• 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 - 23rd of June 2016

capsule.jpg


Hello and welcome to today's development diary for Europa Universalis IV. It's actually a well earned(?) day off for me but I'm doing a once unthinkable thing and working a bit from home. Last week I said we would take a look at a very influential dynasty of the time period. Sorry to disappoint all the Velikopermsky and Dandani fans out there, but I had the Osmanoglus on my mind.

It would be an understatement to say that the Ottomans gave the world a good shaking in this time period. Furthermore, they are one of the more commonly played nations in EUIV. We wanted to give them a little something to bring out their unique flavour since it was always a shame that they are a run-of-the-mill Sultanate. It has also been pointed out on numerous occasions the oddity of a situation where you have the Ottoman nation..without an Osmanoglu at the helm.

So to that end, in the still-unnamed upcoming expansion we have added a unique government type for them: The Ottoman Sultanate.

The Ottoman Sultanate does not generate heirs like normal monarchies do. The ruler of the Ottoman Sultanate will have their own Harem to ensure the dynasty lives on. At the age of 30, your ruler will select one of his sons to be the heir to the throne. They will, of course, be of your dynasty

eu4_1.jpg


So an Ottoman Sultanate shall always be blessed by the strong line of Osmanoglus. That is to say unless the Sultan dies without an heir. In that case, they'll still end up with an Osmanoglu. "Blessed" can be a relative term here.

eu4_2.jpg


There are a couple dozen events accompanying this unique government type to simulate the power struggle and intrigue of such a succession system and should add a couple of fangs to that already formidable Ottomans.

While this is unique to the Ottomans, any modders out there can easily allow this for other government types with the has_harem = yes line.

I feel like we're on a roll when it comes to governments and rulers so here's another thing for today's Development Diary. Abdication.

Yes, it has long been a requested feature in Europa Universalis. When Enrique or his low-stat kind just refuses to die you can abdicate and let your next in line take over. This requires you to have an of-age heir and to have either ruled for 25 years or be 60+ years old. It will come with a considerable hit to your legitimacy/unity and prestige but I think we've all had times where we wanted our monarch to Die Please Die.

eu4_3.jpg



Ottoman Sultanate and Abdication are both paid features in the upcoming expansion which we have magically managed to keep unleaked name-wise.

I've been mentioning a lot of paid features lately but it's good to remind ourselves that with all the paid expansions come free bugfixes and features from the accompanying patch. A small change that will be coming up in 1.18 that I want to share is to do with succession wars. I'm not too happy with how right now, they have two conclusions: Either the new overlord keeps their union or the nation fighting them over it take leadership over the union for themselves. Now, we will add a peace option which simply breaks the union for all parties involved.

eu4_4.jpg


Simple, sensible, and added free in 1.18 for those times where you just want to keep the status quo. Warscore cost scales with the junior partner's size.

Happy midsummer everyone, I'm off to....oh, right, I need to tease upcoming Diaries. Hrmm~ Well, we've touched a lot on rulers but would you believe it, we're not quite done with the changes in the throne room. We'll come to that in the future. As for next week, we'll switch it up on the battlefield. See you then!
 
Last edited:
  • 186
  • 32
  • 3
Reactions:
Love the extra Otto flavor, but I'm a bit afraid that this country that is already railroaded for world domination will become unstoppable in MP with a line of near perfect rulers , any things that will de-fang ottomans instead of giving it extra punch? ^-^
I think the Ottomans need their janissary decadence events to be worse. Right now in MP nobody will ever disband the janissaries and just deal with the consequences as 5% discipline and 10% infantry combat is more than some countries get entirely. This means other than that mid game unit pip drop their army goes from fantastic to fantastic to still fantastic.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
Well, one thing that would be lovely in relation to succession wars is to actually get a war screen before you actually commit to the war. You just get a very short pop-up now.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
I have a suggestion. Picking a heir should give negative events with other princes, including the scheming, warmongering and the possibility of the heir trying to boss around before his reign actually begins. So picking a heir shouldn't be mandatory by the age of 30, but left as an open option to choose - starting when your ruler hits the age of 30 (not all osmanoglus picked their heirs). Should your ruler die with lots of sons but not a heir you'd have an increased chance of facing a civil war.

Considering it was common that the non heir sons of the Caliph were governors, it would be a fun and realistic possibility.
 
  • 4
  • 2
Reactions:
So which examples of monarchs abdicating in this era do you know of Grand Historian?

Murad II, Ottoman Sultan 1444
Bayezid II, Ottoman Sultan April 25, 1512
Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor 1555/1556
Mary, Queen of Scots July 24, 1567
Christina of Sweden June 6, 1654
John Casimir of Poland 1668
Frederick Augustus of Poland September 24, 1706
Philip V of Spain 14 January 1724
Victor Amadeus of Sardinia 3 September 1730
Ahmed III, Ottoman Sultan 1 October 1730
Charles of Naples (on accession to throne of Spain) 6 October 1759
Stanislaus II Augustus of Poland 7 January 1795
Qianlong Emperor of Qing China February 9, 1796
Charles Emanuel IV, King of Sardinia June 4, 1802
Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor August 6, 1806
Charles IV, King of Spain March 19, 1808
Joseph Napoleon, King of Naples June 6, 1808
Gustav IV Adolf, King of Sweden March 29, 1809
Louis Napoleon, King of Holland July 2, 1810
Napoleon I, Emperor of the French April 4, 1814, and again June 22, 1815
Victor Emmanuel I, King of Sardinia March 13, 1821

EDIT: Missed the earlier reply, my bad X(
 
  • 6
Reactions:
the oddity of a situation where you have the Ottoman nation..without an Osmanoglu at the helm.

OH MY GOD YES, they are going to add dynamic naming and flags for TAGs, can't believe it, it's a dream come true!!!

That is to say unless the Sultan dies without an heir. In that case, they'll still end up with an Osmanoglu.

Ah. That's how it'll be solved then. Ok.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
And then the Holy League smashed the Ottoman Navy a few decades later, and the Knights of Saint John continued to remain a thorn in the Ottoman's thigh.
A Holy League consisting of the Papal States, the Habsburg states of Spain, Naples and Sicily, the Republic of Venice, the Republic of Genoa, the Grand Duchy of Tuscany, the Duchies of Savoy, Parma and Urbino and the Knights of Malta. aka all of Italy and Spain had to come together to fend off the Ottoman fleet.
And the Ottomans then proceeded to construct another 200+ ships and reassert their position within a year.

Now, the main thing I still don't understand is why the Janissaries (among other potential factions) weren't just made into an estate. Or why dynastic trees still aren't a thing. Considering the whole Burgundian mess was started because of the French King's claims to the lands that Mary the Rich and the whole PU system really doesn't make sense (A 10 year old heir to a 18 year old King in a nation with primogeniture inheritance...What? At least the heirs should be dynamic so that newborns actually take priority over their uncles or sisters. And actually link up so that the dynasty game isn't just "one heir and oops, now I'll get a PU". Then we can actually do the assassination nonsense and have that not be horrifically overpowered.)
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm a little disappointed at this DD, honestly. I like the Ottoman Sultunate and harem Idea, but it's not as if the basis for the mechanic was particular to just the Ottomans (not to mention I was expecting this DD to be about the Hapsburgs and touch on better dynastic mechanics, so I was also a bit let down). Not to mention the Ottomans are already really powerful as it is.

Chinese and Japanese dynasties should work the same way. It's weird to see Hosokawa without a Hosokawa ruler.

While I agree, there are three problems: 1); none of the Japanese cultures have dynasty names relevant to the period, 2); that won't really stop the Ashikaga from simply placing their dynasty on a Daimyo's throne (and if we add in the historical occurrence of an adopted Daimyo changing their name to their new family, it would completely negate the whole purpose of the action), and 3); it wouldn't be able to properly represent stuff that happened like Shoni -> Ryuzoji -> Nabeshima, Hosokawa -> Miyoshi, Shiba -> Mogami, Toki -> Saito, etc, due to a deficiency in tags (and I would simply prefer a maximum of one tag per province to cut down on lag). Maybe a solution would be to have each tag represent the particularly powerful families of that province, and have retainer families/a retainer mechanic for the Daimyo Gov. that could help or hurt said Daimyo?
 
  • 5
  • 2
Reactions:
Add Mandala governments for South East Asians, with less stability, but more income from vassals and diplo relations. Add a confederacy gov for Switzerland with unique peace and mercenary mechanics.

Also, reform missionaries, so that instead of being state run, they are independently travelling the developing world converting Africa, Asia and the Pacific.

Also also, add Polynesians, Maori, Filipinos and flavour for Majapahit and the Swiss. They are woefully left out.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
Murad II, Ottoman Sultan 1444
Bayezid II, Ottoman Sultan April 25, 1512
Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor 1555/1556
Mary, Queen of Scots July 24, 1567
Christina of Sweden June 6, 1654
John Casimir of Poland 1668
Frederick Augustus of Poland September 24, 1706
Philip V of Spain 14 January 1724
Victor Amadeus of Sardinia 3 September 1730
Ahmed III, Ottoman Sultan 1 October 1730
Charles of Naples (on accession to throne of Spain) 6 October 1759
Stanislaus II Augustus of Poland 7 January 1795
Qianlong Emperor of Qing China February 9, 1796
Charles Emanuel IV, King of Sardinia June 4, 1802
Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor August 6, 1806
Charles IV, King of Spain March 19, 1808
Joseph Napoleon, King of Naples June 6, 1808
Gustav IV Adolf, King of Sweden March 29, 1809
Louis Napoleon, King of Holland July 2, 1810
Napoleon I, Emperor of the French April 4, 1814, and again June 22, 1815
Victor Emmanuel I, King of Sardinia March 13, 1821

EDIT: Missed the earlier reply, my bad X(

You can also technically add Tokugawa Ieyasu to that list. He abdicated in favor of his son, so that when he died ten years later, nobody disputed the "succession" in the slightest. That's an odd one, though. He did resign as shogun, but he did guide and in some ways puppeteer his son the whole time. Still, his son had officially been shogun for many years when he did die.
 
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
So from the tens or hundreds of states which had harems, polygamy, concubinage, which shouldn't change the dynasty through normal means, you select only one. I'm sorry, but this is beyond ridiculous. China, Japan, India, Muslims, Turks, Mongols, practically whole Asia and probably also other regions didn't change dynasties. And yet the new paid feature is only for Ottomans? Seriously, expand this and you will be able to say in DLC features that you are improving half of the civilized world, not only Ottomans. Even if you have plans to touch Asia later, at least for now give them this feature.
Indeed! There are dozens of tags, cultures and religions in-game who should have this Harem mechanic. Seems strange to single out the Ottomans as such. Dynasty name tag, sure I get it, but they are far from the only one in the game.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
Could we please have a feature where a larger and more powerful, Junior Party of a Union could reverse the situation? Rather akin to England and Scotland or Hannover and England.
Isn't the Commonwealth another example of this?
 
  • 5
Reactions:
I'm starting to suspect that "Still Unnamed" is the name of this expansion.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
It's government form, not religion issue, so I'd hazard a yes.

A Christian ruler with a harem? If the Ottos had known it was possible, they might indeed have converted. :)
 
  • 5
Reactions:
  • 5
Reactions:
Why not scale the effects from abdication with ruler age? If ruler abdicates at age 14 (provided he's already got a heir), he will suffer -50 prestige/-20 legitimacy, if he abdicates at 70 I believe on grounds of bad health there is reason enough so he suffers 0 prestige/0 legitimacy. If ruler is age 40, he will suffer a hit interpolated in between those poles, eg (without exact calculus) -25 prestige/-10 legitimacy...

Well, with England I, at one stage had a 17 year old ruler and a 16 year old heir, both called Cecily, and I could abdicate, which doesn't make much sense. Therefore it will be good to require that the ruler has been on the throne for 25 years before abdication is allowed (or reached the age of 60, whichever comes first in my opinion). It also seems to me there are too many women rulers/heirs. It is quite alright that there are some but I think the chances of getting a female heir seem too high at the moment.

Kings would normally favour a male heir and only occasionally would a woman rule. Now it seems 50-50 for male and female and I think 90% chance of a male heir would reflect the times better, taking in to account that a king would virtually always favour his oldest son as heir and forego the older sisters, unless there was no male heir..
Makes sense. Scaling from no penalty at an old age, perhaps 70 as you said, to more penalty the younger the ruler seems logical.

This actually touches an important aspect of EU IV which is WHOLLY defunct: a logical dynastic tree.

I'm not saying EU IV should (though be my guest ;)) take it as deep as CK II, but lets face it that when you are Renaissance France - where you know that for a fact primogeniture is an established fact - it is ridiculously illegocial to have a ruler and an heir only 10 years apart... Often playing EU IV I get the impression that the world is plagued by near absolute infant mortality and that succession is in 3/4 of the cases from brother to brother. When heirs magically die at the age of 44 it turns out they had NO offspring and so on...
If we are doing something about dynasties, let's do something about this as well.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
Awesome features!
Really makes me want to get back into EU4
Ive put it away for now though while I play Stellaris 1.20 beta (Just finished a "nobody expects" achievement run in HOI4)

The new tech system is what interests me the most (I'm aiming to play my first Ming game once 1.18 is released! After more than 1200hrs in EU4)
 
  • 4
Reactions: