Hello everybody, and welcome to the first development diary for Europa Universalis IV. We've been working on this project for quite a long time, with the first design dicussions starting not long after Divine Wind was released. During last year we spent a lot of time working on the design concepts, and late in 2011, the core team was assembled, and actual development started.

Earlier this month, we announced the game at Gamescom, and showed a minor subset of the features for the game. Today we start a series of weekly development diaries where we'll go into detail about the game. Our goal is to release an entry each friday, with breaks for holidays.

The subject of todays diary is 'Why do Europa Universalis IV and what is our goal with the game?'.

Why are we working on a sequel to Europa Universalis?

Well, first of all, the team we are all major fans of this series, with me personally being the core guy behind the original game, back in the late 90's, and the others being involved for quite a lot of time on it. We are a group who love playing Europa Universalis (EU), both in singleplayer and in multiplayer together, so you could definitely say it is the favorite series for the people working on Europa Universalis IV.

Originally EU1 started development in 1997, EU2 in 2001, EU3 started in 2005, so we were overdue a new take on the genre. During those years we've accumulated quite a lot of ideas, and discarded far more. We've come to understand what Europa Universalis is about for a lot of people, and what it means for ourselves.

One important thing though, is that while we had lots of cool and interesting ideas for EU, we simply couldn't just add them all in, as the game would become an unwieldly mass. EU has a complexity level we do not want to dramatically increase and while improving the interface can reduce it a fair bit, it is a very fine balance when it comes to designing a game.

So we took a step back and looked at what Europa Universalis was and what we wanted to do, and since its a new game, we had quite a large amount of flexibility. We could rewrite entire systems from scratch, and do some paradigm shifts. One such example is the complete removal of the old trade system with centers of trade, which was replaced with a new trade system with dynamic flow of trade. This flexibility has been a great benefit when it comes to designing the game.


So then, what is our goal with Europa Universalis IV?

In all our games we aim to have believable mechanics. When playing a Grand Strategy game it should be about immersion and suspension of disbelief. You should feel like you are playing a country in the time period. This is something all our EU games have managed to achieve, and it is very important that EU4 will have that same feeling.

The game should, as we mentioned earlier, not increase its complexity levels dramatically. We are happy with the level of complexity the Eu-series has, and want to keep it at this level.

One of the most important aspects of EU4 is to make an interface that is both easier to get into, and less hassle for an expert user. This a fine line to balance, and we are rather happy with the interfaces we have done so far for EU4.

We also want to make sure that players feel that this is a new game, that this is worth paying money for, and this comes from new mechanics and better interfaces. With detailed dev-diaries every week until release, we are rather confident that you'll all be excited about it when its finally ready.

So, now we've just talked about history and visions, I'll try to clarify a confusion about sandbox, historical events and plausibility. Europa Universalis have always been about historically plausible outcomes, as I mentioned over six years ago , and EU4 is no different in that regard. No determenism or full sandbox will ever be in the EU series. In EU3 we scrapped historical events and added lots and lots of system and mechanics to create more plausible gameplay. While we are continuing on that concept and keep making more plausible mechanics, we are in EU4 doing something new...

We'e adding in Dynamic Historical Events. We'll have more of those than we had historical in EU2, and together with a fair amount of other planned features, this is creating an even more immersive type of gameplay, where countries feel far more unique than they did in any previous game in the series. A 'dynamic historical event', or DHE for short, is an event that has some rather rigid triggers that they feel plausible to happen with, ie, no Spanish Bankruptcy just because its a certain date, but events that tie into mechanics rather heavily.

The example I want to talk about is War of the Roses for England. At any point of time, before 1500, if England lacks an heir, then the chain for War of the Roses can start, which creates a lot of interesting situations for the player, as well as giving unique historical immersion.

Next week we'll talk more about the map, so enjoy for now!

 

[Sam L]

What the hell is a DHE?

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

What the hell is a DHE?

A 'dynamic historical event', or DHE for short, is an event that has some rather rigid triggers that they feel plausible to happen with, ie, no Spanish Bankruptcy just because its a certain date, but events that tie into mechanics rather heavily.

 

[Tornadoli]

He is saying that adding DHE's will only make the historical side of the game (the 'left door') more interesting, whereas instead focusing on more mechanics would make every part of the game ('both doors') more interesting.

This is exactly my point. DHEs themselves sound okay, but the fact is that they will make following the historical path of the game more interesting than not following it. I don't get why there is an argument about this.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

This is exactly my point. DHEs themselves sound okay, but the fact is that they will make following the historical path of the game more interesting than not following it. I don't get why there is an argument about this.

Because unless they are done well they will derail alternate history being created - for example a partition of Burgundy that fires when Burgundy is the regional power and has a strong heir.

If they are coded to happen too often, especially with ones that are related to the early game it could make some countries not worth playing (Burgundy for example if the event usually or always happens in 1470s, then it isn't worth playing since the country would effectively disappear in 30 years from game start). If they are coded to happen too infrequently then we'll never see them, and they're a waste of coding time that could be put to better use making generic events "The $country_adjective% succession", "The partition of $country_name$", "The $country_adjective$ bankrupcy", by expanding the triggers so that anyone can use them.

In addition, the triggers need to be accurate and relevant - the proposed one for the War of the Roses is wrong: there was an heir when the war kicked off, although he was young, and later disinherited. Thus, with the historical setup we wouldn't actually get the War of the Roses to kick off for a historical trigger, rather a completly ahistoric fantasy trigger. As kings go, Henry VI was fairly legitimate. Yes his grandfather had usurped the kingdom, but he'd inherited it, and France, legitimately from his father. He was weak and possibly mad, certainly underage and in a regency when he came to the throne, but by the time of the actual War of the Roses he was an adult, and had a young heir himself.


In summary, they only make the game more historical if they happen for the right reasons (e.g. aren't set up to fire for "no heir" when historically there was one), don't force alternate history to follow the historical path when this may not make sense (e.g. partitioning Burgundy if it is strong and has an heir. Partitioning it if it is strong but has no heir might be valid, but may be complicated to plot). They also need to fire often enough to be visible, but not often enough to regularly derail what a player is trying to do (after all, if every game as England has you facing the War of the Roses, or worse still every game as Burgundy has you facing the partition, then those countries become less attractive to play since you know you've got 30 years of civil war, or a game over/loss of most of your country to face).

 

[Tornadoli]

Because unless they are done well they will derail alternate history being created - for example a partition of Burgundy that fires when Burgundy is the regional power and has a strong heir.

If they are coded to happen too often, especially with ones that are related to the early game it could make some countries not worth playing (Burgundy for example if the event usually or always happens in 1470s, then it isn't worth playing since the country would effectively disappear in 30 years from game start). If they are coded to happen too infrequently then we'll never see them, and they're a waste of coding time that could be put to better use making generic events "The $country_adjective% succession", "The partition of $country_name$", "The $country_adjective$ bankrupcy", by expanding the triggers so that anyone can use them.

In addition, the triggers need to be accurate and relevant - the proposed one for the War of the Roses is wrong: there was an heir when the war kicked off, although he was young, and later disinherited. Thus, with the historical setup we wouldn't actually get the War of the Roses to kick off for a historical trigger, rather a completly ahistoric fantasy trigger. As kings go, Henry VI was fairly legitimate. Yes his grandfather had usurped the kingdom, but he'd inherited it, and France, legitimately from his father. He was weak and possibly mad, certainly underage and in a regency when he came to the throne, but by the time of the actual War of the Roses he was an adult, and had a young heir himself.


In summary, they only make the game more historical if they happen for the right reasons (e.g. aren't set up to fire for "no heir" when historically there was one), don't force alternate history to follow the historical path when this may not make sense (e.g. partitioning Burgundy if it is strong and has an heir. Partitioning it if it is strong but has no heir might be valid, but may be complicated to plot). They also need to fire often enough to be visible, but not often enough to regularly derail what a player is trying to do (after all, if every game as England has you facing the War of the Roses, or worse still every game as Burgundy has you facing the partition, then those countries become less attractive to play since you know you've got 30 years of civil war, or a game over/loss of most of your country to face).

I think you misunderstood me. I am also arguing against DHEs. My comment meant exactly that - it will make the historical path more interesting, so more players will feel "forced" to follow it (Yes, I understand they aren't literally forced to, and they will have the alternative not to - but just a less interesting one). I would like alternate history to feel just as interesting as the historical path set out by DHEs.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

I think you misunderstood me. I am also arguing against DHEs. My comment meant exactly that - it will make the historical path more interesting, so more players will feel "forced" to follow it (Yes, I understand they aren't literally forced to, and they will have the alternative not to - but just a less interesting one). I would like alternate history to feel just as interesting as the historical path set out by DHEs.

I just don't get that - how can an additional feature that is completely optional be something you're against? I wouldn't mind if they brought in an event where your country turned into a clown as long as there was a reasonable way to avoid it.

Having historical events that are context-sensitive no more ruins the fun of alternate history than having other countries declare war on you. It's part of the challenge.

 

[Eh up me duck]

Because unless they are done well they will derail alternate history being created - for example a partition of Burgundy that fires when Burgundy is the regional power and has a strong heir.

If they are coded to happen too often, especially with ones that are related to the early game it could make some countries not worth playing (Burgundy for example if the event usually or always happens in 1470s, then it isn't worth playing since the country would effectively disappear in 30 years from game start). If they are coded to happen too infrequently then we'll never see them, and they're a waste of coding time that could be put to better use making generic events "The $country_adjective% succession", "The partition of $country_name$", "The $country_adjective$ bankrupcy", by expanding the triggers so that anyone can use them.

In addition, the triggers need to be accurate and relevant - the proposed one for the War of the Roses is wrong: there was an heir when the war kicked off, although he was young, and later disinherited. Thus, with the historical setup we wouldn't actually get the War of the Roses to kick off for a historical trigger, rather a completly ahistoric fantasy trigger. As kings go, Henry VI was fairly legitimate. Yes his grandfather had usurped the kingdom, but he'd inherited it, and France, legitimately from his father. He was weak and possibly mad, certainly underage and in a regency when he came to the throne, but by the time of the actual War of the Roses he was an adult, and had a young heir himself.


In summary, they only make the game more historical if they happen for the right reasons (e.g. aren't set up to fire for "no heir" when historically there was one), don't force alternate history to follow the historical path when this may not make sense (e.g. partitioning Burgundy if it is strong and has an heir. Partitioning it if it is strong but has no heir might be valid, but may be complicated to plot). They also need to fire often enough to be visible, but not often enough to regularly derail what a player is trying to do (after all, if every game as England has you facing the War of the Roses, or worse still every game as Burgundy has you facing the partition, then those countries become less attractive to play since you know you've got 30 years of civil war, or a game over/loss of most of your country to face).

So what you're saying is "I don't trust paradox to make a good game". Nothing you have said is based on actual information, chill out.

 

[masteriw]

This is Europa Universalis.

I really don't like this "This is EUROPA Universalis" approach. There is no Asia Universalis game, no New World Universalis. EU is the only good grand strategy game that covers those nations in this time period and it's annoying when people come and dismiss people who are worried about non-European nations.

 

[Johan]

I really don't like this "This is EUROPA Universalis" approach. There is no Asia Universalis game, no New World Universalis. EU is the only good grand strategy game that covers those nations in this time period and it's annoying when people come and dismiss people who are worried about non-European nations.

Sorry, but this is the game-series I've designed and worked on for over 15 years now.. It is intended to be europa universalis.

 

[DanubianCossak]

With those DLC thingies being a new trend for Paradox, maybe theyll make DLCs covering some areas of the world in greater detail. It looks like quite a few people are interested in Asia, Africa and Americas.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

So what you're saying is "I don't trust paradox to make a good game". Nothing you have said is based on actual information, chill out.

What I am saying is that they need to be careful. After all, in EUIII we have the protestant reformation that is virtually guaranteed to happen, regardless of how much attempt has been made to reform the church (or at least the Papacy and powerful Catholic states). We have the hard cap of 1650 on many functions of the Papacy, and in fact a rules shift at this point (alliances across religious borders, loss of "Holy War" CB) - this happens even if the reformation has been squashed and the Church has retrenched into a more primitive, aggressive form.
I am hoping that these will change for EUIV so we don't have players rushing to get their Holy Wars out of the way before this date, or trying to rush to get Imperialism so they can just switch to that instead for cheap expansion. Both of these incidentally I'd consider to be "global DHEs".

Similarly, what I am saying with regard to the DHEs is that they will need to code them very carefully so as not to "railroad" countries, or worse, to have them fire at inappropriate moments. The one DHE they've revealed so far (the War of the Roses) has the wrong trigger listed in the information we have been given. This does not fill me with confidence in the others.

I just don't get that - how can an additional feature that is completely optional be something you're against? I wouldn't mind if they brought in an event where your country turned into a clown as long as there was a reasonable way to avoid it.

Having historical events that are context-sensitive no more ruins the fun of alternate history than having other countries declare war on you. It's part of the challenge.

Which is fine until you find yourself always facing the partition of Burgundy 30 years into the game, thus making it practically impossible to play Burgundy.
In addition, they aren't completely optional. They are set up to happen, and you can't just turn them off. You can presumably, if you know what triggers them and can change these factors quickly enough, avoid them, but the fact remains that time has been spent on that event for that specific tag rather than making that event functional for anyone who meets the general criteria - a partition of Poland between Russia and the HRE rather than a partition of Burgundy between France and the HRE; a Portugese or English bankrupcy rather than a Spanish one; a "War of the Lillies" in France or a "War of the Lions" in an HRE state rather than a War of the Roses in England.
It also relies on the context and triggers being correct, rather than some fantastical, inaccurate, ahistoric trigger being used to trigger this "historical" event in order to add to the "historic plausibility".

 

[ANO1453]

What I am saying is that they need to be careful. After all, in EUIII we have the protestant reformation that is virtually guaranteed to happen, regardless of how much attempt has been made to reform the church

In EU3 you cannot attempt to reform the Church.

 

[Svip]

Which is fine until you find yourself always facing the partition of Burgundy 30 years into the game, thus making it practically impossible to play Burgundy.
In addition, they aren't completely optional. They are set up to happen, and you can't just turn them off. You can presumably, if you know what triggers them and can change these factors quickly enough, avoid them, but the fact remains that time has been spent on that event for that specific tag rather than making that event functional for anyone who meets the general criteria - a partition of Poland between Russia and the HRE rather than a partition of Burgundy between France and the HRE; a Portugese or English bankrupcy rather than a Spanish one; a "War of the Lillies" in France or a "War of the Lions" in an HRE state rather than a War of the Roses in England.
It also relies on the context and triggers being correct, rather than some fantastical, inaccurate, ahistoric trigger being used to trigger this "historical" event in order to add to the "historic plausibility".

I think you should read the opening post again:

The example I want to talk about is War of the Roses for England. At any point of time, before 1500, if England lacks an heir, then the chain for War of the Roses can start, which creates a lot of interesting situations for the player, as well as giving unique historical immersion.

It is not that the War of the Roses happens, it is that the chain leading up to it can start. These are not your EU2 (or even EU3) events, these are more akin to aviation safety chains.

Allow me to explain: In aviation, whenever a possible crisis occurs, there is a series of steps to avoid and to do. The usually explanation is that you should imagine that the aeroplane is flying through a series of 'walls', each with a hole in it. If the aeroplane flies through the hole, it's on it's way to safety, if it hits the wall, it's the opposite situation. Like flying through Swiss Cheese as they say.

Essentially, I imagine DHEs to be the same; chains that need to be unlocked in precise order. And more importantly, you do not necessarily know the triggers for these events. While the chain for a Partition of Burgundy might be interesting, I do believe that at any point the chain occurs (I assume each event gets informed to the player), the player has the opportunity to get out of the chain, and thus avoid the Partition of Burgundy.

 

[unmerged(63836)]

In EU3 you cannot attempt to reform the Church.

Would be cool to have such ability though. He's pointing out things that ideally shouldn't be set in stone, if Europa Universalis aimed to be more of a 'plausible alternate history simulator'. Maybe one day it will become one, but not with EU4 and it's DHE's (which doesn't mean that it wouldn't be enjoyable game).

 

[WeissRaben]

Mmmmh. I had a good read on the Burgundian Inheritance, and what came out is that event COULD happen - the Kings of France considered that land to be theirs by vassalage, so they were in their right to dismantle and incorporate it. It should have strict requirements, though - no heir and no king. The branch must be EXTINCT, and that's it. At that point, the nation should receive the option to fight the King or relent - historically they let go, but if you're playing you will probably have a good fight for your crown.

What I've read quite a bit about, and I am quite irked at how it is resolved in game, is the whole Italian Ambitions/Claims on Northern Italy/Italian Wars and the horrible approach taken. If DHEs are made to be historical, they should at least ban these missions, because they make no sense whatsoever AND make hell out of playing as an Italian minor.

Spain-Aragon-Castille should NOT get this mission or any incarnations of this: the nation with Italian ambitions was Aragon, which in 1444 had already fulfilled annexing Naples 2 years earlier. So, NO Iberian cultures.
France should get the Our Claims to Northern Italy instead of Austria: they had a legitimate (but "weak", in terms taken from CK2) claim on it by means of Valentina Visconti Duchess of Orleans, died 1408. If Milan is with no heir and with no king, the the game is afoot - Milan should, obviously, have a chance to fight against it.

And if France takes Milan, THEN Austria would get its Italian Ambitions: Lombardy was Imperial land, after all. But do we really need this? There is the Imperial Reconquest CB, after all.

As it is now, "Italian Ambitions" only means that everyone and their mothers eat Italy. Which was not true: no one got land in Italy, if not out of Milan or for dynastic reasons, for the whole period covered by the game. I'm generally against these things, but if this is the way, at least be sure to follow it well - and aim to obtain something that makes sense, and isn't just "historical". But this is your job, isn't it?

 

[masteriw]

Sorry, but this is the game-series I've designed and worked on for over 15 years now.. It is intended to be europa universalis.

Of course it is, I just wanted to express my feelings. I didn't want to sound rude or anything.

Guess I don't need to anticipate this one so badly as I was doing.

 

[Captain Gars]

Which is fine until you find yourself always facing the partition of Burgundy 30 years into the game, thus making it practically impossible to play Burgundy.

That was how events worked in EU2 - not in EU4. Though we use a lot of ideas from EU2 all events have completely new triggers and effects. These events are meant to give you some national flavor - not alter your game.

 

[unmerged(63836)]

That was how events worked in EU2 - not in EU4. Though we use a lot of ideas from EU2 all events have completely new triggers and effects. These events are meant to give you some national flavor - not alter your game.

Thanks, that's very reassuring!

 

[Eh up me duck]

You could have just read the original post, of course.

 

[Svip]

That was how events worked in EU2 - not in EU4. Though we use a lot of ideas from EU2 all events have completely new triggers and effects. These events are meant to give you some national flavor - not alter your game.

Will there be any Easter Egg DHEs?