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!

 

[unmerged(237193)]

In general history happened the way it did because of many factors, several of which cannot be factored into the game. Some can, and in general should. My point is that we seem to be talking about England being the only nation that can get the particular type of civil war that was the war of the roses, when those factors could have arisen anywhere. The motivations of York could have been shared by an equivalent Duc d'Orleans in an alt-history France, or a cousin of the Castillian king whose father or grandfather had seized the throne, thus depriving the cousin of his "rightful" throne. Potentially the Laird of the Isles in Scotland could have been in a similar position.

This.

 

[Chamboozer]

That doesn't happen in EUIII. Once you've gotten yourself established in the East, you are guaranteed to keep it all, and just can rise continually.

This is a very important point. EUIII's main flaw, aside from the insanity of the way countries developed, was that after a certain point it was almost never challenging for the human player. Anything non-deterministic* that Paradox can do to solve this problem would go a long way to improving the game.

*I use determinism in the sense of 'artificial debuffs given to the player', nothing to do with historical determinism.

 

[unmerged(63836)]

This.

+1

Having all kinds of events for different types of Civil War (rivalling noble houses, discontented influential social group, large persecuted religious/cultural minority, etc.) would be soo much superior. I seriously hope that for every type of DHE there would be several generic equivalents.

 

[unmerged(63836)]

Frankly, I don't see how anyone can play through a GC with one country, unless you've taken one of the "Ryukyu" type challenges, and even then, why do it more than once? I want a game which will reward many replays. As it is, I find about 50-75 years with one country is all it takes; then it's time to change to someone else. And that fun is enhanced when I can see that "this is a good time to see if I can keep Ming alive".

That's true for vanilla. Mods like Magna Mundi provide challenge throughout the game, even for large empires. There are limits to how big and ethnically/religiously diverse country you can effectively govern, and with bad, radical decisions you can trigger revolts that are actually hard to pacify. All of this without historical, deterministic events (for the most part).

EU3 is simply too basic, too easy, and shy of realistic mechanics and limitations that would make game more plausible. Thus snowball effect, making game boring after 50-100 years. It needs things I've mentioned, not EU2-ish style of arbitrary events.

 

[Te. Kenzo]

For European country player is for sure interesting see also an interesting India and China area for example, with a little couple of flavour things.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

1. I was just pointing out that this sort of thing happened in EUII all the time. It wasn't anything remotely like the predetermined case you seem to see. What DID happen in the way of implausibility (and this was in mods, not the vanilla version) was down-and-out AI countries coming back and causing you all sorts of problems. EP did, admittedly with some forcing, cause the Dutch onslaught on the Portuguese empire to be serious. That doesn't happen in EUIII. Once you've gotten yourself established in the East, you are guaranteed to keep it all, and just can rise continually.

I stormed out of the one game of EUII I played when a historic event that made no sense at all considering the state of the map happened, thus breaking up what I was doing and making sections of it pointless. I haven't gone back yet because I'm still annoyed about it. So, I'm therefore not fully equipped to work through EUII and the implausible forced events from that.

Frankly, I don't see how anyone can play through a GC with one country, unless you've taken one of the "Ryukyu" type challenges, and even then, why do it more than once? I want a game which will reward many replays. As it is, I find about 50-75 years with one country is all it takes; then it's time to change to someone else. And that fun is enhanced when I can see that "this is a good time to see if I can keep Ming alive".

To see how far you can take it - can you hold together your country through the reformation, and the wars between the catholic and protestant (and reformed!) powers? Once these have calmed down you have your wars with the Indian and Asian powers, and your colonial wars with the other colonial powers. After this you have the colonial revolts and the revolutions. If these coincide it can get a bit dicey. I find there is always a reason to continue on a full GC, although I often find there is also always a reason to start a new one. I've completed one GC, and had to abandon a couple of others because of patches and corrupt saves. I also lost one or two to cleaning up my hard drive, and some to the game becoming untenable - my Burgundy game where I simultaneously inherited Austria (which was into the steppes) and colonial France was one of these. The rebels were coming quicker than I could build troops to put the revolts down.

On which note - wouldn't it be nice to keep at least a portion of the troops of an inherited nation? I inherit a multi continent nation, and then find that all the troops have for some reason resigned and/or deserted, so I now have to build troops in my homeland and ship them out to the (now revolting) colonies of my new acquisition.

2. Re: your reply to Guillaume HJ. In EUII, the default % for AI decisions was 85/15, IIRC. With the new event system, this can be made better. But definitely, Burgundy can thrive with DHE's.

One bottom line fact: Since it will remain a game, the entire notion of any game's history following a predefined path is a chimaera. I don't see why people seem to assert it.

Good to know. I wasn't sure what the ratio was.
We appear to mostly be on the same page here, I'm just concerned that we might get event chains that don't make sense, or early on are unavoidable with the DHE system. I suppose once we get a more in depth DD that'll be the point to raise specific issues to specific points in the DD. We do seem over all to be going over the same ground over and over again, and in the same way.

 

[George LeS]

I stormed out of the one game of EUII I played when a historic event that made no sense at all considering the state of the map happened, thus breaking up what I was doing and making sections of it pointless. I haven't gone back yet because I'm still annoyed about it. So, I'm therefore not fully equipped to work through EUII and the implausible forced events from that.

To see how far you can take it - can you hold together your country through the reformation, and the wars between the catholic and protestant (and reformed!) powers? Once these have calmed down you have your wars with the Indian and Asian powers, and your colonial wars with the other colonial powers. After this you have the colonial revolts and the revolutions. If these coincide it can get a bit dicey. I find there is always a reason to continue on a full GC, although I often find there is also always a reason to start a new one. I've completed one GC, and had to abandon a couple of others because of patches and corrupt saves. I also lost one or two to cleaning up my hard drive, and some to the game becoming untenable - my Burgundy game where I simultaneously inherited Austria (which was into the steppes) and colonial France was one of these. The rebels were coming quicker than I could build troops to put the revolts down.

On which note - wouldn't it be nice to keep at least a portion of the troops of an inherited nation? I inherit a multi continent nation, and then find that all the troops have for some reason resigned and/or deserted, so I now have to build troops in my homeland and ship them out to the (now revolting) colonies of my new acquisition.

...

1. IMO, having some pointless event chains is actually realistic. IRL, they did not know what was going to happen, and had much less info about the state of the world than we do, playing the same position. The unexpected and seemingly unrealistic is in fact, like life.

2. Well, there is always the point of taste, and here there can be no arguing. In EUIII, after at most 100 years, even if I haven't achieved what I mean to do, it's always been clear that I was going to. And thus the game loses interest.

3. I agree about inherited troops, and a fortiori, ships. I'd go even further, and have them even for annexed nations. What I'd do is have a random die roll of (1d10 - x)/10. That will give the % of the unit which is effective, if less than 0, it's gone. 'x' would vary by several factors, depending on the situation and type (higher for ships and arty than for infantry; higher for inheritance than for conquest).

 

[Tornadoli]

1. IMO, having some pointless event chains is actually realistic. IRL, they did not know what was going to happen, and had much less info about the state of the world than we do, playing the same position. The unexpected and seemingly unrealistic is in fact, like life.

How is, eg. the partition of Burgundy or Poland, giving cores to their occupants, realistic if either of those countries is stronger than their neighbours?

 

[Barnacle Bill]

Not neccessarily. Plausible relates to whether it is reasonable and makes sense for the event to happen given the situation in place at the time, rather than whether the event happened in our history.
Burgundy being partitioned between France and the HRE when there is a strong male heir and Burgundy is the dominant power in France is implausible, even though it was the historical result. It is implausible because the circumstances relevant to the historical situation do not apply.
The Spanish bankrupcy is implausible if Spain has plenty of money coming in, no debts and good trade, resulting in income exceeding expenditure by a decent amount. It was however the historical result.
Russia forming is implausible if the area is divided between a dozen different nations.
The English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution, although great historical landmarks in English/British history are implausible (and impossible!) if England/GB is a republic rather than a monarchy.
The Spanish War of Succession would not have reason to happen if the situation with the thrones of Europe were different, and the contenders for the throne had not been linked to rival countries.


I am not saying that historical events should not be able to happen, just that they should not happen in the event that the situation does not allow for them to happen. I am also not happy with the concept of the early period DHEs always firing.

What is implausible in your examples is not that something historical happens without the logical preconditions, but that the logical preconditions which actually happened IRL are not in place in the game. Again, I make the distinction between AI and human player, but baring human intervention if the AI acts historically then the logical preconditions which actually happened IRL will be in place in the game when the time comes. Burgundy won't have a strong male heir or be dominant in France, the Spanish won't be in the black, Russia won't be divided between a dozen nations, England/GB won't be a republic, and the thrones of Europe won't be different - unless some human player has a finger in the pie.

 

[WeissRaben]

What is implausible in your examples is not that something historical happens without the logical preconditions, but that the logical preconditions which actually happened IRL are not in place in the game. Again, I make the distinction between AI and human player, but baring human intervention if the AI acts historically then the logical preconditions which actually happened IRL will be in place in the game when the time comes. Burgundy won't have a strong male heir or be dominant in France, the Spanish won't be in the black, Russia won't be divided between a dozen nations, England/GB won't be a republic, and the thrones of Europe won't be different - unless some human player has a finger in the pie.

Some human player HAS a finger in the pie. They are playing!

 

[Cybvep]

What is implausible in your examples is not that something historical happens without the logical preconditions, but that the logical preconditions which actually happened IRL are not in place in the game. Again, I make the distinction between AI and human player, but baring human intervention if the AI acts historically then the logical preconditions which actually happened IRL will be in place in the game when the time comes. Burgundy won't have a strong male heir or be dominant in France, the Spanish won't be in the black, Russia won't be divided between a dozen nations, England/GB won't be a republic, and the thrones of Europe won't be different - unless some human player has a finger in the pie.

The games NEVER progress in a fully historical way and the sooner the differences appear, the less likely a late-game historical outcome becomes. Considering that the players usually go on WC rampage quite early on in EUIII (which affects other nations, too), it's rather uncommon to see the in-game history unfolding in a similar manner as RL history did.

 

[RELee]

This is the kind of reply I like: from a direct trusted source, specific, leaving no room for useless debate .

Oh, how little you know the folks who frequent this forum. :laugh:

 

[Barnacle Bill]

Some human player HAS a finger in the pie. They are playing!

Depends... if the human player is playing one of those countries, yes. If the human player is off in Japan trying to become Shogun, not so much.

 

[Barnacle Bill]

The games NEVER progress in a fully historical way and the sooner the differences appear, the less likely a late-game historical outcome becomes. Considering that the players usually go on WC rampage quite early on in EUIII (which affects other nations, too), it's rather uncommon to see the in-game history unfolding in a similar manner as RL history did.

Again, if it is caused by human players its not what I'm talking about. What we see in EU3 routinely, though, is that even if a human player literally does nothing you will see e.g. North Africa & the eastern Med totally out of wack well before 1500.

 

[WeissRaben]

Depends... if the human player is playing one of those countries, yes. If the human player is off in Japan trying to become Shogun, not so much.

The problem with such a vision is: how do you gauge human intervention? Because I DO understand your point, and you are mostly right, but I don't really see how you could have something in between "the player is a major force" and "the player does not interfere". If I play as Persia I will not DIRECTLY interfere with France, but I could maim the Ottomans, that would not destroy Bohemia-Hungary, that would not get inherited by Austria, that would not be the direct antagonist of France for much of the time period. How do you make a game understand when the butterflies reached a nation? This is because having an AI that goes exactly historical on her own is madness, and events or missions are...blunt tools, to say the least. How can you turn them off or on, or halfway, or go in completely different directions?

 

[Barnacle Bill]

The problem with such a vision is: how do you gauge human intervention? Because I DO understand your point, and you are mostly right, but I don't really see how you could have something in between "the player is a major force" and "the player does not interfere". If I play as Persia I will not DIRECTLY interfere with France, but I could maim the Ottomans, that would not destroy Bohemia-Hungary, that would not get inherited by Austria, that would not be the direct antagonist of France for much of the time period. How do you make a game understand when the butterflies reached a nation? This is because having an AI that goes exactly historical on her own is madness, and events or missions are...blunt tools, to say the least. How can you turn them off or on, or halfway, or go in completely different directions?

I could describe a possible mechanic, but it would be wordy. To put it as simply as possible, leverage the existing history files. At game start, the player is "activated" and no AI is. "Inactivated" AI's and all their provinces just follow the history files, including wars, alliances, rules, buildings, revolts, etc... After it becomes "activated", the AI drops the script and behaves dynamically acciording to whatever is going on around it. An AI nation gets activated upon one of a limited number of things happening to it at the hands of a nation already activated. That list certainly includes getting an ahistorical (i.e. not in the history files) war declared on it, or getting called into an ahistorical war by alliance, or becoming on either end of an ahistorical PU or inheritance - but not much else. Yes, by game end probably every nation has been "activated", but gross departure from history isn't going to happen so soon or so radically as in EU3.

 

[Cybvep]

Bad idea. It includes an AI which is a mindless automata that is repeating history unless the player does sth. The system would also be very susceptible to hindsight.

 

[WeissRaben]

I could describe a possible mechanic, but it would be wordy. To put it as simply as possible, leverage the existing history files. At game start, the player is "activated" and no AI is. "Inactivated" AI's and all their provinces just follow the history files, including wars, alliances, rules, buildings, revolts, etc... After it becomes "activated", the AI drops the script and behaves dynamically acciording to whatever is going on around it. An AI nation gets activated upon one of a limited number of things happening to it at the hands of a nation already activated. That list certainly includes getting an ahistorical (i.e. not in the history files) war declared on it, or getting called into an ahistorical war by alliance, or becoming on either end of an ahistorical PU or inheritance - but not much else. Yes, by game end probably every nation has been "activated", but gross departure from history isn't going to happen so soon or so radically as in EU3.

Mmmmmh. It is not bad. Of course, gauging human intervention is going to be a mess anyway. How do you activate a nation that is influenced by 5-6 steps events? For example Indochina ---> India ---> Persia ---> Turkey ---> Middle-Eastern Europe ---> Western Europe? A lot of things happen or change with no direct intervention - a weak Ottoman Empire would lead to a weaker emperor (you can't go much stronger than Charles V's empire), and to a France that's way less cautious in dealing with the whole Rhine thingie. There was nothing that openly put the Ottomans and France in contact, but the influence is there.

 

[Evie HJ]

How much effort do you imagine it would take to create historical scripts describing in minutiae every action for every nation in the game; then a complete set of historical trigger (again, for each nation) to let them know that they have been "interfered with"?

 

[unmerged(63836)]

Mmmmmh. It is not bad. Of course, gauging human intervention is going to be a mess anyway. How do you activate a nation that is influenced by 5-6 steps events? For example Indochina ---> India ---> Persia ---> Turkey ---> Middle-Eastern Europe ---> Western Europe? A lot of things happen or change with no direct intervention - a weak Ottoman Empire would lead to a weaker emperor (you can't go much stronger than Charles V's empire), and to a France that's way less cautious in dealing with the whole Rhine thingie. There was nothing that openly put the Ottomans and France in contact, but the influence is there.

Even events in Japan could indirectly influence, say Scotland. Earlier unification of fractured Japan can influence policy of China, which in turn may change situation of Pontic Steppe Khanates, which in turn affects situation in Eastern Europe, and so on. Change would be subtle, but more noticeable with time. That's why it's called Butterfly Effect - even tiniest change can have huge consequences in the far future. To rip this off from the game is terrible idea - it's part of the fun to see alternate history emerging (work on mechanics is needed to curb out craziness and introduce realism though).