Europa Universalis IV Developer diary 17 – Honey, don’t you want to talk about it?

[kaspar42]

In CKII we got the option of designating a person as important. Can we designate countries as important in EUIV?
E.g. if I have secret designs on Holland, I really want to know it if their alliance with England is cancelled, or they get entangled in a war. But as the same time I don't want to hear about alliances and wars between countries I don't care about.

 

[Swedish Steel!]

I hope at last eastern units will become better. It is not like we never had good infantry, we did, it is more about the fact we did have vast territories, that were barely fortified(and not mountainious type mostly), MEANING that infantry would be pretty useless in those terrains. Polish infantry was quite strong, often coming from nobles(because not all nobles were able to support a horse, and even if they were, they did not allways had to be cavalry type - they could just use horses to travel only - like if they were infantry regiments officers), and their servant. Ukrainian revolts were mostly using infantry, because they were not the wealthy ones, only they got cavalry when they allied with tatars. Russian infantry, was greatly trained, i say at some times, just better than polish, aspecialy late time, but not allways of course. Russia in comparison to poland was more infantry type, when they conquered tatars, they used them as mercenaries. Russia also was one of the countries that quite early used (propably field) artilery on bigger scale(was one of the reasons for muscovite victories over tatars). And they did used it in XV century(second half mostly, thou).

Something that Polish armies actually traditionally lacked was quality infantry, which had to be drawn from sources like Hungarian and German mercenaries. That's at least what Polish historian Radoslaw Sikora enlightened me with and it was due to Polish society not being built to support large, quality infantry in line with the nobles' wishes because it would give more power to factions other than themselves. Armed and especially armed and trained peasants were AFAIK viewed as a dangerous element. The exception is the huge number of armed servants and other irregular infantry that flourished in conflicts such as the Dmitryads, but they were just that - irregular and not state-sanctioned or trained. It's pretty much the reason why Sweden could challenge PLC, made most clear when crown lands and not just Lithuanian areas were attacked so that not even the king wanted to use the irregular infantry.

 

[Andy_Dandy]

It's impossible to form GB and Spain in 27 years because you need the cores ( 50 years ).
The major problem in multi is the heavy starting blobbing. I see that it's always a problem in EU4.

Making relation points mean the same between human players as it means between AI's and AI-Humans would solve alot of that, like I mentioned in my previous post. It's too easy to ally whomever, change alliances and exploit the diplo-system in every way possible for the human player. I've never stopped beeing amazed about the creativity I see in finding new exploits and using them shamelessly in multiplayer. The list of possible exploits of the diplomacy system is longer then the chinese wall. The AI can't stand up to this of course, they are playing by the rules set by singleplayer, and the AI's are usually the first to be eaten raw in no time thanks to limitless "smart" ways of human coop.

 

[Jia Xu]

Impact of expansion depends on what you conquer and how those countries view it.
Poland won't care much if you conquer Tangiers as Castille, but Aragon & Portugal may be a bit wary, while Morocco & Algiers will hate it.

This sounds great, and I thank you for your response.

Another question if you don't mind: Is "Aggressive Expansion" a modifier applied for all conquests or just certain CBs? Will my neighbours be starting coalitions against me if I do things like conquer core provinces? In EU3 retaking a cored province was a 0 BB action (when you used the reclaim core CB, of course). Is that still the case with this new system in EU4?

 

[unmerged(63836)]

Something that Polish armies actually traditionally lacked was quality infantry, which had to be drawn from sources like Hungarian and German mercenaries. That's at least what Polish historian Radoslaw Sikora enlightened me with and it was due to Polish society not being built to support large, quality infantry in line with the nobles' wishes because it would give more power to factions other than themselves. Armed and especially armed and trained peasants were AFAIK viewed as a dangerous element. The exception is the huge number of armed servants and other irregular infantry that flourished in conflicts such as the Dmitryads, but they were just that - irregular and not state-sanctioned or trained. It's pretty much the reason why Sweden could challenge PLC, made most clear when crown lands and not just Lithuanian areas were attacked so that not even the king wanted to use the irregular infantry.

That's correct. Stephen Bathory tried to create 'Piechota Wybraniecka' recruited from crown's peasants, but eventually idea failed. Infantry was of secondary importance, meant for siege warfare, not battles - that was domain of cavalry. Problem is that PLC (strong cav weak inf) and Russia (strong inf weak cav) fall into same techgroup with same units.

 

[Swedish Steel!]

That's correct. Stephen Bathory tried to create 'Piechota Wybraniecka' recruited from crown's peasants, but eventually idea failed. Infantry was of secondary importance, meant for siege warfare, not battles - that was domain of cavalry. Problem is that PLC (strong cav weak inf) and Russia (strong inf weak cav) fall into same techgroup with same units.

Yep, and I dislike that too. I hope for units to be more a question of how the country is organised than some arbitrary tech grouping (I don't understand or think it makes any sense that Poland would be ''technologically unable'' or something to adapt a model much like any other European nation just because it was or is defined as eastern European). Sweden had a large amount of cannon fodder infantry because there was a relatively strong peasant class to draw it from, Poland had relatively large amounts of highly trained, well-armed cavalry that tore Charles IX's armies to shreds again and again because that's what Poland was organised to support - not because Sweden was ''western'' and Poland ''eastern''. I can only hope as you do that it actually makes sense in EU4.

EDIT: Corrected Charles XI into Charles IX

 

[WashDisher]

Is Elsass-Lorraine square again?

 

[Avrelianvs]

Yep, and I dislike that too. I hope for units to be more a question of how the country is organised than some arbitrary tech grouping (I don't understand or think it makes any sense that Poland would be ''technologically unable'' or something to adapt a model much like any other European nation just because it was or is defined as eastern European). Sweden had a large amount of cannon fodder infantry because there was a relatively strong peasant class to draw it from, Poland had relatively large amounts of highly trained, well-armed cavalry that tore Charles XI's armies to shreds again and again because that's what Poland was organised to support - not because Sweden was ''western'' and Poland ''eastern''. I can only hope as you do that it actually makes sense in EU4.

+1

 

[Filip de Norre]

Looks good. The diplomatic system of CK II is superior to that of EU3 and a good choice for EU4 as well. The icons and interface generally look very neat. Would have been a bit more informative though if we could get an screen from a singleplayer game 17 years in, to see how the AI does it. That humans have managed so early to form GB, blob France, blob Burgundy, survive as Muscowy, become indenpendent as Sweden and so on, doesn't say much about the AI, but looks good.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

Couple of obs

The 'cancel vassalisation' option suggests there may be a cost to having vassals now
You can claim other countrys' thrones

 

[Dankysh]

Austria
England
Castille
Portugal
France
Burgundy
Muscowy
Bohemia
Poland
Mamelukes
Ottoman Empire
Venice
Denmark
Sweden
Teutonic Order
Viyanagar
Lithuania

Thanks Gars & Johan for a list. Interesting to look at the map. So Venice has got Rome, I wonder how EUIV handles that. Do Catholic nations get the mission to liberate Rome for the Pope, is there negative consequences, can we create Vactican City etc. Going to be interesting to see

 

[siis]

Impact of expansion depends on what you conquer and how those countries view it.

Poland won't care much if you conquer Tangiers as Castille, but Aragon & Portugal may be a bit wary, while Morocco & Algiers will hate it.

So if one half of the world dislikes me, I turn around and conquer the other half till relations are back to normal? I like it

Couple of obs

The 'cancel vassalisation' option suggests there may be a cost to having vassals now
You can claim other countrys' thrones

Doesn't a Vassal cost 1 diplomat / reducing your max. diplomats by 1? Or diplomatic point upkeep... something like that if it hasn't changed

 

[mchaza]

What I want to know is your stance on current fixed win, lose or draw peacemaking. In EU3 you had either you demand (win), white peace (draw), or offer (lose), and you couldn't say negotiate both a demand and a offer situation. For example two kingdoms are locked in a massive war, say England and France, France happens to control some of Ireland, and England holds Calais, there should be a option for France to surrender its Ireland properties in exchange for England seeding Calais to France, it could be classed as another form of draw.

Also and no doubt has been fixed but the crazy peace offers by the AI are to the point of ridiculous that aren't funny at all, especially those minor one Provence weak members demanding that despite dominating my main foe and have a 100% chance of victory, wants me to surrender some or all my vassals pay them a huge sum of gold and break agreements with other nations, then what it should be a " I am so sorry for declaring war on you, peace do not invade and annex or vassalage me".

 

[VI Imre]

On one hand I love the new rival options. It will surely make diplomacy a lot more better in depth.

On the other the map is now not simply ugly but awful. I really hope that you're still working on it.

 

[I Killed Kenny]

BRILLIANT

Thanks!

 

[Andy_Dandy]

Doesn't a Vassal cost 1 diplomat / reducing your max. diplomats by 1? Or diplomatic point upkeep... something like that if it hasn't changed

We will soon now more and they said they've changed it a little bit. We know from earlier screenies that it used to be 1 diplo-point (not 1 diplomat) in upkeep per vassal. At least Venice payed that.

I'd suspect it works something like this now:

- You can have a set amount of alliances and/or vassals without having to pay any upkeep at all.
- If you get over this limit you will have to pay an upkeep, this is payed with a certain amount of diplo-points each month.
- Certain ideas etc. may give you a higher amount of "deals" free of upkeep, like the french start NI that gives you +2 such deals for free(most likely so it can afford all the vassals it starts with). It's not one time deals we talk about here, but running agreements like alliances and vassals.

- Chances are that bad relations leads to higher diplo-point costs, both on upkeep and implementation of certain deals, but this is just me hoping. The rest are qualified guesses......

 

[Korsan82]

Nice improvements to diplomacy, thanks. I want to suggest that vassals and PU nations should be surrounded with color of their masters in political map:

Ingame

awesome idea.

The DD this time looks good and I like the changes. But when talking about diplomacy:

- is it possible to demand tribute from nations without going to war with them? (Pay or you will die)
- Will there be an option to demand core lands in possession of other nations? HOI2 had this feature I think...
- is it possible to send missionaries into foreign territories?

 

[macd21]

What I want to know is your stance on current fixed win, lose or draw peacemaking. In EU3 you had either you demand (win), white peace (draw), or offer (lose), and you couldn't say negotiate both a demand and a offer situation. For example two kingdoms are locked in a massive war, say England and France, France happens to control some of Ireland, and England holds Calais, there should be a option for France to surrender its Ireland properties in exchange for England seeding Calais to France, it could be classed as another form of draw.

The problem is the AI can't handle that kind of offer. It's too easy for the player to manipulate it, giving (for example) a high value province in a strategically vulnerable location for 3 low value provinces in a strategically essential position, allowing the player to win the next war with ease.

 

[Tufto]

Good DD. More Diplomacy is always a good thing

One question, mentioned here already: as GB+ Spain have already formed, has the "50 year core" system been changed? Or the need for core in unification?

 

[unmerged(63836)]

Yep, and I dislike that too. I hope for units to be more a question of how the country is organised than some arbitrary tech grouping (I don't understand or think it makes any sense that Poland would be ''technologically unable'' or something to adapt a model much like any other European nation just because it was or is defined as eastern European). Sweden had a large amount of cannon fodder infantry because there was a relatively strong peasant class to draw it from, Poland had relatively large amounts of highly trained, well-armed cavalry that tore Charles IX's armies to shreds again and again because that's what Poland was organised to support - not because Sweden was ''western'' and Poland ''eastern''. I can only hope as you do that it actually makes sense in EU4.

EDIT: Corrected Charles XI into Charles IX

Yeah. Polish military in 15th century was basically typical late medieval European army, with same tactics, weapons, armour, formations as say France. It was only later, when it developed it's distinct character due to Eastern influences from Balkans, Muscovy, Tatars, and Ottomans, geography (vast territories, steppe frontier) and socio-political factors (numerous nobility dominant). Without union with Lithuania appearance of Winged Hussars would be highly unlikely. I would prefer, if in EU4 countries could decide what character their military would have (cavalry dominant, infantry+artillery dominant, balanced etc.). If somehow Sweden would inherit Lithuania, it would not march into steppes with sluggishly slow, tightly packed pike & musket formations - they would develop different, more cavalry focused military over time. Unfortunately it doesn't seems to be the case, and we have even less customisation with sliders gone.

EDIT

But that's slightly OT. I like changes revealed in this DD - there should be a lot more sense on the map now.