Welcome to another development diary about Europa Universalis IV (EU4)! This time we're talking about the envoys you have at your disposal.

Throughout the Europa Universalis series, envoys have been resources you could spend to take certain actions in the game. “Envoy” is a word we actually use quite a lot internally, but probably not as much when describing the game to you all before. Still, you know what we mean. You would get a colonist and send him to make a colony. Get a missionary and send him to convert the heathen.

In Europa Universalis IV (EU4), prepare for the fact that the envoys and how they are used have undergone major changes. In Europa Universalis IV (EU4), envoys are not treated as resources and will, to a larger extent be persons at your disposal that take actions by your command. It's a subtle difference, but we'll clarify it shortly.
Envoys are still used to make alliances, create colonies or take spy actions, but it quite different ways.

First of all, as we mentioned in the last development diary, the spies and the magistrates has been cut with a sharp blade. You can read about the reasons here. (Link to previous devdiary)
We are absolutely keeping the diplomats, colonists, merchants and missionaries in EU4, however you will see that their behavior will change.

Monetary cost for envoys have been removed
In a move that may surprise some people, we have completely removed the monetary cost for the envoys. We've done this for a few reasons. .
First of all, removing the cost means that we can simulate the abilities of poorer or smaller countries being able to do things on the same scale as others. So a vast Portuguese colonial empire is more likely to happen. This was difficult to make possible in the old model - unless you gave country-specific price reductions or made the cost irrelevant for richer countries.

Secondly, removing the monetary cost removes the consistency issue that existed in Europa Universalis III (EU3) for newcomers to the games. Having some envoy actions (diplomacy, magistrates) cost nothing while the others required some cash could be confusing.

Finally, removing the monetary cost reduces the number of ways the AI has to screw up handling money. This means fewer potential ways for the player to exploit the AI and fewer drawbacks for the AI when it looks at its options. We hope this will make the game more challenging for you as a player.

Your number of envoys will be your limit
All of this adds up to the only limit on your envoy actions being the number of envoys you have at your disposal. Therefore you should not be limited by the amount of money you have. But it also means that if you have three diplomats, you can only have three diplomatic actions going at once. More on this shortly.

No connective between diplomats/colonists and leader recruitment
We have removed the connection between diplomats/colonists and the recruitment of leaders. It was never any actual restriction for the player and with the other changes it made sense to change it.

Envoys are now separate entities
The biggest change for you is the concept that envoys will no longer be a resource that accrues value that increases every month. All envoys are now entities that are assigned to a mission and sent on the mission, similar to how you give your court members tasks in Crusader Kings II. And, while the envoys are on their missions, they will not available to do anything else than the mission you have assigned to them. We feel that it will create more interesting strategic decisions for you as a player.

Because if you only have two diplomats, what will you do? Do you want both of your diplomats out on missions, or do you want to keep one at home?
Missions also take time to perform from start or end, so this naturally keeps your envoys occupied for a certain point of time, especially since their travel time is also taken into account.Envoys becomes less an object you need to spend and more active participants in your national policy.

The Diplomats
Some of the diplomats actions will still be instant, but quite a few will now be missions that the diplomats are assigned. Diplomats will also do some of the actions that spies did previously in EU3. We promise, we will go into detail on new aspects of the diplomats and their actions over several development diaries before the game releases, so stay with us!

The Missionaries
The missionaries will work as before, in that you give them a mission to convert a province to your chosen faith, and they have a chance every month to succeed. The only difference is that the amount of missionaries you will have at your disposal will limit the amount of activity you can do in parallel.
This hard limit on simultaneous conversions will make religious ideas a more important option for anyone that is interested in conquering a lot of people of another faith.

The Merchants & Colonists
The merchants and colonists will perform actions similar to EU3, but we'll go into detail regarding those later

So when you use envoys in Europa Universalis IV (EU4), it will be more about strategic choices of where to use them and when to use them, instead of simply putting them to work as soon as you can afford them. In our testing so far, this has proven to be a rather dramatic change, and one that is greatly appreciated by the players. So we really hope you will enjoy envoys!
This was all for now, next week we will talk about the budget and the new economy system.

Here's a screenshot showing some new stuff...

 

[Marco Dandolo]

Lucca, Monferrato and Novara would be welcome additions, yes. You could add OTHER provinces (Valtellina, Alessandria, Ticino, Padova, Bologna, Massa...) but these three are somewhat needed.

You mean something like this? I think, this is more a job for a modder, than a developer.

 

[Wallain]

The problem with adding so many provinces for specific regions is that it severely imbalance the game to the point of it being ludicrous. England in EU3 for example had so many provinces that it just roflstomped Scandinavia without problem, when it should not even be able to. In other words, if you are to go this much into depth in a specific region then you need to do it everywhere.

 

[Marco Dandolo]

Which I had done for the bordering french and german zones, and a little bit in Spain. But as said, this is more a thing for modders, to keep the balance in check, than developers. The developers gives us a equilibrium, and a modder can expand. For example, MEIOU is good, but for my gusto to imbalanced and lacks deepness. Magna Mundi had the balance, but lacks some other things - which I won't debate here.

 

[1alexey]

Reguarding missionaries, i fail to see the need of more realism just for the sake of more realism.

Gradual conversions are impossible to simulate without going into immigration/emigration on the province scale, and other such things, that provide no gameplay value, but greatly increase complexity and computations.

Better keep it simple.

 

[Korsan82]

The Missionaries
The missionaries will work as before, in that you give them a mission to convert a province to your chosen faith, and they have a chance every month to succeed. The only difference is that the amount of missionaries you will have at your disposal will limit the amount of activity you can do in parallel.
This hard limit on simultaneous conversions will make religious ideas a more important option for anyone that is interested in conquering a lot of people of another faith.

Just a question on this one: With the limited actions given due to the restriction of the envoys wouldn't it be possible to allow your own missionaries to go on missions outside your own realm? This would be another strategic decision the player has to take - Keep them at home and convert heretics or prepare ground for our next invasion? I've always liked the idea of having the possibility of the "envoy wars" metagame where you could also assign your missionaries to "counter missionarize" a province which is contested by an enemy missionary.
I'd be very happy to hear the chances of this happening.

As for the DD: I have to say this is the best one so far. I had never liked the previous system.. This one reflects reality far better.

 

[Te. Kenzo]

Just a question on this one: With the limited actions given due to the restriction of the envoys wouldn't it be possible to allow your own missionaries to go on missions outside your own realm? This would be another strategic decision the player has to take - Keep them at home and convert heretics or prepare ground for our next invasion? I've always liked the idea of having the possibility of the "envoy wars" metagame where you could also assign your missionaries to "counter missionarize" a province which is contested by an enemy missionary.
I'd be very happy to hear the chances of this happening.

As for the DD: I have to say this is the best one so far. I had never liked the previous system.. This one reflects reality far better.

yes I thougt something similar too

 

[WeissRaben]

You mean something like this? I think, this is more a job for a modder, than a developer.

If there weren't errors a bit everywhere...yes, similar. Less provinces, maybe.
(I'm talking about representing better the area, not concentrating there - the latter is for modders, the former for devs.)

 

[Sandam]

Little suggestion: It would be more interesting if you could send missionaries to other nation provinces too. To convert your vassal provinces to your faith, or convert neighboring province with heretic faith. would add more flavor to start religious wars.

 

[Burgonde]

I like the changes so far and I think that are good improvements. I have three suggestions though, that I don't know if you can put in the game, but that I'd like you to take in consideration.

-Factions. I'd like the idea of different factions inside a province and more in general inside a state. For example, there can be the factions of royalist, nobles, peasants etc. Based on your decision you can gain or lose reputation with a faction, and of course there is no pleasing them all. This'll conduct in a situation in which different factions can and will fight, starting a civil war if you're not careful. We can simulate the American Revolution that way: with the faction of Americans slowly gaining power in the colonies, but at the same time with the faction of loyalist inhabitants of the colonies fighting for UK when Americans rebel, which is historically true. The regular army can have the opition of disbanding or integrating loyalists units but only if they are present in the province.

-State of agitation. If there are different factions (but even if there are not) there should a state of agitation if population of a province is hostile to you. This state of agitation should affect every aspect of the province, as trade, productivity, able men available. That'd mean that if you overstretch and you can controll a province with enough army to clam them down and you don't have good policy the overall efficiency of the state can decrease and even blow up in total civil war, a period of chaos. I think tha this system woulb more realistic that a province suddently rebelling.

-Sieges. In EU sieges have been misrepresented badly. You just need to stay in a province long enough and sooner or latter the province will fall. That is not historically true. Even if there is not an external intervention an army can't stand forever in a place. Case in point Albania: in 1444 the minuscule country rebelled against the Ottoman Empire and resited for more that 30 years against the army that conquered Constandinopoli. They did it because they had a general expert in guerrilla tacticts and some very badass castles. While Scanderbeg attacked Ottomans supplie lines, the castle of Kruja stood against every attack. In the end, Ottomans had to leave before the mountain passes were blocked from snow, because they didn't have the food to spend winter in the siege. Deseases too could very well put an end to a siege. This is totally irreproducible in EU and it was a big tactic problem during medieval times. I suggest very strongly that it should exist at least a time progression in wich friction increases progressively, especially if you don't own the provinces that connect the sieged province with your land (or if there is an enemy army on those provinces) and especially during winter.

I agree with everything, but especially on the last point.

 

[unmerged(362834)]

I like the changes so far and I think that are good improvements. I have three suggestions though, that I don't know if you can put in the game, but that I'd like you to take in consideration.

-Factions. I'd like the idea of different factions inside a province and more in general inside a state. For example, there can be the factions of royalist, nobles, peasants etc. Based on your decision you can gain or lose reputation with a faction, and of course there is no pleasing them all. This'll conduct in a situation in which different factions can and will fight, starting a civil war if you're not careful. We can simulate the American Revolution that way: with the faction of Americans slowly gaining power in the colonies, but at the same time with the faction of loyalist inhabitants of the colonies fighting for UK when Americans rebel, which is historically true. The regular army can have the opition of disbanding or integrating loyalists units but only if they are present in the province.

-State of agitation. If there are different factions (but even if there are not) there should a state of agitation if population of a province is hostile to you. This state of agitation should affect every aspect of the province, as trade, productivity, able men available. That'd mean that if you overstretch and you can controll a province with enough army to clam them down and you don't have good policy the overall efficiency of the state can decrease and even blow up in total civil war, a period of chaos. I think tha this system woulb more realistic that a province suddently rebelling.

-Sieges. In EU sieges have been misrepresented badly. You just need to stay in a province long enough and sooner or latter the province will fall. That is not historically true. Even if there is not an external intervention an army can't stand forever in a place. Case in point Albania: in 1444 the minuscule country rebelled against the Ottoman Empire and resited for more that 30 years against the army that conquered Constandinopoli. They did it because they had a general expert in guerrilla tacticts and some very badass castles. While Scanderbeg attacked Ottomans supplie lines, the castle of Kruja stood against every attack. In the end, Ottomans had to leave before the mountain passes were blocked from snow, because they didn't have the food to spend winter in the siege. Deseases too could very well put an end to a siege. This is totally irreproducible in EU and it was a big tactic problem during medieval times. I suggest very strongly that it should exist at least a time progression in wich friction increases progressively, especially if you don't own the provinces that connect the sieged province with your land (or if there is an enemy army on those provinces) and especially during winter.

I second this.

Besieging a region should be the begining of a process that gives both attackers and defenders, different choices. Entering a region would not lead to an instant confrontation between attackers and defenders... if for example, the invaded country choose to place his troops behind walls. Smaller countries wouldn't always loose against bigger countries.

Also, I think the number of envoys should depend on rulers' skills. A ruler with very poor skills in diplomacy should not be able to engage as many actions as a ruler with high diplomacy skills.

Otherwise, Rulers' Skill differences should appear in the nature of missions their envoys can carry on. For example, a ruler with poor skills in diplomacy should be able to make strategic alliances...

 

[ANO1453]

I am still not very convinced on factions, they would probably require a huge amount of work and maybe too much management.

 

[Palfouri]

Tedious as hell, yes, but so's building without magistrates. Lost track of the number of pre-DW game where I dreaded new buildings becoming available because of the hand pain and massive boredom it would be to just mass-build everything at once in a large colonial empire.

Ideally EUIV would rectify this by giving you less money to spend/ making building cost more/etc. rather than telling you that you aren't allowed to spend your money, please wait a few months for a new magistrate to arrive.

 

[Evie HJ]

As opposed to telling me I'm not allowed to spend my money on colonies/conversions/gifts to other nations/occupying more room in a CoT/inciting a revolt, please wait for a colonist/missionary/diplomat/trader/spy to arrive?

ALL envoys system limit how you can spend your money. Why, again, should buildings be any different from the other ways of developing your nation?

That's what gets me here. What's so special about building that they should be limited only by money, unlike just about every other building options in the game? I just don't see it, nor do I see why a country should be expected to exert the sort of control involved into mass-developping all your provinces like that. Unlimited ability to develop your own country's buildings (so long as you have the money) does not result in more realism, or a better balanced game, or a less tedious game. It just doesn't make any sense.

 

[Checco]

About sieges, I do not think they should undergo the change ppl in this page posted.

The reason is that sieges, just like cities, provinces, city pops etc. are all simplified version of something otherwise impossible to accurately represent.

Everytime we look on the map and a lot of other aspects, we know we have to deal with big semplifications (IIRc some Paradox devs stated it, too).

Btw, even if sieges became something you have to take care of by using supply routes etc., you'd see 90% of times sieges being successful because of players adapting to the rules and still winning.

Worst still, if these historical accurate siege systems proved to be too much for the AI to handle we'd deal with cheating AI, something many are pretty fed of (including me).

I think like many others that a limited POPs system would have been nice, but it has been ruled out, nonetheless I expect the devs to make the game interesting.

 

[Norpheus]

I welcome this more tactic-envoy system. I look forward to seeing the spy-mechanics to these envoys, and the game of thrones that should surround them.

The new map borders are ugly however. Seeing nationcolours on the borders are not really necessary.

 

[Dragoneer]

Tbh i dont think this system looks fun at all, maybe more realistic, but for the player in general it seems to automate more and making us micromanage less, like victoria 2, which in my book was way less exiting than victoria 1. Less player choices which gives even less impact on the game sadly it seems. Hope im wrong ofc

 

[lucaluca]

Lucca, Monferrato and Novara would be welcome additions, yes. You could add OTHER provinces (Valtellina, Alessandria, Ticino, Padova, Bologna, Massa...) but these three are somewhat needed.

Padua, Bologna and Massa would be great too. Padua abd Bologna being the seats of the oldest world universities, and Massa and Lucca would remove the ugly access to the sea of Parma and Modena

 

[MercutioUK]

Great to hear about the new changes. Are we going to have a fixed limit for envoys or that would change based on any factor (e.g. Prestige)?

However, I follow some of the opinions about being a little disappointed about the missionary system, which is in need for a change. It could be related to number of religious buildings in the province or choose some particular elements that would change the pace for conversion in the colonies, the idea of a progress bar is great as well. I would love if there were two different set of rules for conversion between your new world colonies leading the natives to Christianity and special rules in Europe during Reformation. I want to see a more exciting approach to the period and its consequences other than choose a religion and wait until your provinces are converted.

Anyways, I can't wait for EU IV! 2013 is such a long way... :sad:

 

[StephenT]

Little suggestion: It would be more interesting if you could send missionaries to other nation provinces too. To convert your vassal provinces to your faith, or convert neighboring province with heretic faith. would add more flavor to start religious wars.

In this time period, I think that would have something like a 5% chance of succeeding, and a 50% chance of giving the target country a casus belli against you after the missionary is caught and burned at the stake...

 

[Fawr]

Ideally EUIV would rectify this by giving you less money to spend/ making building cost more/etc. rather than telling you that you aren't allowed to spend your money, please wait a few months for a new magistrate to arrive.

As opposed to telling me I'm not allowed to spend my money on colonies/conversions/gifts to other nations/occupying more room in a CoT/inciting a revolt, please wait for a colonist/missionary/diplomat/trader/spy to arrive?

ALL envoys system limit how you can spend your money. Why, again, should buildings be any different from the other ways of developing your nation?

Personally I agree with both of you. If a ruler wanted to form an alliance with a foreign country then they would be able to find someone to send. The new person may come with costs (hiring them, geting an entorage, training them from 10 years ago), and may not be quite as good as the first choice, but getting a new diplomat shouldn't be a hard limit, it should be something where you can buy more somehow (even if that somehow is a decision where you spend a bunch of money and then get extra diplomats for 5 years).

If that applies to diplomats then it should apply to magistrates too. Building over your cap should just take a little longer and cost a little more (with the penalties increasing depending on how much over your cap you are). Think of the system they have for military maintanance and the force limit cap in EU3. A soft cap gives the player control back, whereas a hard cap feels like you are being punished.

I could also compain about why you can save 5 of each envoy rather than a year's worth (5 years worth, or a generation's worth), but since thats not going to be in the game anymore...