• 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 - 8th of November 2016

Hello, and welcome to another week, and another Europa Universalis development diary. This week we’re focusing on the interface improvements of our ‘Denmark’(1.19) update.

First of all, we’ve added more options to the player. You can now specify the ledger to be limited in multiplayer games, where detail data about other nations are hidden, but you can still use the ledger to keep track of your own nation.

Another cool new option is the ability to disable the rule that you can not stack ideagroups. Now it is possible for those that want, to go all military ideas in their games.

The Custom-Nation-Designer have gotten two new addition in 1.19. First of all, you can now choose to start without an heir, and secondly, for those that also have the Rights of Man expansion, it is now possible to define your consort.

eu4_138.png


We also added two new things to the province view. Besides the possibility to fabricate claims on that province directly from the province interface, there is now an icon for hostile attrition that is shown whenever a province provides it.

The religious UI have also been upgraded, and you can now see missionary strength in the interface, so you can plan better for the future. Another important aspect is the addition of another column in list of provinces to convert, detailing of how much that particular province impacts the religious unity.

eu4_136.png


A previous patch added a “skip to next song” button. This has now been replaced with a button that opens up a full interface to select which songs are allowed to play, and to select a song to play with.

eu4_137.png


There is now also an alert for high naval attrition that triggers for fleets that are taking more than 5% attrition and have a ship with hull strength less than 50%.

And for those of you playing with Rights of Man & Common Sense, and with lots of subjects and vast colonial empires, we added a checkbox to hide subjects in the development macrobuilder.

Some important information for those of you that mod EU4.

Republican Tradition refactored to be 0-100 like Legitimacy, Horde Unity and Devotion, so remember to go through your scripts when you update to support 1.19.

We also merged the 'relations_decay_of_me' modifier into 'improve_relation_modifier'. They were basically the same functionality, and this makes the game easier to understand.



Next week, we’ll let the artists take to the podium to talk about the new graphics in 1.19!
 
Last edited:
  • 102
  • 40
  • 1
Reactions:
Jüllich is a perfect example of a province that'd be great to have but really does not fit without seriously impairing the clickability of what's already in the region.
That part of the map has the highest concentration of the smallest provinces in the game already.
Wouldn't it be worth consideration to have Jülich replace Aachen, then? Aachen obviously was an important-ish Imperial city, but its glory days were pretty much over in the EU4 era, and the Dukes of Jülich even had the Schirmvogtei (protective bailiwick???) over Aachen since 1269, i.e. despite it being a free Imperial city, there was some degree of feudal suzerainty of Jülich over Aachen.

Jülich was quite a wealthy and strategically important territory (the United Duchies were usually called Jülich-Kleve-Berg for a reason) and I believe it warrants representation quite a bit more than several provinces and independent countries that have been included within the HRE.

Aachen probably exists mostly because of the need to have one free city in that region, however there are other Imperial cities in somewhat less crowded parts of Northwestern Germany (Dortmund would come to mind, or possibly Goslar, and the most important Imperial City in the whole region by a far cry would be Cologne, though I'm not sure if it would fit a whole lot better than Aachen).
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Is there any chance in this patch you will include modifiers that allow for Free and Trade cities to function under unique governments in mods. The current way they work is so limiting and you are unable to make a special function, even a simple script function like can_form_trade_city or can_free_city = yes would be a vast improvement, especially considering the incoming patch having the Peasant republic, which can potentially be instantly overwritten by the Emperor, making it a Free city.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
It's an option for unowned land in general. Coloring by surrounding owners is also still an option for wastelands :)
Will there be an option to not have the terrain map mode on the wastelands on the political mapmode even if they are not surrounded? I find it jarring, personally as I actually like the less realistic and animated feel to the game map.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Wouldn't it be worth consideration to have Jülich replace Aachen, then? Aachen obviously was an important-ish Imperial city, but its glory days were pretty much over in the EU4 era, and the Dukes of Jülich even had the Schirmvogtei (protective bailiwick???) over Aachen since 1269, i.e. despite it being a free Imperial city, there was some degree of feudal suzerainty of Jülich over Aachen.

Jülich was quite a wealthy and strategically important territory (the United Duchies were usually called Jülich-Kleve-Berg for a reason) and I believe it warrants representation quite a bit more than several provinces and independent countries that have been included within the HRE.

Aachen probably exists mostly because of the need to have one free city in that region, however there are other Imperial cities in somewhat less crowded parts of Northwestern Germany (Dortmund would come to mind, or possibly Goslar, and the most important Imperial City in the whole region by a far cry would be Cologne, though I'm not sure if it would fit a whole lot better than Aachen).

You make good points but we are unlikely to remove existing playable tags from the game. The current setup in this area dates to eu3 which had a very peculiar map projection where it all fit a lot better. When eu4 was made the eu3 German setup was adopted with some effort to fit the map we now have and the current tiny provinces are a result of that.
Had we started with a clean slate I imagine some calls would've been different in regards to tags here but now that Aachen is in the game it's here to stay.
That's the current thinking anyway, I do agree it would be very nice to see Jullich in the game in some way at some point.
 
  • 14
  • 3
Reactions:
I'd be happy to have a platypus correct me, but my understanding is anytime they make map changes like all the wasteland provinces in 1.19, it invalidates prior saves.
I don't know why this misinformation persists. 1.8 had by far the most map chances along with a myriad other major mechanic chances and it was save compatible.
 
You make good points but we are unlikely to remove existing playable tags from the game. The current setup in this area dates to eu3 which had a very peculiar map projection where it all fit a lot better. When eu4 was made the eu3 German setup was adopted with some effort to fit the map we now have and the current tiny provinces are a result of that.
Had we started with a clean slate I imagine some calls would've been different in regards to tags here but now that Aachen is in the game it's here to stay.
That's the current thinking anyway, I do agree it would be very nice to see Jullich in the game in some way at some point.

How likely would it be for the next generation of Europa Universalis (read: EU5) to have a larger map size, which then could potentially allow for more smaller provinces to be added?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I don't know why this misinformation persists. 1.8 had by far the most map chances along with a myriad other major mechanic chances and it was save compatible.
For some values of "save compatible".
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Nifty changes! The interface is continuously updated, and those small additions maker a lot of sense.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
First of all, we’ve added more options to the player. You can now specify the ledger to be limited in multiplayer games, where detail data about other nations are hidden, but you can still use the ledger to keep track of your own nation.

With this, could you potentially also add the ability to enable information about enemy armies to be shown in the war screen in MP like it is in SP for those of us who primarily play cooperative multiplayer?
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Jüllich is a perfect example of a province that'd be great to have but really does not fit without seriously impairing the clickability of what's already in the region.
That part of the map has the highest concentration of the smallest provinces in the game already.

I'm sure fixing a few provinces would allow for Jullich to be added.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
You make good points but we are unlikely to remove existing playable tags from the game. The current setup in this area dates to eu3 which had a very peculiar map projection where it all fit a lot better. When eu4 was made the eu3 German setup was adopted with some effort to fit the map we now have and the current tiny provinces are a result of that.
Had we started with a clean slate I imagine some calls would've been different in regards to tags here but now that Aachen is in the game it's here to stay.
That's the current thinking anyway, I do agree it would be very nice to see Jullich in the game in some way at some point.

Why not just re-purpose the Aachen tag for Jülich-Berg? IMHO having another Imperial City isn't worth excluding a province/tag that played a major role in Brandenburg/Bavarian relations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Jülich_Succession
 
One thing I've always wondered is what "religious unity" as a thing is meant to represent.
Religion played a large role in the time period when it came to both internal and external politics (Inquisition, Thirty Years War, French Wars of Religion etc). Religious Unity represents how much of your development is accepted by your government and by how much.
 
With this, could you potentially also add the ability to enable information about enemy armies to be shown in the war screen in MP like it is in SP for those of us who primarily play cooperative multiplayer?
To have this coincide with the ledger option would be a good idea. It's stupid that this information is blocked in the war screen while the information is readily available via ledger.