Your Feedback FORCED Tinto to change HEGEMONIES!

[@The_Alexiad]

There are no hegemonies at the start of the game because the game starts in the age of tradition and hegemonies unlock in the age of discovery so they wouldn't show up on the great powers screen there, but I agree that they should show up there

[@MattFerr100]

Having all 5 hegemonies at once means you get -100 dip rep(additional -25 with other greatpowers) and +100%AE and that's without counting court costs!💀💀💀

[@theorixlux]

Fuck yes. This is the modifier stacking I'm expecting from eu franchise. Fuck ICA and CC costs.

[@who41683]

why cant they just add a "superpower" thats above all of those greatpowers and removes some of those maluses if achieved

[@101magj]

Honestly it really makes me not want to become a Hegemon rofl AE impact always scared me and I feel like imagine if you already have an AE Malus into the HRE like eu4. Getting one province means a European coalition and that’s not super fun lol

[@MattFerr100]

Kinda reminds me of "become the crisis in Stellaris"

[@paolocorbelli6466]

Probably when you reach that point you just don't care what other countries think You have achieved the true sigma grindset 💀

[@basvriese1934]

I'd say for an economic hegemon it'd be a lot more logical to get a maasive decrease on interest on loans or something else dealing with borrowing money. Or alternatively a boost to available mercenaries or something

[@Lord_Lambert]

big fan of that as a bonus.

[@mudzbe8414]

good idea 'too big to fail'

[@andrewjoy4800]

For the economic hegemon food cost reduction, I think it's less about eating less food, and more about buying the food cheaper, because you have the market power to force it. Edit: Just had another thought. It could mean that you can get food more efficiently. That is to say, need to pay less traders and middlemen in order to get the food. As such, cost of food goes down. It could even be that you are better at logistically managing the food, so less is wasted over time.

[@Leivve]

Also probably because you can pay for non-perishable foods, so you bring less actual food with you on campaign, because it'll still go just as far.

[@Clickificationist]

Then this should arguably be modeled as a trade advantage instead :P

[@lancelambert1644]

I interpreted it as a "We are the strongest military ever to ever breathe! We don't need to supply ourselves, our *SUBJECTS* WILL!" and then they raid your pantry and eat the flies too

[@ilianceroni]

The embargo actually makes sense against landlock countries. Using Lambert example, Italy forces Switzerland to choose between trading with Italy or trading with Germany, and because Italy is the hegemonic naval power, they will probably be a trading power too, meaning the choice is to agree. That’s not too different from how embargoes work in real world, see Cuba whose formally embargoed only by the USA, but because they do not allow ships that were in a cuban port to land in a USA’s port, nobody commerce with Cuba as it’s not convenient. Yes, it’s a slightly different situation, and probably it would be better to have a trading hegemony, but it does make sense.

[@Vlakod]

I think its less about "eating less" and more about "loosing less food". Supplies get lost due to spoilage, troubles on supply lines, incorrect distribution, etc. As Hegemon you are more efficient at this

[@Bawhoppen]

Or buying it cheaper. Economies of scale make sense to me.

[@GG-fc4nx]

Lambert, the force embargo thing is literally what the British did to other countries under the Napoleonic wars (forcing them to not trade with France). I actually quite like it as an idea and think more things like it should be in the game, as it’s a way to actually wage economic warfare against other countries, something that is lacking in eu4. It’s definitely strong though, and there should be more negatives for being proclaimed a hegemony. Ideally I’d like to see this in the form of AI behavior instead of flat negative modifiers for your country. It would be amazing to see smaller countries stop fighting each other and ganging up on a dominant hegemony

[@Lord_Lambert]

The point I was trying to make is that its a thing you can do as naval hegemon, and doing it to landlocked powers because you have lots of boats isnt really clicking for me

[@GG-fc4nx]

@@Lord_LambertWrote the comment JUST before that part came up lmao, my bad

[@xKazeshi98x]

The way I think of the "units consume less food" is less about consuming less food, and moreso like a "your country is economically leveraged such that you're able to get more food for less"

[@jacobschmidt8441]

This

[@Pausenbroth]

About the consuming less Food, maybe the hegemon have some kind of monopoly and can force the merchants to sell the food cheaper to them. So they dont really consume less food, the just buy it cheaper and its not workung in the code so they just say they consume less. Thats what I think

[@SC-jq9og]

maybe the reduced food consumption represents your economy's efficiency less wasted supplies

[@MrTohawk]

14:00 that sounds exactly like what happened during the napoleonic wars. The Continental System

[@Lord_Lambert]

yeah that was the reference I was making :)

[@fabmoicano]

Hegemonies are unlocked on Age of Discovery, so you will not see them at the start of the game Great Powers screenshot

[@mudzbe8414]

Maybe economic gets -10% unit consumption because since they're soo big they're better at managing supplies, less food spoils

[@dustman0048]

14:08 Napoleon justifying the continental system to his marshalls

[@redekzentlew2470]

Look at Economic bonus as a reduction in logistical loss. Also the inspiration for the naval diplo action is probably England during the Napoleonic era with its Continental System blocking trade with France.

[@soberman1520]

Ain't that supposed to be the France blocking the British out of europe market as far to invade Russia to enforce it I think force embargo should be on any great power as France is definitely not a naval hegemon at that time proven by the Trafalgar

[@Rednintz]

One could make the argument that an economic hegemon would have a strategic advantage in securing army supplies and better logistics to deliver those supplies, leading to less waste. Reduced food consumption being an abstraction of that. It's a little less intuitive than the other hegemon bonuses, but if Tinto is trying to avoid stackable eco modifiers all over the place then I kinda get it.

[@NieprawdziweKonto]

9:36 Rich people spend a smaller percentage of their income on food and are among the last to starve.

[@sullenskulls9709]

Smaller percentage definitely, but almost certainly not smaller amount.

[@mcjamesa5149]

I feel to be a hegemon, you have to be clearly the most dominant in an area. So you'd need 20% more than anyone else to get it, but if anyone else got more than you, you'd lose it. Ie I don't think Spain getting one more boat than Britain makes Spain naval hegemon - it means there is no longer a *dominant* naval power. I do like that accruing hegemonic statuses starts to really band the rest of the world against you, something that EU4 felt like it was missing, a real threat once you become dominant, & everyone is worried about your overwhelming power. Incidentally, in Napoleon's forced embargo of Great Britain, GB was naval & probably economic hegemon, whilst France was military & probably cultural hegemon. The embargoes were being imposed on others *against* the naval & economic hegemon by the military hegemon.

[@ChrisDCowin]

In regards to Force Embargo you literally gave the correct example in history of that happening. During the Napoleonic Era the French tried to institute the Continental System to essentially cut the UK entirely off from European trade. Ultimately it was considered unsuccessful because it really pissed off all the countries that he interfered with and was ultimately one of the major reasons of his downfall. However, the reason it mostly failed was because they were not a Naval Hegemony. I do definitely agree it needs to only prevent trade from sea nodes and not land nodes.

[@Clickificationist]

I don't like the abstractness of bonuses such as Food Reduction and Ship Damage Taken. They don't in my mind have much Historical precedence, and if they did, I would much rather see them modeled more "realistically". ie: Naval Hegemonys get higher Morale instead, since the sailors believe they're serving the greatest country in the world. Or the Economic Hegemony receiving trade advantage over other countries.

[@Ariaelyne]

Pretty sure they are avoiding high power bonuses so the diplomatic actions have the spotlight.

[@LuckystrikeNQ]

I love the HoMM3 music in the background! Great taste in music.

[@Lord_Lambert]

Thank you! Great game too!

[@theodorepinnock1517]

I'm concerned about whether the negative opinion modifier from hegemony affects subjects. I also don't like that naval hegemony is based purely on the highest number of heavy ships - what if one nation has 100 heavy ships, but I have 1000 galleys? I would be the stronger naval power through sheer numbers.

[@Cris1Mac]

Yeah, need like a power rating for ships, 1 for transport, 2 for galley, 3 for light, 4 for heavy. Highest total not just Heavy ship number.

[@addickland5656]

Even though no empire ever came close to reaching it (no, not even the mongols or the british), if you want a 5th tier ranking for a state that has become so powerfull that it dwarfes all empires, to give EU5 5 ranks, it would be fun to have a rank called "all-powerfull omnipitent hegemon" or something, which would require you to control, either directly or through subjects, 50% or more of all the pops AND locations on Earth. Oh and have an outpost or loyal subject in every subcontinent of the world. If they wanted to add reaching that as a fun achievement I would be all for it, because to be frank "empire" really is sufficient to describe the historical superpowers accurately.

[@huntre111]

I'd argue that the Ecconomic Hegemon has -10% pop food consumption because they have the ability to introduce greater efficiencies in transporting, processing, and distributing food to their population. A portion of all harvested food either fails to make it to market or fails to be *sold* to those who are seeking food, and an economic hegemon can leverage their internal and external trading experience to empower those distribution networks to move food that isn't or won't be sold on the market to a grain dole.

[@lukevuk11]

with the force embargo issue, that is what Napoleon accomplished against Britain with all his neighbors. I think it works for the scope of the game and since this is a late game mechanic.

[@Turambar88]

That forced embargo system is very Napoleonic Continental System.

[@FelixFricke-l7w]

All Diplo Actions seem to be very strong but we do not realy know what costs(e.g. in Diplomats/Gold/related stuff: [additional AE impact from "Violate Sovereingnity"?]) or what requirements are needed for them.

[@Lord_Lambert]

not yet. Its why I keep asking for an AAR style bit to the Dev Diaries, so we can see how it works in practice

[@tritojean7549]

for the food reduction i think it could be explained by having a country so rich that food is only a small fraction of its wealth and so food get cheaper and as such cost less to the army, so its more they pay less to eat than eating less

[@datbo1]

I think the food consumption is reffering to the (arguably correct) theory that economic societal prosperity requires/is coupled with better resource efficiency in terms of feeding the populace (notice how the best economies on the planet tend to have a large food surplus), but that is just my take on it. If it does refer to this, then it should instead be a +10% or so supply limit imo. (I also may have worded it a bit incorrectly but that is the gist of it)

[@fredrickvonstien861]

Maybe alliances are limited to landed countries? So counties, duchies, kingdoms, empires, hegemonies, ect can have alliances but non-landed titles (banking clans) cannot. Also I think each type of hegemony should have a unique downside to them, so like if you're an economic hegemony your units should consume *more* food to represent the increased expectations of your army and civilization for plentiful and high quality supplies.

[@Mortarion-xt9wp]

Honestly I don't really like, that the naval hegemon gets a dmg boost. Not because I don't like that bonus, but rather because it sounds like a *magical* boost to shipbuilding technology that explodes bigger. Maybe decrease cost of ships because efficiency increases or increase marital trade because nobody dares to cross you instead?

[@RivalSandy1]

I personally like the idea of forcing smaller nations to embargo their rivals just like Napoleonic France did. However, I do think there should be some risk to the attempt such as all powers that have a positive relation with the embargoed nation receiving a hit to their opinion of the hegemon scaled by how much they like the embargoed nation, or even adjusting it based on the economic hit that they would take. And even grant the smaller nation(s) a casus belli on the hegemon if they have high enough relation with the embargoed nation, if enough nations disagree with the embargo they could refuse to join and fight with the embargoed nation against the hegemon (Thinking Russia for real-life context). A common flaw I have with paradox games is that big nations very rarely fall, especially without player input. However, making more coalition-style situations would be a nice way to combat that with the aim of dismantling whatever makes the nation a hegemon in the first place.

[@ChrisDCowin]

It needs to be a very large relations malus between the Hedgemon and the Embargoers

[@alexs2195]

Military hegemony should allow to force military acess, or just full ignore military access in nations that are not in coalition or ready to join a coalition

[@theorixlux]

1:00 "less than stellar" i called it! Theyre doing a Stellaris Prequel! Im guessing sometime around the varna crusade??

[@basvriese1934]

Complaining about a win more mechanic? It's part of the fun of these kind of games that as you get more powerful you will get broaden your options

[@Guhrbuyten1146]

Nice video dude!

[@doomdrake123]

Very good changes imo.

[@David-qm2qj]

The military hegemon bonus is good. The rest is gamey. All hegemonies should be about a bonus in interaction with other nations.

[@SubSpace-bs5fr]

Economic hegemon needs less food because the soldiers eat the rich 🗣️📢

[@FinesseBoxGoals]

"Forced"? The things people will say for clicks...

[@Lord_Lambert]

Don't hate the player hate the game ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[@MattFerr100]

10:45 it's still a lot but maybe it's yearly income?

[@Lord_Lambert]

It says monthly on the UI

[@robert-janthuis9927]

@@Lord_Lambert I think it is also important to remember that you'll likely be buying far more stuff in PC than in EU4. Buildings are on a location level and there'll be far more of them than in EU4. This needs to be compensated for somehow, otherwise you would basically remain with no buildings in most of your land as you wouldn't have the money for them. So your income is likely much higher than in EU4, but so will your building expenditures.

[@schlesi1.044]

Forced is a bit mutch

[@Lord_Lambert]

We do a little clickbaiting

[@rowanmales3430]

Meh. People are simply going to avoid achieving the weaker hegemony's because the negative modifiers are the same and they stack. If you are out conquering stuff, like most people, then the AE increase is absurd if you hold lots of hegemon statuses. I REALLY dislike systems where you are seriously incentivised to be weaker than you could be. I can just see people deliberately avoiding more diplo rep if they already have quite a bit for example, or deleting some heavy ships enough to lose Hegemon status just before peaceing out, etc. At the very least, if its going to be a big fat negative, I think that at a certain point the game needs to be able to determine you are a "superpower" and beyond a regular hegemon. Maybe requiring 3/5 or even 4/5 Hegemon titles and having won a war against all other Hegemon nations which slashes the negatives by 2/3 for 50 years. If other Hegemons can oppose you I understand regular nations rallying behind them and standing up against you. If other Hegemons are few and "demonstrably" cannot oppose you then regular nations should be meek and kow towing. Look, if you are a super power that holds most Hegemon titles and has beaten the few others in battle, the world has become uni-polar and you have won the game. People who continue playing at this point are those who enjoy the experience of "winning more", and so I see no reason not to allow them to "win more". To pretend that being the functionally uni-polar world power doesn't give a shite ton of bonuses is ahistorical in the extreme.

[@flyoffly5133]

Why doesn't the empire have any rivals? Russian, French and British empires

[@Lord_Lambert]

I was just trying to work it out on the fly whether it would make sense one way or the other. Im not sure either make sense. Def Empires should have rivals, but so too should county tier

[@eddiehowell9871]

@@Lord_Lambert My guess is that the rivals = yes and allience = yes is for something like US natives or similar where there will be a siderank (like "tribe is a tier 1 reform" which would be on the same tier as county as they said you could have multiple ranks on the same tier) and then the tribe rank sets rivals = no, allience = no, and federation = yes.