• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

EU4 - Development Diary - 11th of April 2017

Hello everyone and welcome to another Europa Universalis development diary. Last week we released the 1.20 ‘Ming’ Update and the Mandate of Heaven expansion. It is almost four years since we originally released the game, and it is still growing in popularity!

We just released a hotfix to address some urgent issues, but we’re also working on a new patch called 1.21 ‘Hungary’, which will be released in late April, if all goes well.

In 1.21 we’ve worked a lot on further improving the AI, fixing bugs and balanced the game as we usually do.

You may remember the talks we had in the winter, about how we were not satisfied with Sailors. Now in 1.21, we’re solving this problem, by doing the following things. First of all, ships out on the sea, will drain 2% of their Sailor build cost each month. Now with current values and playstyles, that would not be ideal, as your sailor pool would quickly be drained.

  • Each development now provides 30 instead of 25 sailors.
  • Naval Tradition provides 20% faster sailor recovery instead of +10%.
  • Docks and Shipyards (both versions) have swapped placed in the technology tree.
  • Autonomy from Burghers Estate no longer impact sailors from development.
  • Sheltered Ports in Maritime Ideas group reduces Sailor Maintenance by 10%.

We are rather happy with the end result, a better naval game, where all buildings are viable choices, and you need to invest in having the support for a naval force.

We also strengthened the naval ideagroup, by making Naval Cadets also reduce morale damage from sunk ships by 33%, increase Press Gangs from 20 to 25% Sailor Recovery Speed, and changing Superior Seamanship from 15% Naval Morale to 10% Naval Morale and adding +10% Naval Engangement modifier (ie, lets 10% more ships fire each round).

sailors.png



A cool thing we are adding in 1.21, is a new decision to form Yuan!

In 1444, the Ming dynasty is still in its relative infancy, having taken over China from the Yuan Empire in in the late 14th century. The remnants of the Yuan still remain in our start date in the form of the Mongolia tag (something you can already see in the tooltip for previous Emperors in the Empire of China interface).

For patch 1.21 we have expanded a bit on this and added a decision for Altaic countries to restore the Great Yuan Empire and reclaim the heritage of Kublai Khan. It will require you to unite the Eastern Altaic cultures and be the Empire of China (or at least Empire rank if you lack the Mandate of Heaven DLC) and will grant claims and ideas based on the Yuan Dynasty.

yuan.jpg



Speaking of forming nations, any manchu culture nation can form Manchu in 1.21


Next week, Trin Tragula will tell you all why the patch is called Hungary...
 
I like most of your ideas. I will comment on two topics:

Ottomans. Indeed, the Ottomans were the greatest force in the world for centuries, but there's something very unrewarding and too "AI" in my opinion - the Ottomans ALWAYS ally France in the first 50-ish years. This makes it impossible to make any anti-Ottoman campaign even remotely possible or enjoyable, or even playable. I know about the Franco-Ottoman alliance, but that alliance took place sometime in 16th century. At least give players a fighting chance in the first 50 years or so.

Anyways, @Maggnuss has a great idea about Hungarian Military Frontier (Krajina). But as far as i know, the Hungarians used Serbs as hussar/border fighters ever since Serbia was annexed by the Ottomans. Military Frontier itself was created in 16th century as far as i know, so a version of it could be implemented much sooner IMO. I also love the idea of making events that shifts cultures if Serbs/Ottomans occupy certain provinces after 17th century, but i think some things need to be left to be up to the player.

PS What do you mean by tagging Krajina with Nemanjic coat of arms? I might have an idea for flag: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Serbia_(Habsburg)
The easiest way to solve that is to make austria and burgundy historical friends,remove historical rivalry between austria and france and isntead add historicla rival france to anyone who get's the burgundian inheritence. France and austria will still fight over Burgundy (even if the inheritence never fires) and the ottomans don't have a shared rival with the ottomans from the start.
 
The easiest way to solve that is to make austria and burgundy historical friends,remove historical rivalry between austria and france and isntead add historicla rival france to anyone who get's the burgundian inheritence. France and austria will still fight over Burgundy (even if the inheritence never fires) and the ottomans don't have a shared rival with the ottomans from the start.

This was tried before the current rivalry was added. They allied in 99% of tested games with that setup and france proceeded to wreck Spain long before the inheritance in the vast majority of games.
 
In the past, control of the seas meant vast power. Whether this be the sea lanes of the Mediterranean in the days of yore, or the power and wealth it brought naval nations on a global scale in later years.

If a lessening in how other nations perceive your aggression is 'worth' more than global power projection over the seas (ie in EU4 terms, Improve Relations 30% is seen as a lot better than +10% sailor growth) then the balance needs to be changed.
 
This was tried before the current rivalry was added. They allied in 99% of tested games with that setup and france proceeded to wreck Spain long before the inheritance in the vast majority of games.
Then make austria and france historically neutral until (if) the inheritance fires.
 
actually there are more accurate maps of Croatia under Personal Union with Hungary:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Zadar
After the treaty of Zadar 1358.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe..._Treaty_1358.png/1920px-Zadar_Treaty_1358.png
But borders might have changed somewhat between 1358 and 1444, the game cant be 100% accurate but I do think Slavonia and Croatia proper should at least be under Kingdom of Croatia (PU).
Also they might want to change Hum to Croatian Culture.

Not at the beginning of the game, no (1444). Slavonia and Croatia were at the start of the game a bit different political territories, as well as with separate bans.

Medieval Slavonia did not extend that far into the east, especially not into the Syrmia region portions; I am a little hazy on the eastern borders, but it should not have been much further east than Pozega I believe. In that sense the map I posted is a bit more correct than the one found on Wiki.

The whole culture is a mess over there; not only due to the fact that most of the culture things are already a bit anachronistic but due to the fact that we don't ourselves know about those cultures any too much. For one thing, many would say that Bosnians deserve to be recognized as a culture of their own, probably.
 
Or they're sick or just generally unable to perform their duties as sailors which is what most casualties/attrition really are.
And they teleport there from the sailor manpower pool? Also I always assumed naval attrition represented this.
 
Not at the beginning of the game, no (1444). Slavonia and Croatia were at the start of the game a bit different political territories, as well as with separate bans.

Medieval Slavonia did not extend that far into the east, especially not into the Syrmia region portions; I am a little hazy on the eastern borders, but it should not have been much further east than Pozega I believe. In that sense the map I posted is a bit more correct than the one found on Wiki.

The whole culture is a mess over there; not only due to the fact that most of the culture things are already a bit anachronistic but due to the fact that we don't ourselves know about those cultures any too much. For one thing, many would say that Bosnians deserve to be recognized as a culture of their own, probably.

I agree that borders did change and that the truth is somewhere in between , probably.
When it comes to the Bosnians who are mainly of Croatian root In my opinion should not have a separate culture. Most that want a "Bosnian" culture are Muslims that for reasons want to make their historic decisions made more acceptable. I am myself a Bosnian Croat and we all know that Bosnia is as Croatian as is Slavonia.

(the truth does sometimes trigger some..)
 
Last edited:
I am myself a Bosnian Croat

In contentious discussions about how a certain nation shaped up, claiming to be part of one side of the equation is the same thing as saying "I'm biased so everything i say is right, everything everyone else is saying is wrong"

Long story short, by claiming to be part of the contentiousness the onus is on you to prove, without doubt, that you aren't biased either towards your group or against a specific 'opponent' group
 
In contentious discussions about how a certain nation shaped up, claiming to be part of one side of the equation is the same thing as saying "I'm biased so everything i say is right, everything everyone else is saying is wrong"

Long story short, by claiming to be part of the contentiousness the onus is on you to prove, without doubt, that you aren't biased either towards your group or against a specific 'opponent' group

Me proving what? that Bosnia was , and still is , historically Croatian land? Anyone with eyes to see or skill to read books can tell you that.
Its not some propaganda or misinformation or hatred of the "other" that i spew here, i view most Bosnian as the same people. Our view of being Croats has foundations as solid as bedrock while some others claims are less grounded in truth.
I do think this is the wrong thread to discuss this topic in length...
I was merely giving a response regarding if Bosnia should have its own culture.... i think them having Croatian in approximately half of Bosnia is probably accurate and Serbian in the eastern provinces is fine, but Hum should be of Croatian culture.
so ... I am not sure how Bosnian culture could fit in... Bosnian is just a regional name for either Croats or (later) Serbs. No-one would think Slavonians or Dalmatians as a separate people or culture... sure each region has its unique flavor ... but so does each region in almost any county.
same same, different, but still the same.
 
Last edited:
I also think it's important to understand Ethnicity =/= culture. If the Pomeranians were of slavic origin but had a german language and style of aristocracy, as well as other german identifiers, then making them part of the german culture group makes sense. It's not only about their origins, or even language. It is about political, regulatory, historical and demographic circumstances. I am sure arguments can be made both ways in this discussion, but frankly Pomerania works well in the version we currently have in EUIV. So even if you were right here it would only be marginally at best, which tells us there in no need to change. Same goes for almost every other culture and culture group in the game, yes; there's a lack of nuance in the game. And that is perfectly OK - this game is not a demographics simulator.
I completely agree with this. I'm also in favour of the Carpathian cultural group in the game.
 
In contentious discussions about how a certain nation shaped up, claiming to be part of one side of the equation is the same thing as saying "I'm biased so everything i say is right, everything everyone else is saying is wrong"

Long story short, by claiming to be part of the contentiousness the onus is on you to prove, without doubt, that you aren't biased either towards your group or against a specific 'opponent' group
I agree.
Though from what I know (which might be faulty) he is right about the area being inhabited by Croats and Serbs before the Turkish conquest and subsequent large scale conversion. Though there was a humongous thread years ago about Bosnia apparently having had a special variant of Christianity before the conquest and depending on how widespread that actually was (my impression was that it was quite widespread) that might mean something, though I still think that not having a Bosnian culture in 1444 is the proper thing to do. Heck afaik even today the Bosnian language is pretty much the same as Serbian/Croatian, though there having been some conscious attempts at making it more different by deliberately changing/ditching some words (at least according to a radio documentary I heard a few years back).
(Though again I might be mistaken; also since biases were brought up then I'm a Dane and as such should be unbiased on this.)
 
I agree.
Though from what I know (which might be faulty) he is right about the area being inhabited by Croats and Serbs before the Turkish conquest and subsequent large scale conversion. Though there was a humongous thread years ago about Bosnia apparently having had a special variant of Christianity before the conquest and depending on how widespread that actually was (my impression was that it was quite widespread) that might mean something, though I still think that not having a Bosnian culture in 1444 is the proper thing to do. Heck afaik even today the Bosnian language is pretty much the same as Serbian/Croatian, though there having been some conscious attempts at making it more different by deliberately changing/ditching some words (at least according to a radio documentary I heard a few years back).
(Though again I might be mistaken; also since biases were brought up then I'm a Dane and as such should be unbiased on this.)

As a Serbian, i agree with your notion. I'd like to add that i think that Bosnia is okay as it is. There are many versions of history in the Balkans, and many parts of all versions are true, only the conclusions are not. Bosnia is basically the territory where Croats and Serbs started splitting after the schism (catholic-orthodox), so Bosnian regional lords had to find salvation in accepting and tolerating both the catholics and the orthodox. This lead Bosnia to become a no.1 haven for heretics in Europe. One of the most famous heretic factions that were prolific in Bosnia were the Bogomils.

Bosnia was controlled by both Croatia and Serbia in different periods, but it was never a fully annexed territory. It was consisted of several small principalities that were ruled by both Serbs and Croats, orthodox and catholic alike. In the approximate age of the game start, Herzog of Hum was a Serb, so i don't think it was yet the time to change culture to Croatian, but maybe there should be an event that shifts Hum's culture to Croatian at some point. That's all that i think eventually should be tweaked with Bosnia.
 
As a Serbian, i agree with your notion. I'd like to add that i think that Bosnia is okay as it is. There are many versions of history in the Balkans, and many parts of all versions are true, only the conclusions are not. Bosnia is basically the territory where Croats and Serbs started splitting after the schism (catholic-orthodox), so Bosnian regional lords had to find salvation in accepting and tolerating both the catholics and the orthodox. This lead Bosnia to become a no.1 haven for heretics in Europe. One of the most famous heretic factions that were prolific in Bosnia were the Bogomils.

Bosnia was controlled by both Croatia and Serbia in different periods, but it was never a fully annexed territory. It was consisted of several small principalities that were ruled by both Serbs and Croats, orthodox and catholic alike. In the approximate age of the game start, Herzog of Hum was a Serb, so i don't think it was yet the time to change culture to Croatian, but maybe there should be an event that shifts Hum's culture to Croatian at some point. That's all that i think eventually should be tweaked with Bosnia.
Speaking of that then afaik the main difference between Serbian and Croatian cultures (at least until recently and the conscious attempts at differentiation) was whether the Austrians/Hungarians had ruled the area and the population hence was Catholic or the Byzzies had ruled it and the population hence was Orthodox. I.e. the difference primarily being religion (albeit that can be a quite big difference).

Am I mistaken in that? If not then frankly I think that a solution might be to just have a single Serbocroatian culture. Given how the area is rather small the culture wouldn't be too big in my opinion and it would seem to be more correct for the time frame. Then it would be the religion of the province which decided how well you tolerated/got along with the people in a specific province---which also would mean that as soon as an area had been taken and converted it would be fully tolerated which seems to correspond with what I know (though as mentioned that might be faulty) and with what you said about Bosnia in this time frame. Would also avoid having things like that Hum culture event switch you propose.
 
Speaking of that then afaik the main difference between Serbian and Croatian cultures (at least until recently and the conscious attempts at differentiation) was whether the Austrians/Hungarians had ruled the area and the population hence was Catholic or the Byzzies had ruled it and the population hence was Orthodox. I.e. the difference primarily being religion (albeit that can be a quite big difference).

Am I mistaken in that? If not then frankly I think that a solution might be to just have a single Serbocroatian culture. Given how the area is rather small the culture wouldn't be too big in my opinion and it would seem to be more correct for the time frame. Then it would be the religion of the province which decided how well you tolerated/got along with the people in a specific province---which also would mean that as soon as an area had been taken and converted it would be fully tolerated which seems to correspond with what I know (though as mentioned that might be faulty) and with what you said about Bosnia in this time frame. Would also avoid having things like that Hum culture event switch you propose.
Except culture is linked to revolter tags, which one would be the revolter tag of serbocroatian? Serbia? Croatia? Yugoslavia? None seems perfect, there's no reason serbocroats rusing uo in croatia would create serbia and no reason serbocroats in serbia would form croatia.
This is pretty much the same reason why dutch and flemmish are still separate cultures.

The obvious solution would be to simply redo how the game handles revolter tags, make them form a dynamic tag depending on which state/region their capital is in. The cossack estate already does that as I recall.
 
Last edited:
Other than the Bosnian church (which from what i gather is a mishmash of Catholic and Othodox) which was pseudo-autocephalial over the general area, best i can tell, Bosniak as a distinct culture (instead of 'merely' being the messy borderlands between where Croats and Serbs was massively dominant, which again, might well mainly have been a question which religion they followed) was first recognized in 1800s by Austrians trying to divide and rule the Balkan population, using the 'Bosniak' tag to describe people of the ethnic/cultural continuum which were Muslims