EU4 - Development Diary - 12th of May 2016

[Milith]

It is also a fine thread to decide which ones should be behind the paywall and which should be free.

I think this is a good place to repeat an opinion I've expressed a couple times on this forum, about something I feel is absolutely crucial for the long term design of EU4 (and Paradox games in general, really), and hopefully get @Johan 's take on it:

DLC shouldn't add depth to the game, but width. Depth mechanics should come with the free patch.

Right now, EU4 is starting to suffer from mechanic bloat. Paradox adds layer upon layer of new stuff that's unrelated to the previous layers, and in the end nothing feels polished. There's a reason for that. If we have N DLC, each with its set of mechanics, and if those mechanics interact with each other, Paradox needs to think about 2^N sets of interactions. That's completely impossible to manage. DLC features should be features that don't need to interact with one another, and the best way to do it is with regional flavor. Specific mechanics related to some cultures, government types, religions, idea groups. Those would not interact with each other, but would interact with all the "depth" related features. It would also allow "depth" related features to interact with each other and create a holistic feel to the game.

Some examples of what I mean:

Depth features (free patch content): Colonization, Estates, Trust/Favor system, Development, States.
Width features (DLC content): Trade Leagues, Parliaments, Berber raiding, Hindu deities, Horde razing...

If features were organized this way, we could see every depth feature interacting with every other depth feature AND every width feature. Imagine Parliaments and Estates interacting with each other, wouldn't that be great? Playing with such interactions would feel like interacting with a real world where everything is interconnected and every action has consequences, instead of playing two unrelated minigames. Width features wouldn't be able to interact with each other, but they don't have to, as they're mostly exclusive anyway. CK2 did something similar for a while and it was great.

 

[gebali]

What am I seeing?

 

[Quivis]

While a fair amount of requests keep coming for more peace activities, that also creates challenges, as if that is too engaging, you will suffer when you end up in unplanned wars, and get a far worse experience.

Don't worry, we can handle additional peace time activates, if we could handle Vicy2.

 

[DanubianCossak]

Im definitely up for 3 more years of EU. Totally.

 

[wolfing]

The map is areas where aliens have abducted people for experiments #StellarisHellYeah

 

[seriousgigi]

dlc about caliphate mechanics would be good.

 

[Okcydent]

Here's a screenshot of something you've never seen before.

This might be the mapmode showing which countries know about us. Selected TAG is England. I've verified that Crimea, Golden Horde don't see ENG. Dulkadir and Hejaz both see but Akk Qounlu don't.

E: If you look closely on Hejaz borders hidden by the fog, you will see that the neighbouring provinces are green. This coincide with the 1444 setting in which ENG does not know about Shamma, Yemen but they know about England. On the other hand Nubia and Eng does not know each other.

 

[zamieo]

While a fair amount of requests keep coming for more peace activities, that also creates challenges, as if that is too engaging, you will suffer when you end up in unplanned wars, and get a far worse experience.

Is this really a concern, or are you just kidding?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Whats wrong with development? Its a monarch points sink? What would you like?

You're not making very many meaningful decisions with it, nor are you making meaningful decisions often. The cost scaling and utility from alternative point investment make it a somewhat stale mechanic; only very rarely is it the "optimal" choice from a perspective of improving your empire's strength (IE you're point capped and can't realistically expand, don't have idea group options etc).

Compare this to estates or states/territories where you choices of where to assign, what actions to take when, and short vs long-term return planning can screw you over or put you ahead. You can give yourself an estate disaster or come out hundreds of points ahead from managing it. With territories you have trade company planning and consideration of whether it's worth saving states for anticipated conquests to get a larger income more rapidly.

With development? You have a known comparatively inefficient means of increasing it, with the process amounting to pushing the button to increase the number now and then. The only danger is opportunity cost of better-spending the points, and in practice there are generally so much stronger uses that you're only developing if role playing. As a result you virtually never make a meaningful decision regarding development across a game; it's a point dump when you have nothing better, or a role-play option where optimizing for it is obvious.

This is why changes in EU are not equal. Corruption and development are shallow (corruption even more so) because they do not meaningfully alter your decision making process in the vast majority of cases, in contrast to the mechanics above or even something like rebels (messing with unrest type, possibility to export, investments against, delay fighting, temporary unrest countermeasures that are costly, using them to split up an AI, etc). Rebels are extremely annoying especially when functioning as a brake, but they have miles more depth than corruption or development and it shows when you start looking at the number of times you make a decision to plan around rebels vs planning around development.

 

[JPGM22]

I would like to see more dynamic population. Migration, growth, disease, famine, dynamic cultural conversation... Amount of social classes, nobles, burgers, villagers, farmers, artisians, soldiers, clerical people... Example tax base influence the number of villagers, the production base the number of artisians and farmers, manpower base the amount of soldiers

 

[white army]

The focus that Paradox need now in EU4 does not relate to adding newer countries, but building upon existing mechanics, and a much more interesting in depth game.

The revision of Technology, Reformation HRE wars is good path to go to. Unfortunately unmentioned Government types and rulers revision (wrote this months ago), and how not, more aggressive and interesting Revolutionary era that I believe would add what the game is missing right now.

As a player of EU4, I'm not the one that creates the Roman Empire in 100 years, then quits the game and starting new campaign with Kuba in Cuba, quitting and again, etc.
I usually want to play the game from its start to its end, I used to actually. But I feel the spirit of the EU4 era is missing, the intrigue of Revelation and Tradition, secret occults, the institution of inquisition, Catholic and Protestant churches clash, the Revolutionary era and more. Somehow this spirit exists in CK2 or Victoria 2, or used to be in EU3.
These are my points:

1. Chain events that relate to my own monarch, his decisions of royal marriages and religion in the eve of reformation, a modifier of reputation - if the people adore/despise him. More of that, although it's not CK2, I want to have unexpected events, like a monarch that arises to the throne in the age of religious strife and changes his religion (Ex: Henry VIII, Elisabeth I), adopts an enlightenment Philosophy that influences the realm (Frederick the Great, Joseph I) and more of that. I want not everything will be under the control of player, and stability unimportant and possibly removed, in expense of Realm internal modifiers or Diplomatic relations success/failure.

2. Change Internal values that are part of my realm (Tradition and Absolutism, Liberty and Revolution) that will influence the growth of my educated population and may influence the future of my realm. I want a tutor to my future heir, if I want him to tend to an existing tradition, or adopt Absolutism and Divine right, or new options in the future, like Conscious, Free thought and Enlightenment to avoid Revolution in my realm, or to make one as Colony in the late game. Estates would also play this part and try to make an heir of throne or unexperienced new monarch ascended to rush toward their gains.

3. Evolution of Traditional feudal monarchies towards the more centralized, Absolute state. This would need either a loyal and strong army with Charismatic and powerful monarch that will transfer the state, peacefully as possible, in expense of the estates. In governments with parliament, that would be an almost impossible task, that would develop to a civil war.
Nation that fails to do it, will possibly fall or be couped into the most restricted monarchy or republican dictatorship.


NOTE: The government types are influenced by events and not player's decision or AI choosing of national ideas (that is awkward in my opinion and stayed so from since the game release). It would rely on its monarchs' history of rule and making some national ideas more powerful than others.


4. Enlightenment Philosophy developing in my realm (of course Westernized), making strife among the people, and erupts in the country's darkest hour. New exploration in Science and Arts that will influence my management of realm for good, influence my monarch to adopt more staunch traditional ideals or scientific ones.

5. Clash of the Church with reformed heretics/opposite and making the situation in the country intolerable. If the country tolerates heretics, it would find itself in chaos because of religious motivated population not matter what. And intolerant country would appoint orders of Clergy to fight the heresy in every way (state inquisition).

6. Revolutionary Era! The rise of secret occults, liberty in the nation of that is miserable state and the rise of Enlightenment Philosophers advocating towards Revolution in Absolute realms. Accept it or deny it, the Revolutionaries will transform your country to become the age of new Glory/Horror (or whatever you personally believe) and conquer the world with intrigues within your newly formed Republic, transformed into aggressive, world-conqueror Empire that is able to manage much more territories!


I really hope someone in Paradox will read this message and maybe it will give him new ideas to come. Thank you, for making this game.

 

[Enric de Vimon]

Personally I dislike the way the game deals with cultures, it is absurd and irrealistic to me. And it's getting worse, I actually preferred Europa Universalis 2 in this over EU4.

A culture should not be accepted just because it reaches a percenage (typically 20%) but because some decisions you take once you cored provinces with that culture, depending on how you lead your country you should be allowed to decide if become a pluri-cultural empire or a more repressive state-nation. Now with the game adding more cultures the way to handle with them become worse and worse. Small culture can never be accepted in big empires.

This leads to many awkward situations. Ottoman always accept Greek culture, never accept Albanian culture and end losing Bulgarian culture just because the empire grows. If France decides to conquer Alsace in 1500 the Alsatian culture will still be unaccepted in 1820, but if France conquers England in 2000 English culture will be accepted whenever the land is cored just because England is larger. If Scotland grows and becomes a big empire, it will accept other cultures but the Scottish Highland culture will become unaccepted. etc.

I also don't understand why when we colonize some empty islands near Africa such Saint Helena they don't get our culture while any American province does automatically, no matter their original culture. Why don't you just put the option of automatically changing the culture if there aren't natives?

I don't like how cultural groups work. I guess there will never groups that satisfy everyone but they look designed to force us to expand to those areas or to create certain empires. How do you decide to create a French, Italian or Iberian cultural group? Is it just to lead to the creations of France, Italy and Iberia? Provence was culturally closer to northern Italy or Catalonia but now they are as exotic as Koreans in the game. The Crown of Aragon is nearly unplayable in the game in part because this. I would actually prefer a Romance cultural group for Italy, Iberian peninsula and France. I'd also like to add flexible cultural groups that change in the game depending on what happens. So for example Welsh, Irish or Scottish cultures might be in the Celtic group but depending on what England does these cultures might switch to their cultural group.

 

[Silverbow]

Is that the aftermath of a new "let's gang up on the hordes" CB?

 

[Basileios Makedon]

It looks like a map of feudal states (in green) and tribal states (in red) but that's just my opinion.

Nope. Circassia is a tribal federation and is green on the map

 

[Naga Niome]

Interesting journal.

Johan I think you should reform the Culture system in how it ties with the Technology system. Tying these two together would produce situations naturally like the "Byzantine Refugee" event Europe experiences when Constantinople falls. This can be emulated further by introducing two new mechanics into the game; one called "Education", and another, "Renaissance". I made a post about it but I hope I can get your attention here: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...cetime-enjoyable.870433/page-10#post-21142539.

Culture is affected by the funding slider of Education, which in turn is affected by the Estates system, Prestige, Stability, buildings, and some other things, whilst Renaissance is more abstract in the dissemination of Culture and Technology bonuses and the starting of game events, similar to CoF's but more grounded working from neighbor-to-neighbor.

I think Culture could be re-done by emulating the presence of multiple cultures within provinces by using the simple pie chart alongside a center-periphery model, with a small circle in the middle of the proportional chart. The capitals culture is represented by the central circle, and the proportions are where the minorities and majorities are represented in the rest of the province, usually those that aren't Primary Culture, or are if the area thoroughly lop-sided ethnically. The pie chart is in my personal view, a compromise between the heavy-handed if good Victoria Pop system, and currently Europa's. The pie chart is easily accessible visually and physically, we can hover our cursors over the pie charts culture makeups and see "oh, 37.6% of this province is Pontic, but the rest is Turkish with 7.8% Armenian, so if the Pontic is an Accepted Culture, but the Turkish and Armenian isn't, at least 37.6% of the province is yielding me Accepted Culture benefits. Good enough."

If a Nomad culture happens to conquer parts of Ming, they'll discover that the higher Education attributes of the Chinese cultures yields them more reductions in the cost of administrative technology, but Nomad cultures by themselves are militarily proficient, thus the Cossack and Nomad cultures will help with Military and Cavalry bonuses. I think many things can come out of this.

 

[Teonod]

We need Divine Wind! An Asian expansion for EUIV!

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I certainly won't negate that part, but have you considered that the art of war map rework came with lots of new provinces, and that old native tags of North America that were all close one another are now much more spread around, making it quite stale to start as non OPM (those can migrate to get in a better position)?

Anyway, I'm certainly looking forward for more diverse game mechanics as I really enjoyed reworks that offered unique mechanics (Nahuatl, hordes,...) though more core gameplay rework is important to keep the will to play I think. Things like fort rework really helped to renew the game experience after many campaigns.

Native councils are among the only viable no-CB nations in the game thanks to 30-50 stab cost total and 50% BROT. The bad thing about them is the waiting non-game. After conquering all of the reasonably high tax eastern stuff as Iroquois I walked away from my computer on speed 5 to do laundry, came back to a ton of events but nothing meaningful happening despite 10 years passing.

New world mechanics are okay but they've been routinely crushed by deliberate nonsense/inconsistent nerfs and suffered collateral from other changes. Having mechanics is cool and all, but at some point you want to play the game too, and for more than the first 30-50 years you're using those mechanics.

 

[BrokenSky]

Whats wrong with development? Its a monarch points sink? What would you like?

It could stand to be more dynamic. As is, provinces only increase in development from direct development action, a handful of events and a few country specific decisions. A lot of the world looks the same development wise in 1844 as in 1444. This could stand to be improved upon. For example, by making development happen randomly in provinces and having it such that investing monarch points reduce the MTTH of random development in a province, rather than just instantly improving it?

 

[War_lord]

It's not something that can be shoved into an expansion, it's a new game worth of content. And it's nearly 400 years of history, designing a population system with any sort of dynamism that's going to keep working for that amount of time is not a small task.