Europa Universalis IV

[XenomorphII]

Apparently I was. Whoops.

 

[Space Satan]

Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations – Dev diary 9: Policies & Ideas & More

In this weeks dev diary I’m going to tell you a little bit about some of the general additions and changes we are making to the game. This list is quite long but there are some interesting things in there, since we don’t have that many dev diaries left I'll try to cram quite a lot of stuff into this one, hope you like it

Policies

First up is a quite big one, the policies. We have lots of decisions where you enact one decision that has permanent effects and then another decision to remove those effects. What we initially wanted to do was to simply combine those two into one, a Policy. But as often happens when we start thinking about a new feature come up with more cool things to do. So, while we started with an idea about saving decisions we now have another layer of optimizing your nation, more flavour and a way to use that monarch power to boost a certain need you have at the moment.

So, Policies. First of all, each policy is connected to two idea groups. To enact that policy you must adopt all ideas in those two groups. Each policy is also connected to one of the three monarch powers and as long as the policy is enacted it will cost you 1 monarch power each month. We have tried to balance to policies so that they cross over the monarch point categories a bit better to make it more interesting. For example the Weapon Quality Standards, that gives 5% discipline, requires Economic and Quality ideas and cost Adm points while the Anti Smuggler Act, that gives +10% Trade Efficiency, costs Mil points and requires Offensive and Trade Ideas. Each of these policies are fairly situational, but you have to plan ahead since you are only have to have a policy for at least 10 years. You can also have a maximum of 5 at a time. We have also removed some of the old decisions whose function is now filled by the policies (that was the original idea remember). That also a reason why this is a free feature, we don’t want to remove features from players that don’t buy the expansion.

New Concepts for Modifiers
Then we have changed the concepts for some modifiers a bit. There are a few of them so Im just going to list them.

Previously the fire and shock modifiers from Ideas affected both naval and land leaders the same. Now we have separated them, so there are ideas affecting just land or just naval leaders, just like maneuver works.

If you have Wealth of Nations, there are two concepts affecting merchants in inland nodes. One for when present in inland, and one for steering to inland nodes.

Missionary Strength was sometimes too crude a tool, so we added a separate missionary strength against heretics. This means that Counter Reformation is no longer a brilliant tool to convert the infidels, but more of a tool to bring the protestants back into the fold.

Defensiveness is something that all players strive for, but previously there has not been a way to effectively counter it when an opponent has stacked it. Now we have a concept called Siege Ability which reduces your penalty when assaulting and the time between siegeticks.

We also added made so that supply limit can be modified in a province depending on climate, looted etc

There is now a possibility to increase your entire nations production of goods, and some ideas allow that.

Three new diplomatic modifiers have been added, one that affects how quickly your merchants and diplomats travel home, one that affects how quickly you can justify a trade conflict, and the most important.. How much impact your vile actions have on AE.

The new concepts of privateering and fervor can also be affected by events, ideas & decisions.


Some Balance Clarifications
Base Vassal Income has been reduced, and is increased by several ideas and other factors instead.
Production Efficiency modifiers have been reduced at various places, as the cap of +200 was reached easily, making economic techs and investments useless from the mid game.
Discipline now affects defensive capabilities as well, so the values have been halved at most places.


Idea Changes
There has been quite a bit of Idea rebalancing for the 1.6 patch, I'll try to list them all for you.

For country specific ideas, we will not list when discipline, fire, shock OR production efficiency have changed, unless it was not just halved, or made generals only.

Aristocracy
Local Nobility - now also increases Vassal Income by 10%.
Noble Officers - now only affects generals and conquistadors.

Plutocracy
Free Subjects - Increases Goods Produced by 10%.

Religious
Devoutness - now also increases fervor & papal influence

Espionage
Is now an Diplomatic idea group.
Privateers - Embargo Efficiency reduced from 33% to 25% & added +33% Privateer Efficiency.

Diplomatic
Claim Fabrication - Reduced from 33% to 25%.
Diplomatic Influence - Increases Vassal Income by 10% as well.
Flexible Negotiations - Now also reduces AE impact by 5%.

Offensive
Lost Improved Maneuver, and gained Engineer Corps
Bayonet Leaders - now only affects generals and conquistadors.
Superior Firepower - now only affects generals and conquistadors.
Engineer Corps - now gives +20% Siege Ability instead of +1 to Leaders Siege.
Napoleonic Warfare - Reduced from +10% to +5% Discipline.

Defensive
Lost Engineer Corps, and gained Improved Maneuver

Trade
Trade Manipulation - Also increases Merchant Steering to Land by +10 power.

Economic
Smithian Economics - Reduced from 20% to 10% Production Efficiency.

Quality
Ambition - Reduced from +15% Discipline to +7.5%.

Expansion
Is now an administrative idea group.

Administrative
Ambition - Is now +10% Goods Produced.

Berber Ideas
Corsairs - Now also gives +10% Privateer Efficiency.

Rajput Ideas
Leader Martial Ethos - Now gives +1 to Fire on Generals & Conquistadors.

Sweden
Traditions - Infantry Power increased from 15% to 20%.
Swedish Steel - Nerfed from 15% to 5%.
Produktplakatet - Increases Goods Produced by 10%.

Netherlands
Lost Revenue Stamps
Instructie Voor de Admiraliteiten - NEW - gives +2 to admiral & explorer fire.
Army Sappers - Now gives +10% Siege Ability

France
French Language in all Courts - Increased from 10% to 25% Vassal Income.

Ottomans
Ambition: Now +33% Forcelimit
Ghazi: +25% Manpower recovery speed.. Not the +300% ghazi special effect anymore.

Venice
Defend the Law - Also 10% quicker justify trade conflict.

Prussia
Traditions - Lost the espionage bonus, but gained -10% AE impact.
Ambition: Nerfed from +20% to 7.5%.


Portugal
Afosine Ordinances - Increases Goods Produced by 10%.

Persia
Traditions - Vassal Income increased from 10% to 25%.
Persian Rug Production - Increases Goods Produced by 10%.
Improved Silk Road - Increase inland merchant steering by 25 power.

Genoa
Reunited Genoa - Also 10% quicker justify trade conflict.

Scotland
Act of Revocation - 15% less AE impact.

Hungary
Traditions - Lost +100% Enemy Core Creation, gained +20% Cavalry Power

Timurids
Unleash the Tiger - 10% Siege Ability

Hansa
Reformed Hanstag - Also 10% quicker justify trade conflict.

Byzantines
Repopulation the Countryside - Production Efficiency replaced by 5% more goods produced.

Novgorod
Exploration Tradition - now also gives +15% Privateer efficiency

Saxony
Meissner Porcelain - Increases Goods Produced by 10%.

Papacy
Holy Father - 10% less AE impact.

Orissa
Refined Cloth Production - Increases Goods Produced by 10%.

Punjab
Breadbasket of India - Increases Goods Produced by 10%.

Ryukyu
Chinese Investiture - 25% Less AE Impact

USA
Workshop of the World - Increases Goods Produced by 15%.

Songhai
Trans-Sahara Trade - Increase inland merchant steering by 25 power.

Hedjaz
Sharifs of Mecca- 10% Less AE Impact

Knights
Reconquista of the Sea - 25% Privateer Efficiency

Kongo
Diplomacy with European Monarchs - Now also 25% quicker envoys

Mali
Restore Malian Suzerainity - Increased Vassal Income from 10%to 25%.


Courland
And now, when you thought I was done I have one more for you. Inspired by a suggestion from our betas you can now form the nation for Courland. For a time a very prosperous independent duchy in the baltic that for a time owned colonies in Africa and the West Indies, and managed to remain independant up until 1795 in spite of Swedish king Charles Xs best efforts. Now if you start the game as Riga och Livonia you can for Courland if you first become catholic or protestant, has admin tech 10 and owns Kurland and Semigallia. This changes the name and flag of your country and gives you some more good stuff like new historical ideas. The ideas are
Legacy of Sword Brethren, Privilegium Gotthardinum, Duchy of Mercantilism, Booming Manufacture, Couronian Colonization, Palaces of Mitau and Promote the Curonian Kings.

 

[Kane]

some of those changes should been in the game since release, like specialized missionary strengths.

i am up for a new game after the expansion hits, what say you?

 

[thesheeep]

I just finished my game with Byzantium two days ago.

Not too bad, I think. I managed to get the seriously fucked Byz to the 8th rank in the end, controlling all of former Ottomans and Mamluks, Georgia, Crimea, plus some minor colonies.

Only thing I did not pull off was to restore the pentarchy.
I was allied with Austria throughout the complete timeline, which was pretty much the only thing allowing me to continually beat down the Ottomans until I was strong enough to do that on my own.
Unfortunately, that also ended up giving Austria a boost in the beginning.
By 1700 they were pretty much all of central Europa plus half of eastern Europe. And of course they owned the HRE.

I attacked Roma just to see how much of an army they would assemble.
Turned out my barely 100k units with just one military idea - I went a full merchant way, and also wasted an idea on espionage (god, that one is worthless, at least as Byz) - were no match for their 200-300k with god knows how many improvements and 4 levels above mine.

But one thing I just cannot get my head around:
Is there any way to survive the early game vs ottomans other than outright cheating and exploiting the AI?

You cannot try to charm them. You want their provinces. Plus, they will declare war on you long before you could achieve anything that way.
You cannot build a larger army. And even if you did, early game Muslim units are just superior.

The only way I read about is to take a ridiculous amount of loans (that alone is an exploit IMO) and building a navy consisting of the weakest ship type, but so large the AI does not even try to attack it (exploit 2).
Of course, you can set your navy maintenance to 0 because the AI will never attack you (exploit 3).
Then, wait until the Ottomans are busy somewhere in Anatolia with all of their armies (exploit 4), block the land way at Constantinople with your wtf-fleet, and take all of Greece with your puny 3k army, because no one will fight back (exploit 5).
Oh, and hope that no one gives them military access.

I did not even think of that one and even if I knew I wouldn't have done that. I prefer save-reload-half-cheating over exploiting silly AI and loan mechanisms.
What I did was reload-spamming each time the Ottomans declared war until I was allied with Austria and some others.
Then, the Ottomans conquered me, of course, but I just waited until my allies conquered them in return and I managed to take some provinces.
This was a lot less effective than the navy-blocks-bridge method would have been, though.

 

[KazikluBey]

That strategy of blocking the Sea of Marmara as Byz has been a staple since EU2 (EU1 start year was 1492 which, as an aside, I really think they should've stayed with).

 

[Delterius]

Oh, and hope that no one gives them military access.

Thing is that this is no longer possible. Moldova and Crimea always give military access. If that wasn't the case you wouldn't have to do much more than A) create a inland sea fleet larger than the Ottoman's (which is doable with your beginning resources alone, though it will get harder over time) and B) hope that the Ottomans get into a war with the Mamluks before you, allowing you to exploit the sea of marmara.

One idea some people actually try is to flee. Make use of your initial treaty to conquer something in Italy or whatever. Lay low for a while and then become a HRE member. From there on it should be a normal OPM game.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

Oh, and hope that no one gives them military access.

Thing is that this is no longer possible. Moldova and Crimea always give military access. If that wasn't the case you wouldn't have to do much more than A) create a inland sea fleet larger than the Ottoman's (which is doable with your beginning resources alone, though it will get harder over time) and B) hope that the Ottomans get into a war with the Mamluks before you, allowing you to exploit the sea of marmara.

One idea some people actually try is to flee. Make use of your initial treaty to conquer something in Italy or whatever. Lay low for a while and then become a HRE member. From there on it should be a normal OPM game.

If you can last until Poland absorbs Moldava it becomes viable again.

 

[Delterius]

Oh, and hope that no one gives them military access.

Thing is that this is no longer possible. Moldova and Crimea always give military access. If that wasn't the case you wouldn't have to do much more than A) create a inland sea fleet larger than the Ottoman's (which is doable with your beginning resources alone, though it will get harder over time) and B) hope that the Ottomans get into a war with the Mamluks before you, allowing you to exploit the sea of marmara.

One idea some people actually try is to flee. Make use of your initial treaty to conquer something in Italy or whatever. Lay low for a while and then become a HRE member. From there on it should be a normal OPM game.

If you can last until Poland absorbs Moldava it becomes viable again.

Is that even viable? Sounds easier to do the insane Albania strategy.

 

[Delterius]

Oh, and hope that no one gives them military access.

One idea some people actually try is to flee. Make use of your initial treaty to conquer something in Italy or whatever. Lay low for a while and then become a HRE member. From there on it should be a normal OPM game.

The rennaissance of the Roman Empire begins... IN ROME!

It really is a funny idea, I personally call it the Take That Papists! Switcheroo. Never tried it because I'd probably die of anxiety out of being Eastern in the middle of Italy.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

Oh, and hope that no one gives them military access.

Thing is that this is no longer possible. Moldova and Crimea always give military access. If that wasn't the case you wouldn't have to do much more than A) create a inland sea fleet larger than the Ottoman's (which is doable with your beginning resources alone, though it will get harder over time) and B) hope that the Ottomans get into a war with the Mamluks before you, allowing you to exploit the sea of marmara.

One idea some people actually try is to flee. Make use of your initial treaty to conquer something in Italy or whatever. Lay low for a while and then become a HRE member. From there on it should be a normal OPM game.

If you can last until Poland absorbs Moldava it becomes viable again.

Is that even viable? Sounds easier to do the insane Albania strategy.

Oh, you're going to have to fight them before that. It can work for the second/third war until you finish off the European side and can actually take them one on one.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Also, game really fails at displaying how ridiculously siege-resistant Constantinople was, it should be a level 3 fort at the least.

Constantinople had not been especially siege-resistant for a long time when the game happens, having survived for decades solely through blind luck of Ottomans having gotten too busy elsewhere. The empire itself was nothing but a rotting carcass already. In terms of the game's mechanics, the one-and-half month final siege is basically less effort than a fly's fart.

 

[Grinolf]

Constantinople had not been especially siege-resistant for a long time when the game happens, having survived for decades solely through blind luck of Ottomans having gotten too busy elsewhere. The empire itself was nothing but a rotting carcass already. In terms of the game's mechanics, the one-and-half month final siege is basically less effort than a fly's fart.

Please, stop your retardness, which was already painful to read in the CK2 thread. Even if the ERE at that time was an empire in the name only, Constantinople was still very hard to take and taking it required massive preparations from the Ottomans.
And it wasn't even a siege, but assault with superior military forces, sufficient amount of artillery and naval blockade. They tried to siege it earlier, but only spent years without much of result and maked themselves vulnerable to the attack from Asia.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Constantinople had not been especially siege-resistant for a long time when the game happens, having survived for decades solely through blind luck of Ottomans having gotten too busy elsewhere. The empire itself was nothing but a rotting carcass already. In terms of the game's mechanics, the one-and-half month final siege is basically less effort than a fly's fart.

Please, stop your retardness, which was already painful to read in the CK2 thread. Even if the ERE at that time was an empire in the name only, Constantinople was still very hard to take and taking it required massive preparations from the Ottomans.
And it wasn't even a siege, but assault with superior military forces, sufficient amount of artillery and naval blockade. They tried to siege it earlier, but only spent years without much of result and maked themselves vulnerable to the attack from Asia.

It would be far more advisable to stop unwarranted Byzantine fetishism. The Empire was de facto a rotting carcass, a significant part of its population dead from the plague, its economy is ruin, and the populace in Anatolia eager to defect due to heavy taxation. In their first siege the Ottomans got interrupted by a civil war, the second time Byzantium had to pay them to go away, and the third time the once highly effective double walls had become obsolete and were breached by newer cannon fire. The game begins in 1444, at which point Constantinople is fully incapable of defending itself against the Turks.

 

[Grinolf]

It would be far more advisable to stop unwarranted Byzantine fetishism. The Empire was de facto a rotting carcass, a significant part of its population dead from the plague, its economy is ruin, and the populace in Anatolia eager to defect due to heavy taxation. In their first siege the Ottomans got interrupted by a civil war, the second time Byzantium had to pay them to go away, and the third time the once highly effective double walls had become obsolete and were breached by newer cannon fire. The game begins in 1444, at which point Constantinople is fully incapable of defending itself against the Turks.

Still Ottomans had a hard time taking Constantinople. And they needed not only newest cannons for it, but to build fortresses in order to control Bosphorus and to establish naval dominance in the sea of Marmara, so By couldn't get supplied and get reinforcements. All these efforts over already de facto dead state. And after that it wasn't walk in the park either.
So no, Constantinople wasn't easy to take even when the empire was very weak. And I ask you again to stop your retardness on that subject. Your posts about "decline" of ERE in the 9 century were more than enough.

 

[Dayyālu]

The game begins in 1444, at which point Constantinople is fully incapable of defending itself against the Turks.

True. However, to say that the 1453 siege was "impossible to win" is not quite correct. It was a hard nut to crack, and the fickle nature of sieges could have brought unforeseen consequences. But this is all useless speculation, on biased sources ( They wanted to surrender or to fight on? It is all fault of the Genoese? Who knows?). Winning the siege in 1453 should be possible, surviving on the long run not so much: sadly the Europa Universalis engine does not support these minutiae.

The ERE could have done something fifty years earlier, or maybe in the late XIV century. By 1444, it is, and should be, almost impossible to survive and prosper, bar some excellent diplomatic maneuvers, massive support from the Western Christians, and Ottoman internal strife. All possible things, from a gameplay point of view.

For a change, has someone tried a Ottoman conquest of Italy in the XV-XVI centuries? It should be fun, instead of the usual "run for the Balkans".

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

It would be far more advisable to stop unwarranted Byzantine fetishism. The Empire was de facto a rotting carcass, a significant part of its population dead from the plague, its economy is ruin, and the populace in Anatolia eager to defect due to heavy taxation. In their first siege the Ottomans got interrupted by a civil war, the second time Byzantium had to pay them to go away, and the third time the once highly effective double walls had become obsolete and were breached by newer cannon fire. The game begins in 1444, at which point Constantinople is fully incapable of defending itself against the Turks.

Still Ottomans had a hard time taking Constantinople. And they needed not only newest cannons for it, but to build fortresses in order to control Bosphorus and to establish naval dominance in the sea of Marmara, so By couldn't get supplied and get reinforcements. All these efforts over already de facto dead state. And after that it wasn't walk in the park either.
So no, Constantinople wasn't easy to takeeven when the empire was very weak. And I ask you again to stop your retardness on that subject. Your posts about "decline" of ERE in the 9 century were more than enough.

Supplies were not an issue, a big part of Constantinople's success that earned its double walls their reputation in the Arab wars was that the city was designed to be self-sustainable and had enough farmland within its walls to supply for itself. Reinforcements would have had to come from abroad, but at the time Western Europe had grown weary of crusades, the Pope's influenced had greatly diminished, and the Venetians were trading with the Turks, but Mehmed prepared for the eventuality of a Western Christian response regardless. Mehmed had prepared in full, just as any good commander with time on his side would, and thus Byzantium was doomed without outside factors or blind luck interfering.

 

[Grinolf]

Supplies were not an issue, a big part of Constantinople's success that earned its double walls their reputation in the Arab wars was that the city was designed to be self-sustainable and had enough farmland within its walls to supply for itself. Reinforcements would have had to come from abroad, but at the time Western Europe had grown weary of crusades, the Pope's influenced had greatly diminished, and the Venetians were trading with the Turks, but Mehmed prepared for the eventuality of a Western Christian response regardless. Mehmed had prepared in full, just as any good commander with time on his side would, and thus Byzantium was doomed without outside factors or blind luck interfering.

And even after all these preparations Ottomans had a hard time taking it. It hardly even looked like a battle between dominant military force in the world and the long dead empire.
The only reason, why Constantinople so easy to take in the game, that I could think, is because Paradox didn't want to slower turks even more. They perform, much better, than in EU3, but still not enough compared to their historical counterpart. And even human would face a hard time, repeating all their expansion in time because of limitations in the game mechanic.

 

[Malakal]

Didnt the siege take like one and a half month? Even considering that sieges in EU4 take way longer than in history that doesnt warrant any special fortifications and is quite pathetic.

BTW Byzantium wasnt Rome, not for hundreds of years by that time. Stop the fanboy propaganda, it was obviously a Greek state and ended like all Greek states tend to do - bankrupt and conquered.

 

[Grinolf]

Didnt the siege take like one and a half month? Even considering that sieges in EU4 take way longer than in history that doesnt warrant any special fortifications and is quite pathetic.

In EU4 siege means, that you bring a few your guys in the province, let them do nothing (but some skirmishes are implied) and wait until your enemy give up. Against Constantinople that would be totally useless.
Fall of Constantinople much better represented by "Assault" mechanic, when you bring many soldiers in the province, push the assault button and watch as your manpower quickly disappearing.

BTW Byzantium wasnt Rome, not for hundreds of years by that time. Stop the fanboy propaganda, it was obviously a Greek state and ended like all Greek states tend to do - bankrupt and conquered.

 

[oscar]

For context Vaarna was also arguing that Byzantium should receive special penalties in Crusader Kings II, a game that starts as early as 867, for almost verbatim reasoning that he employed in that thread.

I'm not a Byzantium fanboy but the guy just seems to dislike Byzantium. His argument is a little less ridiculous here though admittedly.

 

[Malakal]

BTW Byzantium wasnt Rome, not for hundreds of years by that time. Stop the fanboy propaganda, it was obviously a Greek state and ended like all Greek states tend to do - bankrupt and conquered.

What did Byzantine Empire have in common with Rome? Capital? Language? Culture? Political system? Anything at all? If you accept BE as Rome then you also should accept Ottoman Empire as Rome - they called themselves Rome too, ruled the same city.

 

[Grinolf]

What did Byzantine Empire have in common with Rome? Capital?

Yes. Constantinople became the capital of Roman Empire under Constantine, when Empire was still united.

Language?

Partially. Greek was very widespread language in the Empire and most of the roman aristocracy spoke on both latin and greek. Also change of official language wasn't an instant one, and ERE still used latin language quite a some time.

Culture?

Yes. Romans were under a huge influence of the Greek culture even before empire times. So one could make a point, that romans instead of creating their own culture began to use a far superior greek one. Further changes in the culture of the empire happened because of accepting christianity as official religion. But again that process started when empire was still united.

Political system?

If you look at RE at start of it existence and ERE at the end of it then yes, you didn't see anything in common. But that is what to be expected from a country that existed 1500 years. And process of changes was a gradual. If you compare RE under Augustus and RE under Constantine you also wouldn't find them that similiar because of more than 500 years, that were between them. The same thing if you look on the ERE under Justinian and the ERE under Constantine XI. And no one call Justinian's ERE and Constantin's ERE a different states because of it.

If you accept BE as Rome then you also should accept Ottoman Empire as Rome - they called themselves Rome too, ruled the same city.

ERE also was a direct continuation of RE during most of its existence, where all changes were a gradual ones, so one couldn't just find a date and said, that at that moment one state ended it's existence and new state was born. That line was broken only as result of 4th Crusade. So yes, there is a reason to not treat post 4th Crusade ERE as a Roman Empire.
But Ottomans didn't have anything like that at all. The fact, that they absorbed the last remnants of the Roman Empire and builded their own empire from them allow to call them some sort of successor of Roman Empire, but not the Roman Empire itself.

 

[Sranchammer]

Turks are not Roman, they are barbarians

 

[Malakal]

Yes but they have as much a claim to the title as BE in the XVc had.

Even less if we consider the Roman Republic "true Rome" as I do. BE at best may be the bastardized continuation of the decadent Dominate era Empire.

 

[Grinolf]

Yes but they have as much a claim to the title as BE in the XVc had.
Even less if we consider the Roman Republic "true Rome" as I do. BE at best may be the bastardized continuation of the decadent Dominate era Empire.

If you use the same questions from your previous post only to turks, you would see, that their claims were much more weaker.
Also I don't see objective criteria, which would allow to call RR or RE to be a true Rome and other a false one. Maybe because of the modern democracy hype word 'republic" look preferable. As if Roman Republic had anything in common with today democracies and wasn't just an oligarchy, which rulling class was so afraid of any changes and treated any potential reformator as a populist, who want to be a dictator, that RR ended up being destroed by such populists, who wanted to be a dictator, as Caesar and Augustus. Irony of fate.
In my opinion they were just two different states in the different time periods, and claiming one to be a "truer", whatever that means, is just a plain retarded.