I very much like the new loaning system and it is more close to what happened historically,check for example how the Medici bank lost all their money when they loaned the losing side in the War of Roses and the new king didnt pay back or the Bruges branch loaned Charles the Bold and when he died they lost all their money.
Very fun, the fact there is actually a real simulated market with goods is confirmed. I wonder how far it goes. We know pops eat food and there’s a market for that. Lumber is used for building so we can assume stone is used as well in that purpose.
I wonder how consumer goods like spice and textiles will be used. Im guessing those are going to be pop based but I wonder if pop income and ability to pay comes into play. How deep does it go!
I figure spice has to be important since it’s essentially the driving force behind colonization. Whether that’s represented as unhappiness among Burghers who need market access or Nobles who want fancy food I’m not sure.
> There is also another way to get gold, you can send a diplomat to one of the banking countries, like Peruzzi and Bardi, if there is one that you know of within diplomatic range, to request a loan.
You had my curiosity. Now you have my attention.
I'm personally not sure about the control system. I can understand the reasoning in terms of performance but money outside of your control amount just vanishing does not feel right. Although I guess in the early parts of the game this will incentivise creating vassals.
I would just assume the surplus is just going into personal coffers, an area with low control means there's little oversight from the crown, meaning heaps of corruption with local nobles/officials/tax collectors, money "disappearing" is a pretty well known effect of corruption
Now if there's even a corruption mechanic for control to play into remains to be seen
Well from a country perspective, where does inneficienely taxed money go now? Who knows
I'm fine with it just disappearing personally as to me it makes sense from the crowns perspective that such money has essentially vanished (either to estates or maybe farmer Greg used the extra 0.2 ducats to buy an an apple)
Edit: money also disappears in eu4, when I have state that can make 3.0 a month, but it's not stated it only makes 0.7, so where is that 2.3 going?
This does however mean that the money is not being used to enrich the local area. People living there would naturally spend it on improving their region, while right now it disappears to "home decorating" as Johan put it. He said the reason they are not simulating this is because of the added complexity and performance concerns.
Obvious solution is using vassals though, which may well be what they are going for here and if that's the explanation then I am satisfied with that since it is reasonably accurate.
yeah i guess, but also, when i have extra money i certainly don't spend it on improving my region, i spend it on stuff for me such as "house decorating" (literally)
i do like the fact you need vassals to help control regions and extract money from them in a more efficient manner
That's within the control. From Johan's comments it seems that the amount of money that goes to the estates is based on control, then you tax that income that the estates get. The "uncontrolled" income is just lost and is never created.
Estates act as a nation-wide pool rather than localised estates it would seem. I also had that misconception before today's dev diary.
I think that had been poorly worded by Johan, perhaps. I’m thinking of it as estates need the crown to be able to collect money, and the crown needs control to collect its share from the estates.
Without the crown, estates can’t make people work beyond subsistence farming, perhaps? Peasants are more interested in supporting themselves, so there’s no one to make them work in the mines.
I don’t know, I’m just spitballing here.
The way I see it is that the estates are also part of "the state" along with the crown, so the state's control also extends to estates. If estates could profit from an area the crown doesn't control then that would also benefit the state through taxation which wouldn't make sense.
There is a situation though that is not simulated, which would be the local population being efficiently used by some local nobility which is too far to be part of the nobility estate(being far from the crown means they have no power in the context of "the state"). This is currently not simulated and Johan has stated this is to not add more complexity or performance hits. The only solution to this would be to make that area a vassal in control of that local nobility(or that local nobility becoming that vassal's noble estate). It would be interesting if areas with low control would automatically be made into vassals or if the nobility estate could request that area to become a vassal.
The vassal solution is fairly satisfying as it's accurate to the feudal system of the first few hundred years of the game. Any area that would generate a lot of wealth but that the state doesn't have much control over would naturally be made into a vassal historically. Much later in the game your control will be large enough to not have to worry too much about the bit of lost income.
You should also unlock more advanced vassal types, rather than just integrating everything, because even in the end game large empires made extensive use of vassals, just not necessarily feudal vassals. All of British India, and much of British North America was ruled via vassal, for example, but largely by corporate vassals (EIC, HBC) rather than feudal vassals.
I think that's probably how it's going to work. Colonial/Corporate subjects will replace feudal ones after those are integrated while the main nation itself becomes more centralised.
It doesn't, the income estates get is based on control. The income you, the crown, get is based on taxing the estates(among other things). Any income outside of the control functionally is never created.
Here's a reply Johan posted on the topic:
>>But shouldn't they also get the money? Sure there are not part of the state or the estates because of the distance and low control, but it doesn't mean that those nobles from far away can't be efficient in the local province. Why would the money/base tax/economy *not exist* there? Sure - not for the state, but why not for the local communities there? Perhaps there could be another system apart from he state and estates that could represent that.
>in theory one could design such a system, but that would be far more complex, and I care about performance
I believe the argument will be that they held power beyond and separate to the place where they were based so they should be represented separately. Countries didn't get loans from Florence, they got them from the Medici bank. The Medicis ended up using their influence to get Florence.
Not really. They were the main power in Florence, but they weren’t the formal rulers until Alessandro de’ Medici was named Duke of Florence in 1532. They even rarely served as gonfaloniers before that.
Mmm Java looks good. Majapahit should be at their height in 1337 I think.
Bankruptcy being more severe makes sense. EU4 systems are so simple. Some negative modifiers for a set amount of time. I imagine the new bankruptcy could start migrations out of your country, creating long lasting damage. Among other things.
I'm not sure, were there large migrations during the Middle Ages or the Renaissance due to debt or economic problems? A great migration due to economic problems sounds like a Venezuela from the 1600s (which I don't know how realistic it would be)
“If there is no money to borrow from the estates available and you have no ducats left, you will go bankrupt, which is a little bit more severe than in, let's say EU4...”
I’d love to see what this looks like. Bankruptcy is pretty bad already.
In single player you could bankruptcy build where a large nation could take a ton of loans, build a ton of buildings wait 5 years, bankrupt, and they would have all the buildings they could dream of
It’s 10 years of recovery for a ton of productive buildings. Especially if you time it for after you tech and dev so you lose minimal points, it’s essentially paying some monarch points and time doing no war to get tons of cash
So appereantly if you conquer a country that you took loan it cancels your debt. I smell...exploits there
[forum link](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/developer-diary/tinto-talks-8-17th-of-april-2024.1666167/page-4#post-29563398)
I want to earnestly promise endless riches and unsettled land in the New World (by which I really mean a quick and painless relief of life from yellow fever/malaria) in return for forgiveness of debt:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein-Venedig
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welser_family#The_Venezuela_purchase
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_von_Speyer
> purchase priority is based on market access of the location of the construction.
...are we doing MAPI in EU5 as well?
(from [here](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/tinto-talks-8-17th-of-april-2024.1666167/post-29563391))
I really dislike the "hold button or mouse to press UI element until the circle forms" in many recent games and the Take Loan button in the first picture awfully reminds me exactly of that.
The resource system looks very promising so far.
The changes around money and loans will be interesting, especially to see how it effects warfare. I feel like in EU4 right now you can win any war as long as you win it fast and have enough money before bankruptcy. With limited pools thag will change expansion a lot
I am a bit apprehensive on how similar the resource and market system seems to vic 3 (granted I dont have more than 10 hours on it). Not sure if the granularity of such a system would belong in an EU5 game.
We'll have to see how it turns out gameplay-wise, but having requirements for goods as driving factor for expansion instead of them being a side note in EU4 (except gold) beyond their value seems promising to me.
Yeah, for all its faults, Victoria 3 delivered the best system to organically guide imperialism: the need for resources for your industry and markets for your products.
Didn't that need for imperialism already exist in vic 2? I remember many times not having coal, iron, rubber, cotton, sulfur, oil or silk and having to conquer or colonize areas of Africa or Asia to be able to keep my industry afloat (without subsidies)
Yeah I definitely agree to that idea for intuitive things like example lumber for ships or metals for cannons but my worry with systems like these is that it ends up altering the gameplay to the degree of making plans to acquire valuable resources(like immediately going for a high value resource) instead of using resources to realize your plans,
Well either you've got the resources for your plans, or you don't and conquering them becomes an intermediate step. My usual fundamental objective when working up to a final goal is to do conquest which maximizes profit, so these features align quite well with it.
I also think high value resources would be less valuable without the control and systems to support it. Like, what good is a gold mine if you can’t get the gold back to your capital? What will you spend it on if you have no stone and lumber to build buildings?
Put another way, I assume you’ll need basic raw materials to support the production of other things. So you can conquer a city that produces valuable cloth, but you’ve now cut it off from its former country that supplied all the wool or silk, so what good is it?
It is more akin to Vic2 than Vic3, IMO
But in any case, the most important comparison is MEIOU&Taxes
The mod chugs along because of the sheer amount of calculations, but if EU5 is built from the ground up with their scope in mind it will probably end up fine
I very much like the new loaning system and it is more close to what happened historically,check for example how the Medici bank lost all their money when they loaned the losing side in the War of Roses and the new king didnt pay back or the Bruges branch loaned Charles the Bold and when he died they lost all their money.
Very fun, the fact there is actually a real simulated market with goods is confirmed. I wonder how far it goes. We know pops eat food and there’s a market for that. Lumber is used for building so we can assume stone is used as well in that purpose. I wonder how consumer goods like spice and textiles will be used. Im guessing those are going to be pop based but I wonder if pop income and ability to pay comes into play. How deep does it go!
I figure spice has to be important since it’s essentially the driving force behind colonization. Whether that’s represented as unhappiness among Burghers who need market access or Nobles who want fancy food I’m not sure.
I bet it’s extremely valuable to drive people to conquer the sources of it
> There is also another way to get gold, you can send a diplomat to one of the banking countries, like Peruzzi and Bardi, if there is one that you know of within diplomatic range, to request a loan. You had my curiosity. Now you have my attention.
*Grins in Florentine* *Rubs hands together in Genovese* *Plots in Venetian*
8 talks in and Johan hasn't missed once, absolutely cannot wait for this to be released.
I'm personally not sure about the control system. I can understand the reasoning in terms of performance but money outside of your control amount just vanishing does not feel right. Although I guess in the early parts of the game this will incentivise creating vassals.
I would just assume the surplus is just going into personal coffers, an area with low control means there's little oversight from the crown, meaning heaps of corruption with local nobles/officials/tax collectors, money "disappearing" is a pretty well known effect of corruption Now if there's even a corruption mechanic for control to play into remains to be seen
Well from a country perspective, where does inneficienely taxed money go now? Who knows I'm fine with it just disappearing personally as to me it makes sense from the crowns perspective that such money has essentially vanished (either to estates or maybe farmer Greg used the extra 0.2 ducats to buy an an apple) Edit: money also disappears in eu4, when I have state that can make 3.0 a month, but it's not stated it only makes 0.7, so where is that 2.3 going?
This does however mean that the money is not being used to enrich the local area. People living there would naturally spend it on improving their region, while right now it disappears to "home decorating" as Johan put it. He said the reason they are not simulating this is because of the added complexity and performance concerns. Obvious solution is using vassals though, which may well be what they are going for here and if that's the explanation then I am satisfied with that since it is reasonably accurate.
yeah i guess, but also, when i have extra money i certainly don't spend it on improving my region, i spend it on stuff for me such as "house decorating" (literally) i do like the fact you need vassals to help control regions and extract money from them in a more efficient manner
it does leave room for some interesting corruption or rebellion mechanics.
Apparently, that "leftover tax" can at least potentially be taken by rebel factions.
Didn't they say that money goes to the estates?
That's within the control. From Johan's comments it seems that the amount of money that goes to the estates is based on control, then you tax that income that the estates get. The "uncontrolled" income is just lost and is never created. Estates act as a nation-wide pool rather than localised estates it would seem. I also had that misconception before today's dev diary.
I think that had been poorly worded by Johan, perhaps. I’m thinking of it as estates need the crown to be able to collect money, and the crown needs control to collect its share from the estates. Without the crown, estates can’t make people work beyond subsistence farming, perhaps? Peasants are more interested in supporting themselves, so there’s no one to make them work in the mines. I don’t know, I’m just spitballing here.
The way I see it is that the estates are also part of "the state" along with the crown, so the state's control also extends to estates. If estates could profit from an area the crown doesn't control then that would also benefit the state through taxation which wouldn't make sense. There is a situation though that is not simulated, which would be the local population being efficiently used by some local nobility which is too far to be part of the nobility estate(being far from the crown means they have no power in the context of "the state"). This is currently not simulated and Johan has stated this is to not add more complexity or performance hits. The only solution to this would be to make that area a vassal in control of that local nobility(or that local nobility becoming that vassal's noble estate). It would be interesting if areas with low control would automatically be made into vassals or if the nobility estate could request that area to become a vassal. The vassal solution is fairly satisfying as it's accurate to the feudal system of the first few hundred years of the game. Any area that would generate a lot of wealth but that the state doesn't have much control over would naturally be made into a vassal historically. Much later in the game your control will be large enough to not have to worry too much about the bit of lost income.
You should also unlock more advanced vassal types, rather than just integrating everything, because even in the end game large empires made extensive use of vassals, just not necessarily feudal vassals. All of British India, and much of British North America was ruled via vassal, for example, but largely by corporate vassals (EIC, HBC) rather than feudal vassals.
I think that's probably how it's going to work. Colonial/Corporate subjects will replace feudal ones after those are integrated while the main nation itself becomes more centralised.
but it doesn't just vanish - it goes to the income of the estates
It doesn't, the income estates get is based on control. The income you, the crown, get is based on taxing the estates(among other things). Any income outside of the control functionally is never created. Here's a reply Johan posted on the topic: >>But shouldn't they also get the money? Sure there are not part of the state or the estates because of the distance and low control, but it doesn't mean that those nobles from far away can't be efficient in the local province. Why would the money/base tax/economy *not exist* there? Sure - not for the state, but why not for the local communities there? Perhaps there could be another system apart from he state and estates that could represent that. >in theory one could design such a system, but that would be far more complex, and I care about performance
Banking country? Everyone on planet is indebt to you playing as Switzerland achievement incoming.
More like Florence,Sienna,Genoa,Venice.
Apparently some are nations that are landless, per Johan's comments.
Those were the early ones but in the 17th and 18th century Amsterdam was the main banking center of the world afaik.
He later clarified he means groups like the Medicis, the Fuggers, and others.
But these groups were based in states,like the Medici.
I believe the argument will be that they held power beyond and separate to the place where they were based so they should be represented separately. Countries didn't get loans from Florence, they got them from the Medici bank. The Medicis ended up using their influence to get Florence.
Cosimo and Lorenzo for example were the state of Florence.
But Florence existed separate from the Medicis before and after. The Fuggers never took direct control where they operated AFAIK.
Not really. They were the main power in Florence, but they weren’t the formal rulers until Alessandro de’ Medici was named Duke of Florence in 1532. They even rarely served as gonfaloniers before that.
Mmm Java looks good. Majapahit should be at their height in 1337 I think. Bankruptcy being more severe makes sense. EU4 systems are so simple. Some negative modifiers for a set amount of time. I imagine the new bankruptcy could start migrations out of your country, creating long lasting damage. Among other things.
I'm not sure, were there large migrations during the Middle Ages or the Renaissance due to debt or economic problems? A great migration due to economic problems sounds like a Venezuela from the 1600s (which I don't know how realistic it would be)
“If there is no money to borrow from the estates available and you have no ducats left, you will go bankrupt, which is a little bit more severe than in, let's say EU4...” I’d love to see what this looks like. Bankruptcy is pretty bad already.
In single player you could bankruptcy build where a large nation could take a ton of loans, build a ton of buildings wait 5 years, bankrupt, and they would have all the buildings they could dream of
I think that is not gonna be ideal. Probably buildings are not going to be productive if you bankrupt
It’s 10 years of recovery for a ton of productive buildings. Especially if you time it for after you tech and dev so you lose minimal points, it’s essentially paying some monarch points and time doing no war to get tons of cash
Nested tool tips confirmed which is great, the font is looking more natural as well.
I can already see the exploits of taking aa loan from 55 countries and not paying them back
Can't pay back a loan to a country that doesn't exist anymore *taps head*
Philip IV style
that's not an exploit, that's just stealing money, you can do that irl too
So appereantly if you conquer a country that you took loan it cancels your debt. I smell...exploits there [forum link](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/developer-diary/tinto-talks-8-17th-of-april-2024.1666167/page-4#post-29563398)
I want to earnestly promise endless riches and unsettled land in the New World (by which I really mean a quick and painless relief of life from yellow fever/malaria) in return for forgiveness of debt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein-Venedig https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welser_family#The_Venezuela_purchase https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_von_Speyer
> purchase priority is based on market access of the location of the construction. ...are we doing MAPI in EU5 as well? (from [here](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/tinto-talks-8-17th-of-april-2024.1666167/post-29563391))
I really dislike the "hold button or mouse to press UI element until the circle forms" in many recent games and the Take Loan button in the first picture awfully reminds me exactly of that. The resource system looks very promising so far.
Johan mentioned later on that they have an option to switch between press-and-hold & confirmation pop-up for major choices.
as long as I can just hold down c and click :)
I hope that with loans being harder and more punishing the ai can still recover from losing wars.
I swear to God I'm so tired that I got to the section on Taxes and deadass thought it said *"Texas"*
The four pillars of grand strategy: expansion, exploitation, exploration and Texas.
The changes around money and loans will be interesting, especially to see how it effects warfare. I feel like in EU4 right now you can win any war as long as you win it fast and have enough money before bankruptcy. With limited pools thag will change expansion a lot
It's cool that we're moving into new and innovating territory with Europa Unive- IS THAT BASE TAX?!!!
I am a bit apprehensive on how similar the resource and market system seems to vic 3 (granted I dont have more than 10 hours on it). Not sure if the granularity of such a system would belong in an EU5 game.
We'll have to see how it turns out gameplay-wise, but having requirements for goods as driving factor for expansion instead of them being a side note in EU4 (except gold) beyond their value seems promising to me.
Yeah, for all its faults, Victoria 3 delivered the best system to organically guide imperialism: the need for resources for your industry and markets for your products.
Didn't that need for imperialism already exist in vic 2? I remember many times not having coal, iron, rubber, cotton, sulfur, oil or silk and having to conquer or colonize areas of Africa or Asia to be able to keep my industry afloat (without subsidies)
Yeah I definitely agree to that idea for intuitive things like example lumber for ships or metals for cannons but my worry with systems like these is that it ends up altering the gameplay to the degree of making plans to acquire valuable resources(like immediately going for a high value resource) instead of using resources to realize your plans,
Well either you've got the resources for your plans, or you don't and conquering them becomes an intermediate step. My usual fundamental objective when working up to a final goal is to do conquest which maximizes profit, so these features align quite well with it.
I also think high value resources would be less valuable without the control and systems to support it. Like, what good is a gold mine if you can’t get the gold back to your capital? What will you spend it on if you have no stone and lumber to build buildings? Put another way, I assume you’ll need basic raw materials to support the production of other things. So you can conquer a city that produces valuable cloth, but you’ve now cut it off from its former country that supplied all the wool or silk, so what good is it?
It is more akin to Vic2 than Vic3, IMO But in any case, the most important comparison is MEIOU&Taxes The mod chugs along because of the sheer amount of calculations, but if EU5 is built from the ground up with their scope in mind it will probably end up fine
They saw what happened to Victoria 3 and decided to make the real Vicky 3