Welcome to another development diary about Europa Universalis IV. This time we talk about something that will be in the next major patch we do.

One of the parts of the game that has not changed much since eu1 is the concept of technology groups and technological development around the world. We’ve added concepts like westernising, and tweaked that one, but in the end Europe has a huge advantage from day 1, and lots of fun gameplay options are limited the further away you are.

So this is what will happen in 1.18, when it is released this autumn..

A nation’s technology group no longer affect technology research.

There is now a concept called Institutions, which will affect your technology research. There are seven different institutions that appear over the game, and if you don’t get them to spread into your country and then get embraced by your government, your technology costs will slowly rise.

Each institution will appear in a province fullfilling certain factors, and then slowly spread around the world. The nation owning that province will gain prestige and monarch power.

Every year the penalty for not having embraced an institution will grow by 1%, so there is a gradual process.

When an institution has spread to at least 10% of your development, you can embrace it in your government, removing the penalty permanently, and also giving a bonus to your nation. The cost to embrace depends on the amount of development in your nation without the institution.

All institutions spread over borders (including 1 seazone away), if relations are positive, and the spread is based on development in the province getting it. There are also lots of other factors related to the spread.

So which are the the seven institutions then?

Feudalism
This is present from the start in almost all the world, except among the hordes, new world and sub-saharan africa. It will slowly spread into neighboring lands, but it is not quick.
Bonus: Gives 1 extra free leader.
Penalty: 50%


Renaissance
This appears in Italy after 1450, in either a capital or a 20+ development province. It will spread quickly through high development in europe, particularly through italy, but can only spread into provinces that have feudalism already.
Bonus: 5% Cheaper Development & 5% Cheaper Buildings
Penalty: 20%


Colonialism
Appears after 1500 in a port province in Europe, who’s owner has the Quest of the New World idea, and have discovered the new world. And will spread very quickly through any port in countries with colonies.
Bonus: +10% Provincial Trade Power
Penalty: 20%


Printing Press
This arrives after 1550, most likely in germany, but can happen in any protestant or reformed province. It will spread quickly in Protestant and Reformed territory, but also into capitals with dip tech 15.
Bonus: 5& Cheaper Stability
Penalty: 20%


Global Trade
This arrives after 1600, in a center of trade in the highest value trade node, and will spread quicker into provinces with trade buildings.
Bonus: +1 Merchant
Penalty: 20%

Manufactories
This arrives after 1650 in a province with 30 development and a manufactory, and will spread quicker into provinces with manufactories.
Bonus: +10% Goods Produced
Penalty: 20%

Enlightenment
Arrives after 1700 in a province that either is a seat of a parliament, or is a province in europe owned by a monarch with at least 5 in all stats. Universities & Parliament Seats spread this institution.
Bonus: 25% Cheaper Culture Conversion
Penalty: 30%
​

What does this mean?


The progress of Europe is not guaranteed, but most importantly, a nation in Asia or Africa is no longer crippled from day 1, and forced to avoid spending power on ideas and development.

------

We’re constantly tweaking the spread factors, but here are some screenshots from mid 18th century in a hands-off game from this morning.

This is the institutions mapmode, where green are provinces that have all the enabled institutions, and yellow are don’t have them all.

And here is the technology mapmode, of the same game.

Some other aspects that has changed include the following
- New World Native Reforming will give you all institutions that the one you reform from has.
- Trade Companies are available to all technology groups.
- Lots and lots of triggers on western techgroups have been changed to check for specific relevant institutions.

 

[Incompetent]

Excellent idea, and a change to the archaic tech group system is long overdue.

One comment I would make is that New World countries should still start with stiff penalties in 1444 (much more so than, say, tribal sub-Saharan Africans), because they really were miles behind technologically. At the time of European contact, even the relatively advanced states of Mesoamerica and the Inca Empire were roughly on a par with the Near East civilisations of the late Bronze Age ~3000 years earlier.

 

[Sunspawn]

Excellent idea, and a change to the archaic tech group system is long overdue.

One comment I would make is that New World countries should still start with stiff penalties in 1444 (much more so than, say, tribal sub-Saharan Africans), because they really were miles behind technologically. At the time of European contact, even the relatively advanced states of Mesoamerica and the Inca Empire were roughly on a par with the Near East civilisations of the late Bronze Age ~3000 years earlier.

Sources?

 

[The_Meme_Man]

Excellent idea, and a change to the archaic tech group system is long overdue.

One comment I would make is that New World countries should still start with stiff penalties in 1444 (much more so than, say, tribal sub-Saharan Africans), because they really were miles behind technologically. At the time of European contact, even the relatively advanced states of Mesoamerica and the Inca Empire were roughly on a par with the Near East civilisations of the late Bronze Age ~3000 years earlier.

You are either underestimating American development, or overestimating European and Asian development. 500 years behind? Sure. 3000 years behind is pushing it.

 

[Incompetent]

You are either underestimating American development, or overestimating European and Asian development. 500 years behind? Sure. 3000 years behind is pushing it.

I'm sure the American civilizations would have caught up pretty quickly given a period of peaceful contact (and without the apocalyptic death toll from disease), but in terms of what they actually had at the moment Europeans arrived, their military tech at least would have had a hard time fighting at parity against the kind of kit available to the Ancient Greek city-states, for example, and certainly would have been no match for Roman legions. The gap wasn't so bad in agriculture (maize and potatoes are really good crops, as good as anything the Old World had by that point), but even then, the Old World domesticated animals are a big advantage that is also thousands of years old. I'm not saying that the Inca and so on were primitive, just that by the end of the Bronze Age, the most advanced civilizations in the Old World were already quite advanced, and relatively speaking medieval Europe hadn't got that much further since then (especially when you compare to the dramatic acceleration in technological progress that has occurred throughout the Modern Age). Actually civilization in the Near East suffered a collapse at the end of the Bronze Age, so it was several centuries before the sophistication of the late Bronze Age civilizations was repeated - the Iron Age empires that eventually followed weren't much more advanced except for their superior metallurgy (which had obviously been a priority in the intervening age of strife).

You could compare to somewhere that was not very advanced in ancient times, e.g. Britain, and then the gap in terms of years is much shorter. But even back when Britain was a backwater, it still imported a lot of technology from more advanced parts of the world (notably when the Romans showed up, but even before then, technology diffused throughout Europe). Before contact with the rest of the world is established, the Andean civilizations have to discover more or less everything themselves (or maybe learn it from the Mesoamericans), which is a huge impediment to further technological progress compared to the way ideas could spread across the Old World. Neighbour bonus alone doesn't really cover it.

 

[Wagonlitz]

People are fine with bug fixes being free. They are less fine with bug fixes being tied to major changes to how the game plays. Yes, it might not in reality be all that different than only expansions getting patches in olden days, but for many people it feels different.

But the thing is that bug fixing isn't free and hence to be able to fund that they need to continually release expansions. It is no coincidence that bug fixing patches come much more frequently under the current expansion system than under the old one, since back then expansions were much rarer.

 

[Kazimierz IV]

Interested to see how countries like the Ottomans will treat institutions. After all, the Ottoman Empire banned the printing press until 1729*.

*Jews, Armenians, and other minorities were able to utilize the printing press, but they operated independently of the Ottoman government.

 

[MiniaAr]

Previously, protectorates would not westernize. What happens now? Do they not adopt any institutions? Are they restrained by always having to be 50% behind, so that if you're 70% ahead, they can adopt an institution that would give them 20%?

This. I still don't understand how institutions are going to affect protectorates.
As of now, the difference in tech cost has to be 50%.
The way I understand Johan's quote, then:

• At game start, every country with feudalism has a 50% tech cost advantage on hordes, new world and Sub-saharian Africa. I assume that this means at game start, any country with feudalism could protectorate any of those countries, except hordes because hordes have always been "non-protectorisable".
  
  
• Then, let's say the country you want to protectorate has Feudalism. Each institutions having a +20% tech cost, I gather that you'd need to have 3
  institutions in advance to be able to establish a protectorate. That means for a nation locked in Feudalism only, to reach printing press thus after 1550 for protectorates in Asia, or even the Middle East and East Africa.
  
  
• Is protectorate status "grandfathered"? By that I mean that once a country is under a protectorate, it stays that way even if the 3 institutions gap is lowered (to 2 for example). By the way, does the protectorate still keeps the -20% tech cost bonus, which actually means 1 institution penalty less?

It'd be great if this could be clarified.

 

[eXistenZ2]

Wanted to buy the remaining dlc in the summer sale.


oh well, pointless now because some people don't know when to stop

 

[DominusNovus]

You are either underestimating American development, or overestimating European and Asian development. 500 years behind? Sure. 3000 years behind is pushing it.

Metallurgically speaking, they were that far behind.

 

[The_Meme_Man]

Metallurgicsl speaking, they were that far behind.

Doesn't help if you don't have metal to lurge.

 

[DominusNovus]

Doesn't help if you don't have metal to lurge.

And that changes the end result how?

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Metallurgically speaking, they were that far behind.

Ah, I see. So metallurgy is the only metric by which we measure a civilization's technology levels. I understand now.

 

[Lord_P]

Ah, I see. So metallurgy is the only metric by which we measure a civilization's technology levels. I understand now.

Well, less advanced metallurgy does lead to less advanced military technology. Which, in turn, leads to getting conquered by countries with more advanced military technology.

In theory.

Don't attack me!

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Well, less advanced metallurgy does lead to less advanced military technology. Which, in turn, leads to getting conquered by countries with more advanced military technology.

In theory.

Don't attack me!

This is true. But I don't think anyone's trying to claim that the Aztecs or Incans had military parity with Spanish conquistadors. But aside from metal weaponry and, of course, gunpowder, what was it that they were lacking that Europeans had, exactly? It wasn't sanitation - the Aztecs had a better sanitation system than most Europeans of the time! I suppose one could make the case of the Printing Press, but even that was barely a new technology even in Europe - hardly something three thousand years old! As far as I know, Aztec architecture wasn't much worse than European architecture of, say, two centuries ago.* They had a writing system, they had mathematics at least on par with medieval Europe, and astronomy tells the same story.

So, uh... parchment? I guess?

*From 1519, not the present day.

 

[TheDarkMaster]

Europe wouldn't have been able to win a straight up invasion of the American civilizations if the massive die off from diseases hadn't happened simply due to an issue of numbers and logistics. There was no way they could have transported a sufficiently large army to invade. Their advanced weapons and tactics only offer them so much of an advantage after the first engagement, these aren't rifles and machine guns they're using. The best they could hope to achieve would be similar to the later conquest of India, where the UK used local soldiers armed with English weapons and trained in English tactics to conquer the region.

 

[DominusNovus]

This is true. But I don't think anyone's trying to claim that the Aztecs or Incans had military parity with Spanish conquistadors. But aside from metal weaponry and, of course, gunpowder, what was it that they were lacking that Europeans had, exactly? It wasn't sanitation - the Aztecs had a better sanitation system than most Europeans of the time! I suppose one could make the case of the Printing Press, but even that was barely a new technology even in Europe - hardly something three thousand years old! As far as I know, Aztec architecture wasn't much worse than European architecture of, say, two centuries ago.* They had a writing system, they had mathematics at least on par with medieval Europe, and astronomy tells the same story.

So, uh... parchment? I guess?

*From 1519, not the present day.

There's plenty they didn't have:

- Draft animals
- Extensive writing (including sources from multiple cultures available)
- Gunpowder
- Anything better than the most rudimentary maritime technology
- The wheel

The pre-Columbian societies did very well with what they had, but theyvwere still, ultimately, Neolithic societies. They show just how far a Neolthic society can advance, but also the limitations when you subtract several key technologies that we take for granted.

 

[Brainblow]

And today, on this solemn day, as we say goodbye to one who has been with us for so long, I just want you to know, dear Westernization and Tech Groups, from the bottom of my Heart of hearts...

No one ever Loved you. You were always Trash.

Good Bye. Good Riddance.

Now that that's out of the way time to criticize this feature;

It would probably be better if Institutions weren't a straight line thing of constant progression. If we had Parallel Institutions it would provide a great deal of flexibility to the system, and allow for parallel development.

Alternatively, just changing the Institutions so they can 'start' multiple places and had more universal names. That would be easier but less interesting, but in many ways more realistic for the more generic Institutions. There's no real reason why the Enlightement couldn't start in Europe at about the same time a completely different Enlightenment started in China.

For instance; "Feudalism" is a terrible name for an Institution. Instead it would work better if it was "Social Contract", representing that some legal framework exists which the Rulers derive their Legitimacy From instead of just outright Force. This Institution could then exist in Europe, The Middle East, China, and probably India as well though my knowledge of India is rather lacking.

But as said, I would prefer Parallel Institutions to exist. In this way; Europe could start with "The Feudal Contract". The Middle East could start with the Iqta Institution which provided similar benefits, and these Institutions would not spread over each other. The Ottomans on the other hand would be able to ennact a Unique Institution after conquering Constantinople called "Imperial Bureaucracy" or something similar, to represent their adoption of Roman Governing Policies. Meanwhile the Ming would begin with the "Divine Mandate" Institution which would only ever spread to Chinese Countries and which could only be Embraced by Chinese Countries.

How would the system deal with Exclusive Institutions. It looks like you can Skip Over Institutions, what happens when you do? If I modified an Institution to be unavailable for a country, would it just not appear in the Interface?

This sounds pretty darn good!

 

[The_Meme_Man]

And that changes the end result how?

Doesn't, but still.


Steel was a bigger innovation into metalurgy than forged iron. Iron was pretty overrated in a time when the most basic or essential material for crafting at the time was wood. Personally, I see the Industrial Revolution giving Europe greater leaps over even Asia than Europe had over the New World in 1492.

 

[DominusNovus]

Doesn't, but still.


Steel was a bigger innovation into metalurgy than forged iron. Iron was pretty overrated in a time when the most basic or essential material for crafting at the time was wood. Personally, I see the Industrial Revolution giving Europe greater leaps over even Asia than Europe had over the New World in 1492.

But still, what?

 

[Chief of Staff]

Europe wouldn't have been able to win a straight up invasion of the American civilizations if the massive die off from diseases hadn't happened simply due to an issue of numbers and logistics. There was no way they could have transported a sufficiently large army to invade. Their advanced weapons and tactics only offer them so much of an advantage after the first engagement, these aren't rifles and machine guns they're using. The best they could hope to achieve would be similar to the later conquest of India, where the UK used local soldiers armed with English weapons and trained in English tactics to conquer the region.

Aztecs also fell due to Spanish playing some of its vassals against them. Of course, those vassals were hoping for liberation and did not expect to be ruled by Spanish for the rest of the century and beyond. This is in some respect similar to British "divide and conquer" strategy used in India... the only way British India could be held together for most of the 19th century is simply because no one (people in directly ruled areas or in princely states) trusted others except the outsider like British to rule over them as British Indian Army outnumbered British Army although latter does retains certain advantages like more updated equipments and artillery were not manned by Indians since the Great Sepoy Mutiny of 1857.

But I digress. The point is that "Divide and Conquer" strategy works just as well even in absence of diseases that ravaged the native Americans, as there were no disease factor in the gradual British takeover of India. Romans also used it quite well. Such successful strategy isn't the only reason British takeover succeeded in India, of course.