• 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 - 22th of September

Hey everyone! Today is the last day of us talking about the native americans and the rework they are getting. We’ll be talking about the changes to the Federations and the new world setup. As you’ll see on the pictures for the map, a lot of tags have been split up in order to represent federations properly. A prime example is the Iroquois who will now be several tags and start in a federation at game start.

So let’s start with how to form them. Since we are splitting up the federal tags like the Huron and Iroquois I still wanted to retain some kind of identity for them. As such when you invite the first member to form a federation with you, you get the opportunity to also name the Federation. There are some default options scripted that can be based on Tags and Cultures which it will suggest for you, but you can of course just write whatever you want here.

1600776828277.png


We’ve also redone how leadership of the federation is decided. It is no longer decided on the death of the monarch of the leader in the tribe, instead we measure a cohesion value of the Federation. This value changes each month depending on the composition of the Federation but also some external factors. Keep in mind that any numbers & values are work in progress!

1600778713850.png


If cohesion hits 0% then it will trigger a change in leadership. In order to keep the cohesion high you want to keep similar cultures within your federation, however having one or two of a separate culture group won’t really be problematic. Another source of loss of cohesion is also if there are members that are stronger than the leader. For later in the game to help you keep a large federation together, if you have any colonizers on your border it will help you keep it together by having an external threat increasing your cohesion.

If a leadership change is triggered it will try to pick the strongest member to be the new leader, if the leader is the strongest then the federation will be disbanded. This entire process is 100% done in script, from calculation of members strength to what happens during leadership change. Currently for testing the strength is calculated from the max manpower of members and is done as a scripted function with an effect and looks like this:

Code:
calculate_federation_member_strength = {
    effect = {
        export_to_variable = { which = our_manpower value = max_manpower who = THIS }
        set_variable = { which = federation_strength which = our_manpower }

    }
}

Here’s the current list of values that affect your cohesion
  • -1 For every member not of leaders culture group
  • +1 For every member of leaders culture group
  • -1 For every member stronger than the leader
  • +1 for neighboring hostile Europeans

The aim here is to make Federations more something you can count on, instead of having to try and keep your prestige high or stack diplomatic reputation at all times just in case your leader at some random point dies, you can now count on it instead and try to plan around what you need to do in order to keep the leadership position.


Now I’m going to hand it over to a member of our beta program. @Evie HJ who have done the excellent work of reforming North America’s setup making it a much more vibrant and interesting place.

It's a whole (new) New World we live in

The setup for North America hasn’t really changed much at all since the release of Art of War, almost ix years ago – and, as far as the list of playable countries is concerned, since Conquest of Paradise even earlier. The new changes to the Native game mechanics in this patch provided a perfect opportunity to take a new look at a region that has remained largely untouched for a long time.

In some ways, this overhaul is our most ambitious review of the North American setup to date. The province count does fall short of Art of War (though fifty-three new provinces, not counting wastelands, is nothing to sneeze at), but the list of new tags is more than we ever added to North America at any single time. In fact, with fifty-six new tags, we’re adding more North American tags in this one overhaul than we have in the entire history of the Europa Universalis franchise.

Those tags are not evenly spread out across the continent. Two regions (the South-East United States and the Great Lakes and Saint Lawrence) get the lion’s share of the tags. Others like the Great Plains or Hudson Bay, get a handful of provinces or tags. The West Coast, for its part, where we know almost nothing of Indigenous people before the last century or so of the game, was entirely outside the scope of this overhaul. This applies to the provinces as well as the tags: in broad terms, we tried to add provinces in the same general region we were adding tags, to keep the amount of empty (or tribal land) provinces roughly similar.

With twenty-one new tags, it is the South-East United States that receive the most work in this new overhaul. The reason is simple: up until now, the 1444 setup in the game represented the historical situation around 1600-1650. The first 150 years of the game – a time when the last great cities of the Mississippian civilizations flourished in the region (the more northern city, like Cahokia, were likely abandoned by 1444)– were left out entirely. This was the first thing we set out to fix, and the new setup, as a result, emphasize the situation that early European explorers and archaeologists tell us about – not English colonists two centuries later. By and large, most of those new tags are settled nations, and (except the Cherokee) all belong to the Muskogean culture group. This is a compromise for some of them: while they spoke Siouan languages like Catawba, they were heavily influenced by the Southern Appalachian Mississippian culture, and it’s those cultural ties we chose to emphasize.

1600773970686.png


In the new setup, the Creek Confederacy is no longer available at game start, and the Cherokee are reduced to a one-province statelet in the mountains. In their stead, the Coosa Paramount Chiefdom is now the major power of the region. Though a one-province nation in itself, it rules through a network of subject states (Satapo, an area stretching from the Kentucky border to Alabama along the spine of the Appalachians. Surrounding it are a number of smaller, independent chiefdoms, including both sites visited by the De Soto expedition (Altamaha, Cofitachequi, Joara, Ichisi, Chisca, as well as Atahachi, the future home of Chief Tuscaloosa) and of Muskogean towns that would eventually form the seeds of the future Creek Confederacy, like Coweta and Kasihta. Further west, in the valleys of the Mississippi, they are joined not only by more of the chiefdoms documented by De Soto, (Quizquiz, Anilco, Pacaha and Casqui, the last three corresponding to the Menard-Hodges, Nodena and Parkin Mound archaeological sites), but also by the Natchez people, who would, in later century, become the last tribe to embrace Mississippian culture.

Further north, our other focus region was the Great Lakes of North America. Here, the main concern was nothing to do with our setup representing the wrong date (except along the Saint Lawrence, where the Iroquoians of the sixteenth century were mysteriously missing), and everything to do with the fact that the two most famous (con)federations of natives, the Hurons and Iroquois, were represented as monolithic nations with no use for the in-game Federation mechanism. Once it was decided to represent each of the nations making up those two confederations independently, adding in the other relevant nations in the region was an obvious choice. As with the United States South-East, these are largely settled nations of Iroquoian cultures, although a handful of them are migratory instead.

1600773986832.png


This gives us a sizeable five new nations where the one Iroquois tag used to be: Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga and Seneca (plus, starting much further south at game start but not forgotten, the Tuscarora). Opposing them are the less well-known member nations of the Huron Confederacy: Tahontaenrat, Arendaronon, Attignawantan and Attigneenongnahac. In addition to them, we have a selection of minor Iroquoian nations that can struggle to strike the right balance to remain neutral between these two powerful Confederacies. This notably include the aptly named Neutral Nation (Attiwandaron), as well as the Tionontate (or Tobacco Indians), the Wenro of far western New York, and the Erie of Northwest Pennsylvania (plus the already existing Susquehannock). As the last two (Erie, Susquehannock) represent nations that claimed large territory but with very little united government, they are represented as migratory nations. You can think of the migration as representing shifting balance of power among the different villages and groups of their respective nations, rather than actual physical relocation. Also represented as migratory are the first two Iroquoian nations ever encountered by European: Stadacona, on the site of present day Quebec City, and Osheaga (Hochelaga), in present Montreal. In their case, leaving them migratory was the simplest way to enable them to potentially vanish from the Saint Lawrence lowlands, as they did in the late sixteenth century.

Our changes didn’t stop at those new areas, though they received the bulk of the changes. Existing tags that represented larger confederations or culture group were split into (some of) their constituent parts: the Illinois are now represented by the Kaskaskia, Cahokia and Peoria, the Shawnee by Chalahgawtha, Kispoko and Hathawekela, and the Puebloan people expanded from Keres and Pueblo to Acoma, Zia, Ohkay Owingeh and Sandiat. In a similar vein, some particularly large groups that used to be represented by a single tag now have additional tags to represent them: this is the case of the Cree, with the addition of the Nehiyaw (Plains Cree) nation, the Ojibwe, who are now additionally represented by the Mississage for their easternmost group and the Nakawe (or Saulteaux) for their western bands, and the Sioux, now expanded to include the Wichiyena (Western Dakota) and Lakota nations. Historical confederations that were lacking some of their members or needing a boost also gained it: the Iron Confederacy gained the Nehiyaw and Nakawe, described above; the Three Fires now add the Mississage to their alliance, and the Wabanaki Confederacy of North-East North America can now count on the help of the Maliseet and Penobscot as well as the pre-existing Abenaki. Finally, three more tags are added on sheer account of their historical importance in the Colonial era, two as allies of New France, one as ally-turned-enemy of New England: the Algonquin of the Ottawa valley, the Innu of the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, and the Wampanoag of Massachusetts Bay.

1600774009748.png


Along with all these changes, we finally introduced Wasteland mountain ranges to North America. Not in the Rockies (where the handful of connections already represent major passes through the mountains), but rather, in the East, along the Appalachian mountains. While they may not seem like much today, they were formidable obstacle to westward expansion in colonial time, when it was said that there were only five paths from the East Coast westward that could be taken by large groups of people: around the mountains to the south in the Piedmont of Georgia, through the Cumberland gap on the border of Virginia and Tennessee, through the Cumberland Narrows of western Maryland, the Allegheny gaps of Pennsylvania, and finally through the valley of the Mohawk river, in New York. In addition, through it didn’t allow for east-west travel per se, the Great Valley of the Appalachians was another significant route through the region, running from Alabama to Pennsylvania. All of them are now represented in the game, along with the mountains that bordered them.

We also tried to adopt a somewhat consistent standard in the naming of provinces, and revise province names accordingly. The new standard prefers the self-given names of a Native group (tribe, nation, band…) who lived in the region where we can find one. If none can be found, other options include a name given to a local people by a neighboring tribe (provided it’s not derogatory), or a geographic name in a local Native language. In all cases, we now tend to favor native spelling where we are able to find it, though symbols that are particularly unusual in the standard Latin Alphabet may be set aside or approximated for our players’ benefit.


That’s it for today, as usual I’ll answer questions in the thread however there’s one I want to address yet again as it keeps getting asked and I can’t answer every single time it gets asked. People have asked if these features will be applied to South America or the Siberian Natives etc. It all depends on time, the main focus is to rework the North Americans and if I have time I will make sure it plays nice with others that can also benefit but it is not a priority. Next week will have it’s development diary written by Johan.
 
  • 153Like
  • 69Love
  • 9
  • 9
  • 9
Reactions:
Since you are reworking Americas, for what seems to be final time, could you fix the colonies.
They have two big problems now:
1st-colonies often colonise outside their colonial regions, creating plenty of bordergore which can't be fixed
2nd-since Golden Century, colonies never convert religion, and culture stays the same, which feels kinda weird, to see entire Mexico still be Nahuatl and Mayan by the end of XVIIIth century
I couldn't agree more
 
  • 4
  • 2Like
Reactions:
@Groogy : suggestion for how federations should work. (My main knowledge comes form having done a slide show presentation on the Iroquois in AP World History and having read The Years of Rice and Salt, so take this with a grain of salt, no pun intended). Replace that slot where native ideas used to be with 'reforms', like in the HRE. At basic level federations function as they do currently; then you start adding in more cohesion. Tier 1 you can call them in as offensive allies, tier 2 each member transfers 10% tax, .5 prestige, % .5 forcelimit to leader or something, tier 3 they become the leader's vassals, tier 4 the leader annexes the others. You could also make it so that at lower tiers every single nation gets buffs that go away as tier increases, like prestige, diplo rep, dev cost, trade efficiency, morale, etc, to represent how the people of each nation view themselves as part of something greater than themselves. This would create a dynamic were it's not always the optimal strategy to max out centralization and create replayability depending on what you want to do. To change tier up or down the leader has to convince all the other members to vote their way, with stronger members obviously being less inclined to centralize (I remember reading somewhere that the Iroquois council required unanimity to pass major resolutions, though I could be wrong.)
Major IRL confederacies, such as the Huron, Iroqoius, Creek, ETC, could have their own formable tags with special ideas if you manage to unite them.
 
  • 7Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Would you consider making it an option to preserve the native cultures when colonising provinces in colonial nation areas similar to the trade company regions?
 
  • 3Like
  • 3Love
  • 3
Reactions:
I couldn't agree more
Europeans handled colonialism in a few different ways, which means it's kind of hard to imagine a one-size-fits-all solution. It makes sense for English colonies to culture convert etc, but If Latin American colonies converted culture and not just religion for the most part you'd end up with weird ahistorical outcomes, like Mayans or Nahuatl no longer existing at all despite there being huge numbers of them to this day.
 
  • 13Like
  • 2
Reactions:
“People have asked if these features will be applied to South America or the Siberian Natives etc. It all depends on time, the main focus is to rework the North Americans and if I have time I will make sure it plays nice with others that can also benefit but it is not a priority”

look, I don’t mean to frustrate, but y’all took over a year to release Emperor. And the gaming community was not happy with its outcome. Frankly felt minimal effort to what it is brewing with the next expansion; The South China Nations, Eastern North American nations rework. This pack looks very promising! And I’m very excited for it :)
 
  • 19
  • 4
Reactions:
Europeans handled colonialism in a few different ways, which means it's kind of hard to imagine a one-size-fits-all solution. It makes sense for English colonies to culture convert etc, but If Latin American colonies converted culture and not just religion for the most part you'd end up with weird ahistorical outcomes, like Mayans or Nahuatl no longer existing at all despite there being huge numbers of them to this day.
Latin American countries mixed cultures because the colonized regions were more settled and developed, so it was easier & more profitable to subjugate the already existing infrastructure & population rather than force them out and move new settlers in. Plus, the climate was much more different from Europe than North America was, so European settlers were less inclined to move there. I think the best way to represent this is how it is in-game; if you conquer a province it remains it's own culture.
 
  • 6
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Will you be overhauling federal republics like the USA and Switzerland along similar lines?
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Have there any playable tribes in florida?
I may be biased, but with the addition of the new tags, I can't see why nations such as the Apalachee, Timucua and Calusa couldn't be added. At the time, they were large, sedentary peoples who gave the Spanish conquistadors a lot of trouble in Florida. Also, there could be events detailing the fall of these nations, and the rise of the Seminole, who can pop up as a muscogee nation in Florida in the mid 1700s
 
  • 14Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Latin American countries mixed cultures because the colonized regions were more settled and developed, so it was easier & more profitable to subjugate the already existing infrastructure & population rather than force them out and move new settlers in. Plus, the climate was much more different from Europe than North America was, so European settlers were less inclined to move there. I think the best way to represent this is how it is in-game; if you conquer a province it remains it's own culture.
I was replying to a comment pushing for colonies to convert religion and culture more. There being differences between how this shook out and different countries is kind of important, and Mexico should still probably be converting these provinces to catholicism. As it is, if we push for colonial nations to culture convert and religiously convert more, it will be happening everywhere whether it makes sense for them to do so or not.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Good job, mississipian cultures are finally well represented and I will certainly play in Mississipi after the update, tag density in the region will make gameplay here interesting even before european arrival, I think too that would be interesting if Iroquois, Huron and Creek become formable tags in mid game.
I hope that there will have time to update south america too, all this new mechanics (federations, migrations, tribal lands, some tribes starting sedentary, etc) are appropriate to native councils in south america too, the hardest part would be add new tags and rework provinces.
 
  • 5Like
Reactions:
Colonial region borders were not, historically, and should not be, in the game, firm and fixed. Colonies routinely ignored them - Acadia expanded into Maine, New France into New York and Vermont, etc - and diplomats squabbled over the actual definition of borders even after they had formed treaties about them.

At a smaller scale (since these are all lumped together in the game under Eastern North America), English colonies actually fought each other over which colony some provinces belonged to.

And their borders were, at times, quite gore-y.
 
  • 17Like
  • 4
Reactions:
Colonial region borders were not, historically, and should not be, in the game, firm and fixed. Colonies routinely ignored them - Acadia expanded into Maine, New France into New York and Vermont, etc - and diplomats squabbled over the actual definition of borders even after they had formed treaties about them.

At a smaller scale (since these are all lumped together in the game under Eastern North America), English colonies actually fought each other over which colony some provinces belonged to.

And their borders were, at times, quite gore-y.
That's fair, but as the colonial overlord I feel like I should have the right to decide which colony gets what at the very least. Them being boundless theoretically doesn't mean I want to let them make their borders ugly as sin.
 
  • 6Like
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
Our general approach to name has been to use endonyms for provinces, and the best known english name for the playable nations, in much the same way that the playable countries are China, Muscovy and (when formed) Germany. There have been a few exceptions where the native names use outright english or french words (Saulteaux, Plains Cree),but these are not the norm.

Thus, the tag is called Maliseet, but one of their provinces is Wolastoqiyik.

Understandable, though I think maybe some consideration should be given to corner cases where although a European name exists the indigenous peoples of that community would prefer that term not be used due to historical context, language reclamation, or other culturally or historically-informed contexts. In fact, you have already done this for some nations - the Mi'kmaq (Meeg-Maw) were until about 20-25 years ago called the MicMac (Mick-Mack) by non-indigenous people living in the region until an education campaign made the preference of the community known - now the 'English' term is corrected to their preference.
 
  • 3Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
That's fair, but as the colonial overlord I feel like I should have the right to decide which colony gets what at the very least. Them being boundless theoretically doesn't mean I want to let them make their borders ugly as sin.

Perhaps, but the best-known time a colonial overlord tried that, the result...weren't very pretty (although again, that's all within the scope of one colonial region in game). So it should come with some risk and challenges in game - not a freebie button.

(Connecticut colonized Vermont. New York claimed Vermont per its charter, and demanded that the crown confirm its right to it. The Crown did, and New York decided this meant the Connecticut settlers had no actual ownership of the land grant Connecticut sold them. The settlers promptly revolted against New York, which turned fairly quickly into a revolt against New York and the British (this was 1776 after all). In the end, after much negotiation and even fear that Vermont would defect back to the British rather than be included in the United States as part of New York, New York gave in and recognized they wouldn't be getting Vermont.)
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Understandable, though I think maybe some consideration should be given to corner cases where although a European name exists the indigenous peoples of that community would prefer that term not be used due to historical context, language reclamation, or other culturally or historically-informed contexts. In fact, you have already done this for some nations - the Mi'kmaq (Meeg-Maw) were until about 20-25 years ago called the MicMac (Mick-Mack) by non-indigenous people living in the region until an education campaign made the preference of the community known - now the 'English' term is corrected to their preference.

Yes, and likewise we're using Innu (rather than Montagnais). But we generally want names that have good odds of being recognizable in the English language. This is the case for Mi'kmaq and Innu in 2020, not quite so much for Wolastoqiyik yet.

There may still be as you say corner case where names are considered derogatory or similar situations, but ultimately the point of country names in the game is to inform players as to who the country is.
 
  • 4Like
  • 2
Reactions:
I may be biased, but with the addition of the new tags, I can't see why nations such as the Apalachee, Timucua and Calusa couldn't be added. At the time, they were large, sedentary peoples who gave the Spanish conquistadors a lot of trouble in Florida. Also, there could be events detailing the fall of these nations, and the rise of the Seminole, who can pop up as a muscogee nation in Florida in the mid 1700s
I agree with what you say. Apalachee, Timucua and Calusa should definitely appear in the game

I would also like to see a greater division of the Pueblo tribes.
@Evie HJ could you divide the pueblo into more tribes?
and would you add tribes in Florida
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
As is briefly mentioned in the diary, the Pueblo are all now one-province countries. The old Keres tag is now called Zia, with its southern province now owned by the new Acoma tag, and Pueblo has been replaced by the two tags of Ohkay Owingeh (this is a case where we are not using the formerly more common European name, because Catholic Saints really have no business in 1444 America) and Sandiat (or Isleta, I don't actually remember which of the two I decided on off the top of my head).

Florida, unfortunately, remains empty at this time. Perhaps a mistake in hindsight, but some arguably worthy tribes and nations were going to be left off wherever we decided to draw the line, and that's where we drew it.
 
  • 7
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions: