• 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.

Europa Universalis IV - Development Diary 12th of April 2022

Hello everyone, and welcome back to EUIV Dev Diaries! It’s been a while since the last one, but now we think it is due time to address a 1.33 Update Retrospective, and talk a bit with you about what we’ve been doing, and the topics concerning the community.

In the past month, since the 1.33 Update full release, the Team has been working mostly on the Post Release Support (PRS) of it. You may have noticed that our process in the Bug Reports subforum has changed a bit, and that the QLOC Team that gives us external QA support is directly addressing tickets, although the person in charge of it is @AldathPDX , our QA Project Coordinator. Devs aren’t going to disappear from the subforum, though; we will still be going to interact directly with the reports when needed, but this way we’re becoming more efficient in what we really want to focus on - improving the state of the game. Speaking of QA, we have opened a position for an Internal QA Tester, as you may know. If you want to join us at Paradox Tinto, and you think you have the requirements for it, you can apply to it here!

Regarding 1.33 PRS, we decided to prioritize the usually tricky and hard-to-catch issues of OOS and CTD for the 1.33.3 patch released last week. We really wanted to focus on these issues, as we shared the concerns about MP games becoming more unstable. And, precisely because of this, we also decided not to introduce gameplay changes in this patch, as we preferred to release the most stable version possible, and fixing and testing other issues may have delayed this patch even further. We know this may be controversial, but we think it’s the most beneficial course of action for the game at this moment.

This doesn’t mean that changes are set in stone, as we want to continue gathering feedback from the community. We have to say that we are pretty happy with the results of the 1.33 Open Beta that was handled in the month prior to the release. We fixed a lot of issues thanks to the direct feedback gathered from you, the players, and we were able to make some further tweaks and changes quickly thanks to this. We think this has been a useful tool, and we’re open to using Open Betas again for future updates.

Going back to the gameplay changes topics, there are a couple that we know have been concerning the community in the past weeks: Combat changes, and allied AI behavior. The last one is more related to the kind of situation that may appear after improving it: now the AI acts on its own interests, which may not be the player’s, and that are different from how it behaved previously. This is something that happened in a few fields when improving AI for 1.33 Update, and that we rollback while developing it; but sometimes, this kind of behavior appears. We will be targeting AI again in the following months, so your game experience is quite valuable about this point. About the former, well, we already said that we wanted to “shake” a bit how Combat works, and our position is that we want extra feedback before committing to new changes. So, please, we want some constructive feedback in this thread regarding both topics, with your opinion on what works/what doesn’t, to further improve the gameplay experience (note: posts of the type “these changes are bad, just revert to previous version” are much less useful for us than those tackling the current situation and suggesting further changes for improvement).

The other big gameplay topic we addressed in 1.33 was rebalancing and adding a some extra content for the Eastern Asian regions, specifically on the Empire of China and Mandate of Heaven mechanics. We’re quite content with the outcome, as we were able to improve those in the Open Beta, and the issues we’ve been fixing regarding it in the PRS are not very concerning. Anyway, again, further suggestions are welcome, although more on the topic of polishing balance changes, than in adding more content, as we have started to move on to new things.

So yes, we’re already working on new content to be added to another new update! We’ve been spending some development time in the last weeks planning that, so because of it we’ve been a bit more ‘shy’ here. And now we have good and bad news. Good news is that we’re also recruiting another Content Designer for the studio! So, if you’re interested, you can apply here. The bad news is that you will have to wait a bit longer to take a look at the new content, as we’re in a very early development phase. In two weeks, after Easter vacation is over, we’ll present you the Roadmap for the new content, and we’ll start communicating again on a weekly basis.

That’s all for now! We hope to receive detailed feedback from you from 1.33, to keep working on it, as we’ll be reading your comments. See you!
 
  • 80Like
  • 20
  • 10
  • 4Love
  • 1Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
Yes, more under-the-hood improvements, please. EU4 is already great. It just needs to be able to execute its greatness with less stumbling. I think the dev team is making an excellent decision in where to focus its manpower and resources right now.
 
Last edited:
  • 16Like
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
Thanks for the update!

My experience with the current combat is that morale damage slows to a crawl for reasons I haven't yet grasped, and this means battles last considerably longer and sometimes the casualties can be atrocious as a result, and this is before artillery. Clever maneuvers doesn't account for as much as before when there is more time to reinforce, and the rate of paddleball armies where you have to chase them back and forth has increased. It all feels more sluggish as a whole, and I'm unsure whether that's good or not. Maybe if the mechanics felt more transparent I'd be better able to manage. Also my understanding is the 80% bonus for Professionalism, half morale damage to reserves, is now literally useless, so if these combat tweaks are to remain that probably needs replaced.

On the bright side I'm not sure if this is a result of changes in 1.32 or 1.33, but assaulting forts feels more effective as a strategy, actually less costly in manpower than before, especially with proper micro. Handy in the early days when you're otherwise getting 10 42% ticks in a row..
 
  • 23
  • 9Like
Reactions:
About the sleeping AI allies issue: I was extremely annoyed about this happening to me, but knowing that it's happening because the AI is acting in its own interest actually makes me feel much better about it.
 
  • 28Like
  • 7Haha
Reactions:
I can't say i am not disappointed. While there isn't anything obviously wrong with what @Pavía said i somehow expected a lenghty post with different parts about what each team did in the last 2 months where there was complete radio silence. Instead it is an ultra-short diary consisting of "we did fixes", which is great and of "pitch us ideas and feedback about the combat system although half the forum in the last month consisted of little else". Of course there are times in development where there is not much new content to show but there is always an interesting dev diary to write. Show us the work process of a content designer from research to implementation for example. Get a programmer to write a small but in depth article about an annoying bug and how it was found out and fixed. Get a senior dev in talking about how new hires are worked in. Pull the most frequented suggestions from the suggestions forum and write down some thought experiments about implementation. There is always something to talk about.

But this is just stepping on stage after the audience was waiting for 2 months and shouting "keep waiting".

P.S. please flag the QA team in the bug report subforum as developers, so that we can actually use the "show developers response" button
 
  • 26Like
  • 15
  • 4
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Tbh, it would be nice if we can sino-ize any culture forcefully as emperor of China, not just Korean and Vietnamese. Imagine sino-ize entire world, won't that be brokenly awesome?
 
  • 25
  • 4Haha
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
On the bright side I'm not sure if this is a result of changes in 1.32 or 1.33, but assaulting forts feels more effective as a strategy, actually less costly in manpower than before, especially with proper micro. Handy in the early days when you're otherwise getting 10 42% ticks in a row..
1.32 bugfix, assaults used to damage all troops and not just the maximun 10k allowed in an assault
 
  • 10
Reactions:
Hello, and thanks for this dev diary after a long time without communication.

Since the AI budgeting & battle evaluation improvement in 1.33, big nations that manage to pass early game (pre 1500) seem significantly stronger than they used to, which is mostly a good change and introduces more challenge, but in some cases, it just is impossible (or extremely difficult) to defeat them because their economy, manpower and overall ability to take the best battles makes wars unwinnable. I'm mostly speaking about the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, but France/Spain/Ottomans can also feel like that at times.

I'm not suggesting to make the AI worse at budgeting again, or to stop them from improving their economy, but making them a bit worse at judging battles would come a long way, and hopefully it would also stop allies from never re-enforcing your battles if they think they're unwinnable (which are sometimes only unwinnable because allies do not re-enforce)
 
  • 30
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
I feel that wars are much less fun and more sluggish now. Quality in armies feels much less important and instead quantity is what its all about. Over all the changes in 1.33 were good but i played a few games the first week but havn't touched the game since. A bit sad about it after 4k in EU4 but battles that takes 1-2 months just removes to much of the fun. If it stays this way I will probably just revert to 1.32.

Also a bit heavy on the forts still. Either need some changes to siege speed or make it more expensive to build and upkeep forts.
 
  • 16Like
  • 6
  • 3
Reactions:
Jo developers,

I’m glad to hear the ai is acting in their own interests but imo there is a big issue with oversea battles. I played this patch a lot already and let me tell you some issues:
1. I played as Norway and had a independence guarantee from England. After declaring with help of Sweden I destroyed most of danish fleet. But even then England didn’t even move a single soldier to the European mainland they did not even defend their own land near France. how can that be in their own interest :D
2. In late game France and England often declare on Indonesian minors and never win the war. They take a ton of loans for nothing.
3. I often see the ottomans fighting against a Korfu or the
Knights like 15 times without actually taking their land even if their own Allie is something like Bavaria.
Regarding the battle mechanism I would suggest the fight to be faster since some fights go for many months in late game and often instead of a fight just ending it often happens to be like last man standing and so many solidiers dying instead of just the morale going down
 
  • 4
  • 2Like
Reactions:
About the sleeping AI allies issue: I was extremely annoyed about this happening to me, but knowing that it's happening because the AI is acting in its own interest actually makes me feel much better about it.
I just want to clarify that this doesn't mean every single case of "AI doesn't help player" is intentional.
I'm aware of at least two significant AI bugs that cause this as well, both of which will be fixed in 1.34.

One of these issues happened only to AIs fighting with a human war leader. But in general, AI doesn't treat the player differently on Normal and Hard. There are a few cases, but they are supposed to be very minor.
 
  • 24
  • 8Like
Reactions:
Is 1.34 another bug fix focus patch or will it me a more traditional update (I know you cannot tell us yet what content you are planning)?

For me the exportToVariable bug is the biggest one - a fair propotion of my EU4 is Anbennar for more variety.