• 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 - 12th of May 2016

Hello and Welcome to another development diary for Europa Universalis IV. Today we’ll talk a bit about the future of the game, and what we aim at achieving with it.

It is now almost three years since we released EU4, and the game is growing every month, with far more people playing it today, than ever before. And as we have said before, we’ll continue to support the game with patches and expansions as long as you keep buying them.

Currently we have ideas and designs for several years worth of expansions, but those designs change and grow whenever we read your feedback.

There are of course concerns and challenges with expanding to an already complex game, and what can be added without making the game unplayable. It is also a fine thread to decide which ones should be behind the paywall and which should be free.

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.

So what do we want to do with EU4 in the future?

Well, there are some parts of the world we want to add more unique flavor to. I am fairly happy with Europe, and we’ve done quite a lot of focus on mechanics for the New World, but there are areas like East Asia, India & Middle East which deserve far deeper looks in the future. With unique flavor I mean things like Dutch Republic, Nahuatl Religion, Polish Elective Monarchy, HRE Religious League Wars, Hordes Razing Provinces, etc… I envision EU4 in 3 years with far far more difference playing each country in the world.

There are also aspects of the game which we once were happy with, but feel would require are not entirely happy with now. Our technology system, basically hailing from EU1, is based too much around rigid tech groups, punishing nations outside of Europe. We’re not entirely happy with how culture works now, and the diplomatic interface just can’t handle the amount of states and actions we currently have. Can these be changed? Maybe? Time will tell.

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

CrWUTyS.jpg



Anyway, next week I’m gone on holidays, but Catalack will talk about units for eu4.
 
  • 54
  • 46
  • 3
Reactions:
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
 
  • 14
  • 2
Reactions:
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.
 
  • 106
  • 4
  • 3
Reactions:
we’ve done quite a lot of focus on mechanics for the New World

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.
 
  • 9
  • 1
Reactions:
Don't we already have a mapmode for government? Or is that CKII?
Yes, you are right. There is a governement mapmode but I was thinking about something else like the types of estate you get. (feudal : clergy, nobility, burghers and tribal : tribes)
And I also am wrong on that point since merchant republics don't get estates and are in green on the map.

Nope. Circassia is a tribal federation and is green on the map
Well spotted and Hedjaz is a tribal monarchy. I have no idea what it could be. Maybe something with technologies ?
 
  • 4
Reactions:
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.
 
  • 14
Reactions:
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?
 
  • 14
  • 2
Reactions:
current development system is the main reason for non-western tech countries getting behind in techs. they are using monarch powers to develop provinces which is absolutely ridiculous because they need technology not development. (eg. ottomans)
 
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
Here's a screenshot of something you've never seen before.

CrWUTyS.jpg

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.
 
Last edited:
  • 19
  • 8
Reactions:
It's an interesting take on diplomatic range - both sides need to be within range of each other.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
current development system is the main reason for non-western tech countries getting behind in techs. they are using monarch powers to develop provinces which is absolutely ridiculous because they need technology not development. (eg. ottomans)

Technically its better to develop provinces or fill idea groups : ) and not tech at all with those maluses. Tech once you westernize. Weird system...

It is more baffling how some countries like Ming or some hordes manage to keep equal in miitary tech with europeans.... in 1700s. Lots of illogical things happening in Asia.