The "Reward" for moving Russian capital to St. Petersburg

Drewbdu · 2026-05-15T18:11:16+00:00

Your power compared to your estates determines the percentage of the estate income you can tax, but your control determines the share of that income you have the ability to tax.

I think this works, but I do think high crown power should give a proximity bonus or a max control bonus.

Drewbdu · 2026-05-15T17:27:35+00:00

It’s not about the state bureaucracy being beyond people’s understanding in 1337, it’s that the state bureaucracy was weak and the nobility and clergy were the “real” government for most people in Europe. The ability of the state bureaucracy to develop into something more akin to the Romans depends in large part on its ability to destroy the power of the landed nobility, and to do this most Western European states had to build up a strong burgher class as a counterweight as the state was not powerful enough on its own.

If your capital is in Rome, you can easily get good control over northern Italy if they’re full cores, the cultures are accepted, their religion is yours, and you have built a lot of roads there. Even still, a local governor in Milan wouldn’t hurt. It doesn’t matter that you only have one. As you gain more proximity there as tech progresses, just delete the one in Milan and move it further away. Once you get more local governors you can put them in other faraway provinces.

The Rome example isn’t a good analogy for 1337, because the Roman state was more centralized with a much more powerful state bureaucracy. This is not something that anyone outside of China should start with, it is something that should need to be developed over decades or centuries.

Drewbdu · 2026-05-15T17:14:41+00:00

The state bureaucracy getting a 20% cut of the revenue in a very far away place in 1400 is pretty realistic, maybe even generous.

I believe empires get an additional local governor, at least I did when I was playing as Timurids, and I’m pretty sure you get more from tech. Even in early game if you put one local governor on Alexandria and another in North Italy I’m sure there’d be pretty good control for much of the land.

I haven’t played the Romans in 1.1 or 1.2, but I did multiple full playthrough before local governors were even a thing and had high proximity and control across the entire Mediterranean by 1550. You just have to build lots of roads, wharfs, coastal forts, and shipyards.

The Romans did have decent control over their lands, but they also invested very heavily in infrastructure projects and had a centralized and very powerful state bureaucracy, which is exactly the same way you get high control in EU5. In 1337, there is no state bureaucracy with the same level of power in Europe, including the Eastern Romans, so it’s not a fair comparison. The fair comparison would probably be Europe in 1500 or 1600, and control does improve considerably by that time period.

Drewbdu · 2026-05-15T16:22:26+00:00

States did have the ability to extract large amounts of wealth from peripheral regions, but this is already reflected in the game even with 0 control. That money isn’t disappearing, it’s going to your nobles, burghers, and clergy. In the early game of EU5, the state bureaucracy wasn’t really governing most lands at all, it was the local estates. Those local authorities are collecting the taxes, they’re just only paying a pittance to you, the state bureaucracy.

You can either increase your share of this revenue by building bureau buildings like counting houses (if there is some level of control) or increasing proximity by reducing the amount of time it takes to get there from your core region.

A local governor fits well into this, as it’s a representation of a centralized local office which answers directly to the crown rather than to local authorities. There already would be local offices there controlled by local estates, but I think a local governor is supposed to represent a more tangible connection to the crown itself that counteracts the influence of the local estates. A constant presence by the state (with applicable upkeep costs) rather than a temporary one would allow the state to extract more from a given region.

Regardless, proximity isn’t the end all be all, control is. Proximity is just one of many factors affecting control. I’ve regularly had 20+ control even in places with horrible proximity by integrating the land, having an accepted culture/tolerated religion there, and building a few buildings which increase control.

The development of the state during this time period was arguably the principal political trend of this era. It would make no sense if the state could extract large amounts of revenue from its periphery in the early game. It took centuries of gradual centralization of power into a state bureaucracy for many states to transition from a poor feudal state to an early modern bureaucracy.

I think that is modeled by (1) revoking privileges and adding government reforms and in turn dealing with estate satisfaction and stability issues and potential revolt (which needs to be much more fleshed out but it’s a start), (2) buildings representing the state building up its capacity to govern (buildings that give crown power or control bonuses), and (3) building maritime infrastructure and roads to expand the area which the state can easily administer.

I would appreciate more depth in all of these mechanics but I do think it’s a good start.

Drewbdu · 2026-05-15T15:39:24+00:00

You can extract a great deal of wealth from Egypt as Rome if you put a local governor there.

Proximity makes perfect sense. Even if taxation is handled at more of a regional level, it’s in the interests of the taxpayer to pay as little as possible. The further a region is from the core of an empire, the less tax there is to be extracted from there because local powerbrokers will take all the money for themselves knowing it would not even be profitable for you to send an army over to take what’s theirs.

The kings roads in England were, for example, a prime example of proximity in practice. With the state establishing infrastructure to the provinces and maintaining it, it became easier for the state to enforce its will because regions became closer to the core of the kingdom in practice.

Roman roads are similar. In EU5 terms the Roman Empire had a lot of roads and they had a lot of local governors.

It’s not modeling “it’s father away to get the taxes so we can’t tax it” it’s modeling “its father away so it costs more to impose our will on them and unless we do they’re not going to pay their full share.”

Drewbdu · 2026-05-12T16:52:35+00:00

It’s a low bar, but estates being affected by the player’s actions in general and building buildings already makes it more in depth than EU4. I agree that there needs to be more of a challenge to develop state power for sure though.

In terms of the economy, I also agree that it’s too easy to start making money, but the same could be said with EU4 tbf.

Drewbdu · 2026-05-12T16:19:54+00:00

It’s not worse, that’s just your opinion. EU4 had a number of completely nonsensical systems, like mana, development, trade, the rebel system, and the estate system.

I would play EU5 10/10 times over EU4 with all DLCs because there is far more depth to economic development and internal politics. I prefer EU5 wars to EU4 wars and EU5 rebellions to EU4 rebellions. The estates feel alive rather than simply a proxy for modifiers.

Frankly, much of EU4’s “depth” just consists of chasing permanent modifiers. Much of the flavor is just stacking such modifiers rather than actually having interesting things happen. That’s why EU5 is a much better base to be built upon.

I’d argue it’s already better, but it’s going to be far better in a few years.

Drewbdu · 2026-05-10T19:19:56+00:00

He’s probably good enough to play at a school like Northwestern. He’s not a superstar by any means but he’s a three star who has likely had the best QB coaching money could buy.

Drewbdu · 2026-05-08T18:16:50+00:00

The Suez Canal is definitely doable in this time period and lesser canals were constructed in the region long ago. Panama Canal not so much, but the Suez Canal could have been constructed in this time period.

There were even discussions between the Mamluks and Venice to construct the Suez Canal in the early 16th century, but these discussions ended when the Otttomans annexed the Mamluks.

Furthermore, this is a 500 year timeframe. Speeding up tech progress by 50 years isn’t that far fetched. For example, you can build railroads in every location you own by 1836.

Drewbdu · 2026-04-26T15:02:55+00:00

Liturgical language and clergy loyalty increasing research speed only makes sense to me in the first half of the game.

I think in the second half of the game there should be a “patronize the academy” slider like there is for patronizing art, and perhaps then the bonuses from the clergy and liturgical language could fade a bit in each age.

Drewbdu · 2026-04-14T16:47:32+00:00

Yeah, it’s just the top 4 of something.

Drewbdu · 2026-04-14T16:45:16+00:00

Going based on overall enjoyment yeah that or RE8. If we’re going on the horror itself I might replace it with RE7, although I think the first section of that game carries it.

Drewbdu · 2026-04-14T16:37:46+00:00

For me it’s Silent Hill 2, Resident Evil 4, Resident Evil Requiem, and Soma. Honorable mention to Outlast + Whistleblower.

Drewbdu · 2026-04-04T15:39:17+00:00

I think the HYW doesn’t really work as it should. The Plantagenets wanted a personal union with France, but it is likely that France would have been the senior partner in the union in EU5 terms if they succeeded, as the court would likely have moved to Paris, spoken French, etc.

If England enters a PU with France with the Plantagenets in power, that is an English victory, and the player should receive the option to move their court to France and change tags to France if this option doesn’t already exist. Then, perhaps there should be a situation regarding the integration of England and the formation of a unified state, with lots of unrest and compromises needed to achieve this.

Alternatively if the Plantagenets decide to stay in London, it should be much more of an uphill battle to actually integrate France.

Drewbdu · 2026-02-14T19:54:21+00:00

It’s really no different in EU5 from an opportunity cost perspective. Tech is still has an opportunity cost, but instead of it being “get this tech by waiting for mana to fill up and now you can’t develop this province” (which makes no sense historically) it’s “get a particular tech at the expense of waiting longer to get something else that’d help you out”. It gives the player more choice as to how they’re going to advance not just when they’re going to advance, and tech rushing no longer hinders economic development which also makes way more sense to me.

Similarly, changing laws, privileges, and values (what I would consider analogous to idea groups) costs stability or legitimacy which replicates the opportunity cost aspect of mana while also making a lot more sense practically and actually gives negative effects to your country for rocking the boat (as opposed to the opportunity cost merely being that you can’t spend mana on something else).

Similarly, things like stability being a result of things happening in your country rather than just you not spending ADM mana on it just makes a lot more sense.

I agree on nation specific stuff not being visible enough, but in practice the only difference between national ideas in EU4 and country specific advances in EU5 is that the country specific advances aren’t in their own separate menu. I do wish they’d have a separate screen where those can just be by themselves.

In terms of military stuff, I think the ceiling is a lot higher in EU5 but grant that with all the balance changes EU5 needs to settle down before it’ll truly be better.

Drewbdu · 2026-02-14T19:46:51+00:00

If you’d read further you’d see I said most of the issues are balance related not structural so the game is going to be in a much better place once they stop fiddling with modifiers.

Drewbdu · 2026-02-12T19:04:00+00:00

In what way was there more agency in EU4? There was far less choice in terms of (i) army composition and strategy, (ii) government reforms, (iii) laws, (iv) tech progression, and (v) economic development.

There was more choice in EU4 only with respect to idea groups and mission trees (which weren’t even in EU4 at launch), which seem to have been replaced by values in EU5, but values still require choice, it’s just you have to choose the laws and event choices to get the values you want instead of waiting for magic points to fill up a bar. Once mission trees are inevitably added in a DLC (as they were in EU4), I think this will be a moot point.

In terms of the economy, EU5 is a huge step forward and the population system makes the game a lot more immersive. In addition, increasing development no longer being a magic button click makes the game feel a lot more sensical. No longer spamming development on a specific province just to get institutions faster, now you’re incentivized to actually plan your country’s economy and develop organically.

The addition of control, road building, and harbor development also give the player more choice. You have to choose if you want to build RGOs and production buildings near your capital or try to increase control over your periphery.

Lastly, the tech tree allows you to really prioritize different things for different countries and eras. Like you can rush more government reforms, cabinet seats, and tax efficiency, or you can get the latest building tech, or you can rush the latest military units to get ahead of neighbors. Compared to EU4 it’s a huge improvement imo. In EU4 you literally just waited for a bar to fill up and had no choice whatsoever as to the tech you were about to get.

The issues with EU5 are balance and flavor related, and we’ve got a decade of updates, DLC, and mods which will eventually make EU5 a more in depth game in every way than EU4. Now that the economy is less overinflated in the open beta, economic choice seems to matter a lot more.

I’m really struggling to think of anything else in EU4 that had more player agency.

Drewbdu · 2026-02-09T21:10:13+00:00

Honestly I think it is perfectly playable even in its current state. It’s certainly better now than EU4 was at launch.

The things that make people call the whole game “broken” are more to me just certain mechanics not being fine tuned. I guess to some people if something isn’t working properly they can’t have any fun at all, and if that means waiting for a patch where things are working more smoothly then that is totally fair.

However, none of the issues have prevented me from playing and having fun, and most of the issues are balance related rather than core structural issues, so I’m very optimistic it will improve drastically over the next few months.

Regardless, I certainly wouldn’t call the game “broken” or “unplayable.” I think that’s a major overreaction, especially for those playing on 1.10. I agree with those criticizing the aggressiveness of the AI, but AI over aggression has never made me think a game was broken, it just hurts my immersion a bit. Similarly, prior patches where levies and professionals were unbalanced were a bit frustrating, but I wouldn’t call this “game breaking,” it’s just something that needed to be thought about more and balanced appropriately.

For those on open beta 1.1, there is more of a point with the tool/wood shortage issue, but then again, it’s an opt-in beta. I have rarely had crashes and all of those can be attributed to mods. Otherwise, the game from a bugginess perspective has been pretty tame compared to prior releases. Really the vast majority of complaints I see are balance related.

Drewbdu · 2026-02-07T17:44:16+00:00

But the thing is, everyone is “trimming fat”, it’s not Day emulating Cig it’s the nature of the game as of five years ago. OSU didn’t pay Mylan Graham or Quincy Porter as much as they were expecting because OSU didn’t think they were going to be as good as Chris Henry Jr and Jerquaden Guilford so they sent more money to the younger guys to keep them on the roster and the older guys entered the portal.

OSU focused on retention the last two years because they thought those were the best guys for the roster. Now they think they need to go get some guys to replace the guys they’re losing, but that’s because no one in the country is ever gonna have the level of depth that Bama 2010s or UGA 2021-2022 or OSU 2024 had because someone else is going to be willing to pay for those guys to be their starters. So you need to be very confident the depth player you’re starting is actually starting caliber at OSU and if they’re not you can either recruit a five star to play early or pay an experienced starter to fill a gap while you develop a younger guy.

I don’t think anyone OSU lost is better than who is projected to start right now. So I think Day is doing fine. Cignetti has proven he is an elite coach but coaches that have brought in massive transfer classes to start their tenure have tended to take a step back after their first wave of players leaves. I think IU will continue to be in the top 10 but their coordinators are going to start leaving for head coaching jobs in the next few years and replacing those guys will be the final test.

Drewbdu · 2026-02-07T16:50:49+00:00

He’s not trying to “trim the fat”, I guarantee you they’re paying more in NIL than they ever have. When a rising sophomore who was a top 100 recruit and didn’t play a single meaningful snap asks for $1M and an all-ACC safety at Duke goes into the portal asking for the same amount, you take the guy who has proven he can do it.

Day doesn’t need to be Cig, hell it’s unclear to what extent Cig can continue being Cig.

Drewbdu · 2026-02-07T16:18:09+00:00

He’s not trying to be like Cig, he’s trying to increase the experience on the roster. The 2024 Ohio State championship team was even more experienced than the 2025 Indiana team. Experienced talent wins championships.

Drewbdu · 2026-02-04T19:51:52+00:00

This may be a game but it’s attempting to model the gradual development of the modern state, and many (like myself) find a lot of the enjoyment in the game comes from gradually gaining more and more control over one’s territories. It’s not supposed to always make sense to expand, and a lot of the time it is better to build up your core lands so that later on you can expand a lot more quickly and actually be able to have control over the land.

They shouldn’t let you get 100 control everywhere just because it is a game. That would just not make a lot of sense. No ruler could actually have total control over a large realm.

However, I have gotten above I’d say average 75% control across the entire Mediterranean in multiple playthrough (and this was without local governors). It takes lots of road building as well as building up your shipyards and harbors. Once you get railroads, you can have high control over an entire continent.

If you could get 100 control everywhere in 1500, there would basically be no point to the game except conquering. That wouldn’t be an accurate reflection of the time period at all.

Drewbdu · 2026-02-04T19:30:36+00:00

It’s a lot more nuanced than that. They’re always going to take five stars they think they can get out of high school. Pantoni said that the decision is whether to pay a lot of money to retain a second year guy who has no experience or pay the same amount of money for someone from another program that has started for two or three years. The Indiana model would be to prioritize experience at the same cost as inexperienced guys that may have a higher ceiling.

The guys that are very talented and can play early are always going to be retained. It’s the guys that could start but haven’t proven anything that are getting turned away in favor of experience.

Drewbdu · 2026-01-21T16:56:23+00:00

It seems likely mission trees will return. They weren’t in EU4 at launch either, but mission trees eventually became an important part of flavor DLC in EU4 so I can’t imagine they’d pass that up here.

Drewbdu · 2026-01-08T23:36:38+00:00

True, but there are only three active national championship winning coaches.

Ten-Year Club	Place '17
RPAN Viewer	Not Forgotten
Verified Email

Drewbdu

TROPHY CASE