think it is humorous that when Spain and Portugal get to the spice islands they'll have all their provinces converted if they try to make the Philippines catholic.

 

[Twoflower]

I can ask something different as well: Is it a problem with logic?
I play as Holand in the Channel, and I've just won my independence and grabbed another TC from Brabant here.
Kindly find ANY reason to have +5% tradepower in the English Channel for the time of my next war with Burgundy/Utrecht/Gelre?

Another example. I play as Venice. Now I fight Mantua guaranteed by co-beligerent Milan or Ferara who allied Austria. Are there any reasons to have +5% tradepower in Venice when I can slaughter everyone in Treviso?

Yet another example. I play Genoa fighting Crimea. Do I have any reasons to have more tradepower there compared to MUCH better rolls?

The trade power is better if you are not at war or do not have to wage war in a given node, obviously I don't think that a choice is unbalanced just because there is a clearly better choice in certain cases. And besides, it does not have to be balanced, because the +1 terrain bonus has to be earned by gaining a third of a node's power. Your examples notably only mention merchant republics and the Dutch - other countries might have a harder time gaining the required 33 percent trade power in highly contested nodes like Venice, Crimea or the English Channel.
As I said, this pretty much is a military buff for all mercantile nations (merchant republics, the Netherlands, Portugal, Oman), and it gives military value to the trade group. I wouldn't necessarily consider that a negative thing.

 

[gia257]

I also think people miss the point on the +5% trade power. it isn't +5 Percent income, it's +5% power. That means it gets multiplied per node. So when you have a long chain of nodes, shouldn't the extra money you are dragging from node to know get amplified with each node it passes through?

I actually see the bonus trade power as really strong. and I will probably use it in the majority of my nodes most of the time in my Portugal games.

If it was multiplicative, and being default, all players would have +5% therefore, nothing would change by default. You would only earn when a player changes their policy to something else. But then, those earnings would be split by all players keeping trade power up. And you are splitting 5% after all, so almost nothing.

But it is probably not multiplicative, but additive, which means it is even less than 5% as the bonuses stack.

 

[BritNavFan]

What about the African interior. That converted to Islam too (especialy the West African interior) and I'm pretty sure that was through trade and not conquest. Though granted there's already some Muslim powers there/close by.

West Africa was "converted" by a mixture of trade and conquest. In the game as it is, the existing mechanisms are enough to make Islam spread much, much faster in the west African interior than it did historically, so it's a mute point. (Islam and native religion in West Africa should play out more like the coexistence of Hinduism in Muslim-ruled India.) Also most of the conversion by trade that was going to be done had been done by the game's start date. So while it would be cool to have Kano convert to Islam by trade 20 years after game start, in-game-realistically Kano probably got (completely ahistorically) annexed by a Muslim power before that has a chance to happen.

This new method works for Indonesia, but it sounds like it will break India and East Africa (e.g. places like Ethiopia and Zimbabwe converting).

 

[Frencho]

• Improve Inland Routes: +1 combat terrain bonus in trade node provinces. Only possible with 33% of Trade Power in a node.

Hello DDRJake and EU IV team, I have a constructive remark about this.

I don't think having Merchants improve inland routes makes sense in a strictly military and tactical way to warrant a +1 combat terrain bonus. I mean, merchants dont act as scouts for armed forces on the side to give them tips on the terrain that much.

Merchant stick to existing road infrastructure and only go off the beaten path if there's something to gain out of it or a time sensitive imperative.

However having merchant operate extensive trade routes in a node should give a military edge by abstracting better supply lines. I would change it as follows:

• Improve Inland Routes: + 33% reinforce speed in trade node provinces. Only possible with 33% of Trade Power in a node

or alternatively

• Improve Inland Routes: + X amount of supply limit bonus in trade node provinces. Only possible with 33% of Trade Power in a node.
• Improve Inland Routes: + X amount of attrition reduction bonus in trade node provinces. Only possible with 33% of Trade Power in a node.

That just my humble opinion, I think It makes it more authentic, more subtle and less OP.

Best Regards Et Vive L'Auld Alliance!

 

[hypertank]

It's worth re-itterating that Religious Propagation will be limited to Trade Company Regions. That is to say, Ivory coast, Cape, Zanzibar, India, South East Asia, Canton, Hangzhou and Beijing. This religious propogation will not be possible in, say, France or Russia or Brazil.

In that case, Christianity also spread through those nodes via trade (Krishitan, Chinese Catholics, etc. etc.) Why make this a feature exclusive to Islam?

 

[Tavior]

I am disappointed that trade wasn't overhauled as much I would have like to see.

Also more button to push really? Do we really need more button/micro like this in-game? I am already forgetting to turn off state edicts.

I agree with many other people that 5% trade income isn't as strong as other bonus.

Why are religious conversion within trade company restricted to Muslim? What if ahistorical orthodox Muscovy/Russia made their way to India? Why are they locked out of that benefit?

I think the 25% spy network speed is pretty OP for countries that are still small enough to have their all 3 rival within a single trade node. But less useful for countries that has blobbed far beyond their own home node and have 5-6 rivals (rival toward you but not you to them).

 

[SnakeInATopHat]

Why isn't propagate religion available to Cristian faith? It is arguably the.way it did spread in colonies, Africa and Japan! Please reconsider!

Agreed

 

[Atilla 'The Hun']

Trade policies? Propagate Religion ? More love for the Islamic world including Indonesia ?

Paradox, you never let me down, this patch is definitly gonna be a hugeeee blow to the community I think

 

[hypertank]

Improve Inland Routes: +1 combat terrain bonus in trade node provinces. Only possible with 33% of Trade Power in a node

I don't think it makes sense that a bit of merchant reconnaissance gives a terrain advantage over actually local armies. Surely the locals would know the land better (or at least have easier access to local guides). If anything all nations should get a terrain advantage in their home regions, and this trade bonus would just equalize that. That would sort of be counterproductive to overseas expansion though (a hallmark of the period) so I agree with others here that the bonus ought to be to supply limit instead.

 

[Georgus]

To give an example, early spread of Islam in far southeastern Asia was purely caused by the muslim merchants in the region. Impressed by muslim traders' honesty, and merchantile capabilities, native people of malacca, sumatra, and indonesia started to convert to Islam in a steady manner. So, the former pagans of the region were neither colonies nor protectorates of muslim states close to that region. What the devs call "propagate religion" was genuinely unique to the muslims by historical approach. Historically speaking, assimilation of natives is a much more suitable mechanic for the colonizers of western christian world as currently exists in the game.

Actually bulk of Indonesia was converted with a sword, when first local Sultanates emerged, they quickly conquered everyone else on the islands. It is common misconception that conversion of Indonesia was peaceful.


Anyway, I like that Paradox decided to take look at trade, it is after all the lifeblood of civilization. However the way it is done seems, uneven. There is very little reason to pick trade power bonus, especially if we are in Trade company region, where benefits of conquest far outweigh the costs as it is.

Ability to turn merchants into uber-missionaries seems also pretty broke. Even if your aim is not to convert entire node, you can still use this ability to cripple locals with uprisings, drop in taxes and expenses needed to reconvert provinces. Especially if you are in east asia the odds get even more stacked against you. Technology gap makes it harder to control trade for them than for other nations, even in their home nodes.