Welcome to another developer diary for EU4. This time its about country customization - our efforts to make each country truly unique.

We added National Ideas as a feature to the series in EU3. It was a great concept, because of how it added visible differentiation to countries, and we were really happy with the results. In EU4, we have revitalized the idea system to more properly represent the differences between countries. Our new design for ideas is something that should be satisfactory to the historical crowd and to those who prefer more of an open-ended game.

Idea Groups
Instead of choosing national ideas when various techs are gained, you now have slots for idea groups. Idea groups consist of seven ideas and have a bonus for getting all of the ideas in a group. Picking ideas within a group has to be done sequentially – you can't leapfrog from an early idea in a group to a later one, but you can choose from any available group at any time. You are not forced to buy all ideas in one group before getting ideas from another group.

You have eight possible slots for ideagroups, which is given from various technlogy levels. What makes the game more interesting though, is that when you have selected an ideagroup, you are basically stuck with it. You have chosen the path for your nation. Investing into a full idea group takes quite a while, and can cost several decades worth of power.

There are sixteen possible idea groups you can choose from in EU4, each with seven different ideas in them, and a bonus. They are Plutocracy, Aristocracy, Innovativeness, Religion, Espionage, Diplomatic, Offensive, Defensive, Trade, Economic, Exploration, Naval, Quality, Quantity, Expansion & Administrative. Remember – you can only have a maximum of eight of these, so half of the idea groups will never come into play for your country. You veteran players may notice how many of these idea groups parallel the tracks that used to be domestic policy sliders.

Each of these idea groups use one specific monarch power for buying ideas., To increase in offensive ideas you will be using military power and exploration uses diplomatic power, for example.

National ideas
Every country also has something we call National Ideas, with the most important countries having a set of unique national ideas. Major countries including the Mamelukes and England have seven unique ideas granting them specific abilities. These ideas are not something you spend power on to buy, but, instead, you gain one of these ideas for free for every third idea you buy normally from an idea group.

Every nation also starts with a national tradition: two abilities which define the history and heritage of the country. As we see here, Sweden starts with 5% better infantry and 25% cheaper mercenaries. Countries also have what we call “national ambition”, which is a bonus given when you have gained all seven of your national ideas. This bonus is also unique for each country.

Interface
To make the game more comprehensible and transparent, ideas are represented by icons that correspond to their effects.
Every time this effect is active or needed for display purposes (like in describing country modifiers or religious bonuses) you will see this icon. That way you can tell at a glance the impact your ideas are having on your national evolution.


Next week, we'll be back to talk more about .. lets see… something on the isles..

 

[1alexey]

Arkhangelsk?

The slow colonisation of Horde lands started almost right after the 1380 Kulikow battle, while Archangels Was captured by Muskowy only in 1478, so Yes, before.

Although, the "Siberia" was generally refering to horde lands, not the particular territory of Siberia, but you got my point didn`t you?

 

[Captain Gars]

Well if you do, then you could possibly have triggers on the ideas within the idea groups, no? I mean, if you do not meet the requirements for that you cannot spend those diplomacy points. In theory of course.

I still don't understand how you mean. If I unlock a group and by idea 1 and 2, but then don't meet the trigger for the third idea, then what? Is the rest of the idea group unreachable, or do you simply skip over then one you don't meet the requirement for...?

 

[twinxor]

Russia after Peter the Great transformed from medieval steppe influenced state, into modern European model of the time.

Polish-Lithuanian reforms prior to partitions.

Initial tolerance of protestants in Austria switching to counter-reformation in late 16th century.

Livonian Order transformed from landed monastic order of Catholic warrior-monks, to protestant trading/colonial/naval state (Kurland-Semigalia).

Castille transformed from warlike, land concentrated, reconquista nation, to colonial/naval/trade nation.


Just a few from the top of my head, surely there's more.

Good points. I think there's a gameplay reason to make idea groups unchangeable, but it would be kind of cool if there were no mutual exclusions, so you can put a lot of emphasis on both the army & the navy, for instance.

 

[unmerged(63836)]

Except that in game terms it is likely that after 100-200 years all free group slots might be already taken.

Russia would already have the Expansion & Administrative group by then, and I don't see Russia ever having Quality, so that's just adding Innovativeness.

Expansion and Administrative are seperate groups. As for Quality - it certainly was switch to quality. Remember that idea groups have levels, so in case of Russia it won't be full quality like say 1800 Prussia.

The Commonwealth was very aristocratic, and it never did much expansion, so I'd say that's another example of adding Innovativeness.

Again, expansion and administration are seperate groups. These reforms were aimed specifically at destroying "noble republic" priviledges, and centralisation of power - so it would be either removing of aristocracy or rolling back most of ideas from this group.

Why replacing another group? Seems like just adding Religion, IMO.

We don't know how religious policy would be governed. But if similarly to EU3 sliders there's 'Tolerance' in Innovative, and 'Persecution/Conversion' in Religion, then these two can't coexist.

Again, this just seems like addition of new Groups. (And, on a side point, I don't think Castile should have the Trade Idea Group--taking that Idea Group would represent a more Portuguese/Dutch/English colonization strategy).

Yeah, not good example.


As for TO and Livonian Order - this is the case when defeated states realised that obviously old ways would not work, and transformed themselves completely. Why those two examples must be handled by TAG switch, but other cases not? If as a France I would reduce Burgundy in size, limiting it to 2 provs with CoT in Lower Countries and vassalising them - wouldn't it make sense for them to switch from feudal, land based state with ambitions of conquest to trade, colonisation policies with time? Why would they persist on clinging to old ways?

EDIT

Speaking of TAG switch - ideas would be inherited if, say - I form Italy, or completely new would be introduced in moment of transformation?

Good points. I think there's a gameplay reason to make idea groups unchangeable, but it would be kind of cool if there were no mutual exclusions, so you can put a lot of emphasis on both the army & the navy, for instance.

I would say - make it possible, but very painful. For example, changing group would result in 10-20 years of chaos, social discontent, and conservatives/beneficiaries of old policies revolting. (revolt risk, huge stab cost, lowered monarch points, poor morale etc.) It may also be limited to incredibly talented, visionary monarchs (like aforementioned Peter the Great).

 

[Jaol]

Except that in game terms it is likely that after 100-200 years all free group slots might be already taken.

Ah, if this is what you were thinking, then I understand your position more. But I'm pretty sure that's not going to be the case. The screenshot shows that there are tech requirements for unlocking new slots. In the image, it's 1579, and 5 of the slots are still locked.

So there always will be plenty of empty slots to fill with new ideas, and the only cases you really have to worry about are where a nation should remove an existing idea. Perhaps P-L revoking noble privileges would count (I don't think so, as the commonwealth was extremely aristocratic up till the end, but I see what you mean).

 

[Captain Gars]

The problem seems to be that you treat them all as mutely exclusive. Just because Russia gained more quality didn't mean they gave up on quantity. Same with aristocracy, you don't need to exterminate every aristocrat just because you want to go more plutocracy, you take those ideas (plus probably decisions and events) to turn more in that direction. A few groups should be mutely exclusive but those we have already scripted that way.

 

[Merrick Chance']

I think you could argue that England was Aristocratic and Land in 1444, and Plutocratic and Naval in 1744.

I think England is an example of a Plutocratic and Aristocratic nation

 

[unmerged(63836)]

The problem seems to be that you treat them all as mutely exclusive. Just because Russia gained more quality didn't mean they gave up on quantity. Same with aristocracy, you don't need to exterminate every aristocrat just because you want to go more plutocracy, you take those ideas (plus probably decisions and events) to turn more in that direction. A few groups should be mutely exclusive but those we have already scripted that way.

Well, there wouldn't be that much of a problem if there would be unlimited number of group slots. What if by 1720, my Aristocracy, Innovativeness, Diplomatic, Offensive, Defensive, Naval, Quality, Administrative Sweden dominates Scandinavia, and I would like to explore and colonise?

Maybe making changing group, at big cost (10-20 years of unrest), and only with talented monarch wouldn't be that bad idea? Since it would be costly, risky and dependent on luck (high stat monarch), it should not be abused by the player.

EDIT

As for adding up. Peter the Great didn't merely build up on old military model - he got rid of it by disbanding Streltsy. Same with PLC reforms - they removed some of the privileges from nobles. Ottomans also had to get rid of Janissaries to reform their military. These were exact examples of rooting out centuries old traditions to make room for new ones.

 

[1alexey]

The problem seems to be that you treat them all as mutely exclusive. Just because Russia gained more quality didn't mean they gave up on quantity. Same with aristocracy, you don't need to exterminate every aristocrat just because you want to go more plutocracy, you take those ideas (plus probably decisions and events) to turn more in that direction. A few groups should be mutely exclusive but those we have already scripted that way.

Can you tell us those groups, at last, pretty please?

 

[unmerged(303218)]

Uh?
How is building up ressource generation an necessary part of a strategy game? Would a wargame with fixed reinforcement be any less strategic than one where you get proportional reinforcement to your territory?

That's called RTS - and, frankly, they should be called 'tactics games' not 'strategy'. Exactly because they have little to do with strategy.

The problem with allowing fixed investments of either gold or monarch points to get a permanent increase in monarch points generation is that it is hard to not make such an investement into a dominant strategy, where player are sitting on their hands the first 50 years of the game, to have much more of the precious ressource for the other 300 years of it. I guess I could agree with a +1 monarch point (of the appropriate kind) for every Idea Group that have been unlocked, to represent the country structure and administration, but that's it.

And what is the problem with that? The mathematically best course of action is to invest for the first century and do little else - however, putting resources into tech, ideas and buildings, and then curbstomping empires multiple times your size with the temporary advantage balances gameplay on short notice.

In a RTS with resource management the above is the buildup vs rush 'decision' of the player. Building up a strong economy to crank out units faster than my enemy can kill them - a mathematically superior strategy, but all too vulnerable to a rush. That is, the mathematically inferior rush strategy is just as valid.

Especially in EU, since a conquering spree gives additional resources to husband (manpower, tax, production). So there's nothing wrong with long-term investments being mathematically superior - the opposite might pay off better in some cases!

 

[Jaol]

As for adding up. Peter the Great didn't merely build up on old military model - he got rid of it by disbanding Streltsy. Same with PLC reforms - they removed some of the privileges from nobles. Ottomans also had to get rid of Janissaries to reform their military. These were exact examples of rooting out centuries old traditions to make room for new ones.

Sure, but none of that seems to me to rise to the level of removing an Idea Group (or even individual Ideas). It's not like Peter completely got rid of Russia's reliance on masses of troops (the Quantity ideas).

IMO, removing Ideas might be necessary to model the big revolutions that happened after the game's timeframe, but not for what's actually covered in the game.

 

[unmerged(303218)]

There are still a lot of things that give reduced cost of buying ideas, tech, stability etc., which means that you can buy more for the same number of points. But unlike money where the player could get a monthly income that was more than the next twenty countries combined, points should be harder to get ahead in.

Now that sounds a lot better. Can we please have more information on them beyond their existence?

Just because you think it should be possible to convert one resource into another doesn't make that the definition of a strategy game.

A few (dozen) posts ago you confirmed that this is probably the most popular definition of strategy games, if not one you necessarily agree with.

That may be your definition of strategy - and I guess the most common one - but it's one I personally dislike.

What I'm trying to say is that all great strategy games - like the ones Paradox makes - are about resource husbanding, in a setting to help the 'suspension of disbelief' necessary. I was just concerned that in aiming for a better immersion, the designers lost out on the much more important part.

Edit: And it might be just me, but to me the coherence, the logical nature of the setting is infinitely more important than its accuracy. So for me basically any type of setting - history, alt-history, fantasy, sci-fi - are OK as long as it is consistent in itself. The historicity is merely an aid in familiarising with it (for the player) and for creating a believable world (for the developer - without a reality check, it's a much harder job).

 

[siis]

Well if you do, then you could possibly have triggers on the ideas within the idea groups, no? I mean, if you do not meet the requirements for that you cannot spend those diplomacy points. In theory of course.

No trigger needed. The cost for leveling up a group (unlocking new ideas) is most likeley defined per group. Like leveling up quality costs 300 military points per level.

 

[unmerged(63836)]

Sure, but none of that seems to me to rise to the level of removing an Idea Group (or even individual Ideas). It's not like Peter completely got rid of Russia's reliance on masses of troops (the Quantity ideas).

OK, he added Quality, and Innovativeness then. Plus 1700 is around 2/3rds of the game - there's high chance that at least one level in each idea group would be taken, making Peter's reforms impossible under game mechanics.

IMO, removing Ideas might be necessary to model the big revolutions that happened after the game's timeframe, but not for what's actually covered in the game.

Revolutions or far reaching reforms as in examples that I've given. These reforms were violent and provoked strong resistance. I get it that devs wanted to make selection of idea groups as big deal, think twice, decisive decisions that would shape your country for a very long time. That's fine. However, by giving limited and costly ability to change them would not only model such historical examples, but also make gameplay a bit more flexible (Like in example of Sweden that I've given, where despite being dominant naval power of Northern Europe in 1720, you can't enact Exploration to concentrate on colonisation).

 

[Svip]

The problem seems to be that you treat them all as mutely exclusive. Just because Russia gained more quality didn't mean they gave up on quantity. Same with aristocracy, you don't need to exterminate every aristocrat just because you want to go more plutocracy, you take those ideas (plus probably decisions and events) to turn more in that direction. A few groups should be mutely exclusive but those we have already scripted that way.

Did you not say that Aristocracy and Plutocracy were mutually exclusive?

 

[Herr Doctor]

Like in example of Sweden that I've given, where despite being dominant naval power of Northern Europe in 1720, you can't enact Exploration to concentrate on colonisation.

In 1720 Sweden defiantly had not been the dominant naval power of the Baltics as it even could not effectively protect its own coasts from the Russian naval raids. But speaking about your example Denmark not being the great power right at the early 18th century did started very successful colonisation projects at the West Indies (St Thomas, St Croix and St John) as well as since the 17th century participated in slave trade and in not so profitable Indian ventures (Trankebar).

 

[unmerged(63836)]

In 1720 Sweden defiantly had not been the dominant naval power of the Baltics as it even could not effectively protect its own coasts from the Russian naval raids. But speaking about your example Denmark not being the great power right at the early 18th century did started very successful colonisation projects at the West Indies (St Thomas, St Croix and St John) as well as since the 17th century participated in slave trade and in not so profitable Indian ventures (Trankebar).

I meant Sweden in theoretical game when it dominates Scandinavia/Baltics, but lack of free slots prevents it from enacting 'Exploration'.

 

[Herr Doctor]

I meant Sweden in theoretical game when it dominates Scandinavia/Baltics, but lack of free slots prevents it from enacting 'Exploration'.

Ah, I see. My mistake then.

 

[Don_Quigleone]

Sweden would eventually get a slot open up as it's technology advances, and could easily then get the exploration idea.

That said, I assume you probably won't need Exploration to send colonists (I wouldn't describe Russia as an "exploring" power), and by that point most of the map should be revealed anyway.

 

[Jaol]

OK, he added Quality, and Innovativeness then. Plus 1700 is around 2/3rds of the game - there's high chance that at least one level in each idea group would be taken, making Peter's reforms impossible under game mechanics.

Huh? I have no idea what you're talking about--are you suggesting that by 1700 Russia would already have all 8 Idea Groups filled?

Look at the screenshot--the "slots" for Idea Groups unlock at various tech levels. Given that the last one unlocks at "the enlightenment", I'd say most nations won't finalize their Idea Groups till near the end of the game.