• 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:
  • 2
Reactions:
I think the ideas costs too much. When i'm trying to have a good technology compared to other nations, but invent in a new idea, i always fall behind in technology. Thats very frustrating to me, becouse France invented all of their ideas, and they are the most advanced in tech too.
 
Wait. A coptic Ottomans? I could understand a Shia/Hindu/Protestant Ottomans but coptic?
You have seen the Coptic mechanics, right?

The Ottomans are very well placed to take full advantage of them.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
You have seen the Coptic mechanics, right?

The Ottomans are very well placed to take full advantage of them.
I haven't yet no. I'll go and take a better look at them. Now that I've looked, it actually is really good for the Ottomans as it compliments their idea set and they normally get at least 4 of the 5 holy sites required.
 
I don't see why you're perfectly happy with them railroading Castile into Brazil and Portugal into the Caribbean but think Paradox "railroading" them into their traditional colonial areas is a horrible idea.
Sorry you've lost me. How is Castile railroaded to Brazil and Portugal to Caribbean? And where did I even say that?

The only New World railroading I want is Iberia staying out of anything North or East of Mississippi, purely because they can't push trade back to Seville. Everything else should be fair game for the other main colonisers, because everyone can push trade along.
 
Sorry you've lost me. How is Castile railroaded to Brazil and Portugal to Caribbean? And where did I even say that?

The only New World railroading I want is Iberia staying out of anything North or East of Mississippi, purely because they can't push trade back to Seville. Everything else should be fair game for the other main colonisers, because everyone can push trade along.

well you don't have to steer it home if you cant steer it back to your trade zone simply have the merchant collect there it's plenty good profit. But if you are talking about AI then yes i get rather triggered when i see AI castile in Chapesake bay or gulf of st law as their first colony...
 
....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.....

In the nation designer, will it be possible to take multiple ideas per slot?

For example, the first English Idea is:
Code:
    royal_navy = {
        navy_tradition = 0.25
        heavy_ship_power = 0.10
    }

or the last French idea is

Code:
    liberty_egalite_fraternity = {
        tolerance_heathen = 2
        tolerance_heretic = 2
    }

The only way to duplicate these in the nation designer is by using up two slots. Will this be amended?
 
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.
Personally, I'd love to see more provinces even if it means I have to zoom in if I want to click them
 
Is it only in my games, or does the exploration of the new world - not to speak about the colonialization - happens way later than in actual history?
I know, the game is not supposed to be historically completely accurate, but a kind of close to reality timeframe would be what I personally hope for...:)
 
Sorry you've lost me. How is Castile railroaded to Brazil and Portugal to Caribbean? And where did I even say that?

I think what he might mean is that this is what happens in almost all games now. It used to be more uncertain a few patches ago - I don't have any statistical data, but I believe that Portugal would set up a Brazilian colony about 50 % of the games, create Caraibas in 25 % and get stuck in Africa or colonize elsewhere in the rest of the games, which was pretty much ok.
In all my 1.18 and 1.19 games so far, there was Castilian/Spanish Brazil and Portuguese Caraibas.

While railroading may be bad (I personally liked the pretty deterministic AI colonization of EU2, but I can understand why people would disagree, and it certainly cannot be as simplistic as in EU2 now), there is something wrong with the game if (in a handsoff, AI only situation) the historical outcome is basically guaranteed to not happen.
I don't know how Portugal can be made more likely to pick Brazil (and get to India and Indonesia - which would be even more important!), how Spain can be more likely to conquer the Aztecs and Inca and how, generally, the first colonizers could be more likely to leave the Lesser Antilles open for later arrivals, but I believe that the game would be (even) better if these things were to happen with some frequency (which is not to say that they ought to be certain!). Allowing for outcomes resembling history is not railroading in my opinion.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Thanks twoflower. There is no randomness in where they colonize right now, it's always the same, when it used to not be, at least for a patch or two. If it is going to always be the same, Paradox could at least make it in line with what historically happened.

bebrst, I don't think it's so much later, it is slightly, but it is just slower than it was in history. I've seen Portugal start to colonize the Caribbean in the mid 1490s, which Spain did in real life. Compared to what the map looks like in 1520, colonization and native conquest is factor of 10 slower.
 
As a pretty newbie, great job!
Although i really hope you managed to solve in 1.19 (or at least workarounded it) the important issue of the visibility and readability of the interface on standard 1920x1080 resolution and up to a (today increasingly popular) 3840x2160....
 
Last edited: