• 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.

EU4 - Development Diary - 5th of March 2019

Good morning. As was foretold, I am back to talk about our thoughts on overhauling the map of the Balkans for the big end-of-year European update. Once again I’ll begin with a disclaimer that everything here is very much subject to change as we continue to listen to feedback and iterate on our own ideas throughout the year.

balkans_old.jpg


Behold: the Balkans in patch 1.4. And for reference, here are the Balkans as they are now, in patch 1.28:

balkans_new.jpg


The big change here is simply “more provinces”. Albania has been split up substantially, we have more Aegean Islands, and provinces density in Bulgaria is higher.

There is still, in my opinion, plenty of room for new provinces in Greece and Bulgaria. For the mainland we want to achieve a similar level of density as we see in Anatolia. One of the most obvious things we can do is split the Yanya province by adding Arta, one of the last Epirote cities to fall to the Ottomans. The return of the Epirus tag in 1444 heralds another change: the removal of the Corfu tag, at least in 1444. In the game right now, Corfu is a vassal of Venice and ruled by monarchs who were in fact the independent rulers of the Despotate of Epirus. This will change.

Other possibilities include a province that would more accurately reflect the Ottoman-Moldavian border in Silistria/Basarabia, a further split in the Aegean between Scio and Lesbos, and a separate province centered on the city of Tarnovo in Bulgaria.

greece_suggestion.jpg


This suggestion by Mingmung, and others very much like it, show a step in the right direction. Beyond what I’ve already mentioned, I like the idea of splitting Cephalonia from the Corfu province to add a little tactical depth to Epirus, as well as the addition of Corinth in the south. We are however unlikely to add extra provinces on Cyprus or Crete: outside of very large islands like Sardinia and Sicily we prefer to keep such places restrained to single provinces.

Moving north-west, there’s a lot that could be done in Serbia, Bosnia, and the Dalmatian coast. There’s room for a few more provinces of course, though not quite so many as we might need further south.

balkans_suggestion.jpg


This very aesthetically pleasing suggestion by ootats has a lot going for it. Representing Herzegovina/the Duchy of Saint Sava as a Bosnian vassal in 1444 is an interesting possibility. It also puts the province density on a level similar to that of Hungary, which I feel is a good target to aim for in the region. It is however unlikely that we’ll be adding both the Venetian provinces of Scutari and Cataro.

We’ve been reading your comments on the previous dev diary, and they’ve provoked a lot of discussion on Team Content Design. One of the results of these discussions is that we’re more open to a Como province that would split away from the northern part of what is now Milan. When the time comes for implementation it's certainly something we're willing to try out.

And that's all for today! Next week I invite you to join me on a wild ride through the confusing nightmarish mess that was Early Modern Germany. Until then, I look forward to more of your comments and suggestions.
 
Actually predecessor of this state called Septinsular Republic could be added instead (looks like it was dependent to Russia & Ottomans together) but is it really necessary? Its 1800s tag so won't exist in %99 games.

Thank you for the info!

[ link to the Septinsular Republic for those interested https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septinsular_Republic#Religion ]

I don't think that it being a late game tag should disqualify it from inclusion. The USA got independence in 1776 and Mexico between 1810 and 1821 but we wouldn't say they shouldn't be formable or playable, and that's before we get to the debates about Scandinavia and Yugoslavia.

Personally, I don't feel too strongly about it; my main point was that the inclusion of Kythira (suggested by Fluffy_Fishy) could potentially help answer a lot of the requests being made here, from more formable nations, more provinces, Crete's status as one or two provinces, Core-Fu, Venice's strength relative to the Ottomans, cultures, events, etc.

Also... Why have one when you can have both!? ;)

EDIT: You've all got me doing a bit of Googling and the link included below talks about Venetian rule on the Ionian Islands. Kythira is named Cythera in this article. There's information about its name in Italian, Greek and Turkish, its economy (or mainly about how many olive trees were on it :p), alongside its history and religion.

There's also a bit about Venice sending colonists to boost the local population of the islands, which could translate to a nice event. There's also the possibility of Kythira, together with Corfu and Kefalonia, making a nice little three province vassal to help Venice against the Ottomans...

I really think Fluffy_Fishy is spot on and Kythira needs some love.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetian_rule_in_the_Ionian_Islands
 
Last edited:
I tried to be politically correct, but yeah, western sources are usually closer to the hungarian ones.



Totally agreed, and there's a way to split Slovakia: Having a Slovakia/Upper Hungary state, from Pressburg to Szepes/Spis (there's 1 province space left ;) ), and move Zemplén to Zakkarpathia/Kártpátalja state, which could also include present Maramaros, and a Szatmar province could be added to have 3 provinces. Basically Hungary needs a slight rework/buff, especially as with this patch, all it's neighbours got updated (Poland, Romania, Serbia, Bosnia, Venice, Austria, Bohemia, and also the Ottos). I really hope the devs will turn their attention there once more, as the hungarian patch was rather disappointing.



The best way is probably change some provinces' (Temes, Somogy, and Bács are the best applicants) culture through event/mission/decision. Yet there are other areas with significant german population without any representation (basically there are such areas throughout central and eastern europe.



I absolutely oppose this Carpathian group. Basically Slovakians and Romanians didn't have anything in common. As i stated before, Romanians fit better in the Balkans (South Slavic) group, and I would welcome hungarians' addition to the Central European (West Slavic), because of: similar culture (just check folklore stuff), mutual influence on each other (loanwords and hungarian monarchs in Poland, and also there was a polish one in Hungary), and similar history (being between east and west, basically a transition between them).
Well then let's agree to disagree. I think there was more cultural exchanges between the Romanian principalties, Transylvania and Hungary during the timeframe, than with either the South slavic states or the west slavic ones.
I do agree though that Slovakian could be moved to the West Slavic group.
 
I don't want us to argue back and fort, so I think your proposal on Bosnian culture appearing via an event is fine. This way you don't rewrite history and you represent Bosnian culture in a plausible way. It would be something like Brazilian or Mexican appearing later in a game.

I also don't want to go back and forth, but you saying that puting Bosnian culture into the game is "rewriting history" forces me to answer back. The only rewriting of History done was by Serb and Croat historiography, to say that the Bosnian name under the synonims of Bošnjani prior to the 15th century and in the 15th century Bošnjaci (Bosniaks) does not appear is exactly that, a rewriting of History. So if you don't want to go there, then just don't go there and talk in terms of gameplay.

The game itself has many cultures that are not solely based on ethnicity, but are rather more based on a combination of Ethnic and Regional differences in certain regions. As I mentioned Transilvanya before, and the many German cultures that are in-game, aswel as Italian and French Cultures. So there is definitely a basis for introducing a Bosnian aswel as a Slovenian culture in the base game. Bosnian culture has been added into Crusader Kings 2, I see no reason why it should not be added into Europa Universalis IV.
 
Well then let's agree to disagree. I think there was more cultural exchanges between the Romanian principalties, Transylvania and Hungary during the timeframe, than with either the South slavic states or the west slavic ones.
I do agree though that Slovakian could be moved to the West Slavic group.

Any arguement or just your opinion?
Romanian duchies had only some sporadic relevance, while for example Poland was in personal union with Hungary, and Bohemia was conquered by Matthias Corvinus. Could you say anything similar in the case of Romania?
 
I think this is a great little suggestion that's been lost in the middle of all the arguing over formable Yugoslavia, Balkan nationalism, and "fanboy" insults.

Why do I think it's a great suggestion? Well first of all I read a bit about the history of the island:

https://www.greeka.com/ionian/kythira/kythira-history.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kythira

It seems that the island would've been under Venetian rule during this period. To me, that means the island immediately represents an alternative to splitting Crete in two, hopefully placating both the people that want to see a divided Crete and those that don't.

Within the timeframe of EU4, the island was also occupied by the Ottomans, Russians, French and British.

Additionally, reading about Kythira meant I came across this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_the_Ionian_Islands

The United States of the Ionian Islands. This might also interest those talking about the Core-Fu achievement and those pining for more formable nations. It could (should?) also be a releasable vassal state during the later stages of the game.
Thank you for expanding on my post. Its a fantastic little island with an interesting history and I'd like to see it either included as part of the collection of islands, grouped together with Ithaca, Zakynthos, Lefkada and Kephalonia or as its own free standing nation. Corfu should definitely be its own province though.

Its probably a bit much but I'd even be up for having Corfu, The grouping of Zakynthos, Lefkada Ithica and Kephalonia then having Kythira as 3 separate provinces. this would make the inclusion of the Septinsular Republic as a nation really viable too although it would seem a little out of place compared to the greek mainland province density.
 
Thank you for expanding on my post. Its a fantastic little island with an interesting history and I'd like to see it either included as part of the collection of islands, grouped together with Ithaca, Zakynthos, Lefkada and Kephalonia or as its own free standing nation. Corfu should definitely be its own province though.

Its probably a bit much but I'd even be up for having Corfu, The grouping of Zakynthos, Lefkada Ithica and Kephalonia then having Kythira as 3 separate provinces. this would make the inclusion of the Septinsular Republic as a nation really viable too although it would seem a little out of place compared to the greek mainland province density.

Yeah, I think it was a nice little find on your part. There's actually quite a lot the devs could do with it.

I would say it 100% needs to be separated from the mainland province but then whether it becomes it's own island (my preferred take given what I've read and how it could answer some of the suggestions made here), part of Ithaca (already proposed as a separate province in the OP of this thread [Province 37 on the third map]), or part of Crete, or another solution would be up to the devs (obviously).

I'm with you completely in 1. Corfu, 2. Ithaca, 3. Kythira as a three province vassal under Venice at the start of the game. I wouldn't worry about the mainland province density because I think that will be getting changed, however; even if it doesn't, Greece was always a big seafaring nation so I don't see why a lot of islands would be an issue - Greece is known for this!

As a three province vassal under Venice, the islands could be named the 'Venetian Ionian Islands.' If they become independent for whatever reason, they're able to form the 'Septinsular Republic,' and late game the three islands could be released by any power as the 'United States of the Ionian Islands.'

In my reading about this topic, I found this passage on the Republic of Venice: "On 14 May 1509, Venice was crushingly defeated at the battle of Agnadello, in the Ghiara d'Adda, marking one of the most delicate points in Venetian history. French and imperial troops were occupying Veneto, but Venice managed to extricate itself through diplomatic efforts. The Apulian ports were ceded in order to come to terms with Spain, and Pope Julius II soon recognised the danger brought by the eventual destruction of Venice (then the only Italian power able to face kingdoms like France or empires like the Ottomans)."

If historically Venice was the only power able to withstand both Big Blue Blob and Big Green Blob, then it probably needs a buff. A more powerful vassal in the form of the Venetian Ionian Islands would be a good start, but if the Ottomans are going to get more provinces too, then I think the balance will always remain in the Ottomans' favour. Saying that, more island provinces will buff the Venetian navy AND make it easier for Venice to strategically block the Ottoman's at crossing points.This also seems to be pretty historically correct too, judging by what's contained in the articles I've read.

Exciting stuff and I'm looking forward to the end of 2019 (when I still won't have time to play!).
 
Ithaca is too small, its not even currently on the map, it would need to be Kephalonia.

The war of the League of Cambrai is a bit off topic but Venetian resistance to major foreign powers is particularly underestimated, they had vast wealth which funded an impressive military all backed up by the most modern diplomatic service in the world. if we are looking at Venice in particular it would be nice to see a little bit more interest played in Dalmatia, Crete and its holdings in mainland Italy where it drew most of its manpower. Its probably worth dropping in that Venice didn't rely on mercenaries anywhere near to the extent that people think it did, they relied on a core of hugely impressive marines that formed the backbone to amphibious strategy until the 19th century. As a nation the Venetians survived being squashed between France, Spain, Austria, The Ottomans and the Pope, quite a mean feat in anyone's books.
 
Centers of trade under siege or occupied should give a penalty to trade in the region which could infuriate others and cause a penalty drop.
 
I also don't want to go back and forth, but you saying that puting Bosnian culture into the game is "rewriting history" forces me to answer back. The only rewriting of History done was by Serb and Croat historiography, to say that the Bosnian name under the synonims of Bošnjani prior to the 15th century and in the 15th century Bošnjaci (Bosniaks) does not appear is exactly that, a rewriting of History. So if you don't want to go there, then just don't go there and talk in terms of gameplay.

The game itself has many cultures that are not solely based on ethnicity, but are rather more based on a combination of Ethnic and Regional differences in certain regions. As I mentioned Transilvanya before, and the many German cultures that are in-game, aswel as Italian and French Cultures. So there is definitely a basis for introducing a Bosnian aswel as a Slovenian culture in the base game. Bosnian culture has been added into Crusader Kings 2, I see no reason why it should not be added into Europa Universalis IV.

And again with the "rewriting history"...
I would have nothing against bosnian culture ingame, if there are even various german and french cultures, sure, but irl if your argument is that "Dobri Bosnjani" (which suddenly started existing after Bosnia got independence) were once or twice mentioned by someone, then today there should be like 30 nations on the balkans following that logics, Ragusans, Neretvans, Dalmatians, Slavonians, Rashans etc... because they were all also mentioned in various times as groups of people with their own subcultures. You cant just learn history, you also have to understand it so you avoid giving something a meaning it didnt have at that time, especially a country where even most noble families came from somewhere else.

Like that guy said, an event for bosnian culture would be good since bosnia is a relatively young country at game starting date.
I would also add an event for the bosnian church since its a unique thing.
 
I'd probably group the Albanian culture with the Greeks instead of South Slavs, it would make more sense imo. Other than that, everything suggested above looks great!
 
Any arguement or just your opinion?
Romanian duchies had only some sporadic relevance, while for example Poland was in personal union with Hungary, and Bohemia was conquered by Matthias Corvinus. Could you say anything similar in the case of Romania?
A couple of arguments yes:
- Louis I of Hungary invaded Moldavia and Wallachia and tried to install pupet rulers on the principalties (successfully in Wallachia, not so in Moldavia).
- Both Vlad II and Vlad III (the Impaler) having spent time at the Hungarian court, and using Transylvania as a base in their fight against the subjugation of Wallachia by the Ottomans. John Hunyadi, voivode of Transylvania re-asserted Hungarian influance in the Wallachian principalty right before beginning of the game.
- Stephen the Great of Moldavia asserted its independance from Poland and sought support both in Wallachia (from Vlad III) and in Transylvania where he got the support of the Three Nations of Transylvania against Matthias Corvinus.
- Emeric Thököly, prince of Transylvania joined the Ottomans before the Battle of Vienna in 1683 under the promise that he would get most of Upper Hungary (Habsbourg Royal Hungary). If successful, this would have meant something close to a reconstitution of the old Hungarian Kingdom.

So yes, I can say that something similar happened in the case of Romania, and Transylvania, with variou polities trying to ascertain their influence on something of a continum from Hungary - Transylvania - Romania.

To me, this is enough to justify being part of the same cultural group.
I don't see the same thing between Hungarian and West Slavic. Indeed, the PU between Poland and Hungary was really short-lived (1440-1444) and was not tried again afterwards. Same thing for the conquest of Bohemia by Corvinus, short-lived as well.
 
balkans_suggestion.jpg


This is a nice map suggestion, I'd just change some province names and respective town / cities in them. A common thing that bothers me is that Smederevo and Branicevo (as it is in game now) are on both sides of Morava, which is wrong. Both the town and county are on west bank. Proposed changes are:

Šumadija - move border more to Belgrade in the north so it follows river Morava. Town should be Kragujevac with lvl 1 fort
Braničevo - rename it to Smederevo, with a lvl3 fort, capital province at the time
Toplica - rename it to Morava, as it is where is the source of the river and change border a bit to include Kruševac. Town should be also Kruševac (also a capital at one point in history).
Raška, Zeta / Duklja and Kosovo are fine. Concerning Kosovo, maybe Novo Brdo or Trepča should be towns, instead of Priština, as the former was mechant hub, the other a huge mine.
Morava - I really don't know why it was named here in southeastern Serbia, should be simply Niš with the same town.

Some dynamic province names around the Serbian border:

Macso - Mačva
Szerem - Srem
Bacso - Bačka
Torontal - Banat (Nagybecskerek > Veliki Bečkerek)
Cataro - Kotor
Scutari - Skadar
Durazzo - Drač
Lezhe - Lješ
Uskup - Skopje
Ohri - Ohrid

Oh, and it should be Donji Kraj not KrajI, as far as I know.

PS. Local speaking from Valjevo, nevermind the Norwegian flag.
 
This really makes me happy, Balkans really needs to reflect more of the diversity and tension it historically had.
I'll also suggest redrawing the coastline from Istria to Crimea, it's too simplified as it stands now.
 
A couple of arguments yes:
- Louis I of Hungary invaded Moldavia and Wallachia and tried to install pupet rulers on the principalties (successfully in Wallachia, not so in Moldavia).
- Both Vlad II and Vlad III (the Impaler) having spent time at the Hungarian court, and using Transylvania as a base in their fight against the subjugation of Wallachia by the Ottomans. John Hunyadi, voivode of Transylvania re-asserted Hungarian influance in the Wallachian principalty right before beginning of the game.
- Stephen the Great of Moldavia asserted its independance from Poland and sought support both in Wallachia (from Vlad III) and in Transylvania where he got the support of the Three Nations of Transylvania against Matthias Corvinus.
- Emeric Thököly, prince of Transylvania joined the Ottomans before the Battle of Vienna in 1683 under the promise that he would get most of Upper Hungary (Habsbourg Royal Hungary). If successful, this would have meant something close to a reconstitution of the old Hungarian Kingdom.

So yes, I can say that something similar happened in the case of Romania, and Transylvania, with variou polities trying to ascertain their influence on something of a continum from Hungary - Transylvania - Romania.

To me, this is enough to justify being part of the same cultural group.
I don't see the same thing between Hungarian and West Slavic. Indeed, the PU between Poland and Hungary was really short-lived (1440-1444) and was not tried again afterwards. Same thing for the conquest of Bohemia by Corvinus, short-lived as well.

Yeah, this is what i called sporadic :D Basically only the times of Ottoman expansion marked some cooperation/ connection between these countries, while Czech, Polish and Hungarian kingdoms formed the same time (around 1000 ad) and later under Habsburg rule the West Slavic and Hungarian people were part of the the same political entity for the second half of the game. Also, while this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_and_Hungarian_brothers_be) could rather be shown as a historical friendship, I don't think this region should have culture groups like those in western-europe: mostly based on language.
I would rather pack by geographical, historical, cultural aspects, there comes the Central-European and Balkanic (which is not completely South Slav even now, cuz of Albanians).
 
Why not just allow the players to draw borders of their own? This would allow players to create their own provinces which they could name whatever name they want to give to provinces they create. Borders often followed rivers or mountain ranges and later they were drawn along longitude and latitude and possibly even lay lines.

Would this even be possible?
 
I'll also suggest redrawing the coastline from Istria to Crimea, it's too simplified as it stands now.
Most of it is fine, even if maybe a bit simplified. There are two things that really stand out though: No gulf of Trieste, and that pointy peninsula in Dalmatia that doesn't actually exist (but it does on the EUIV map).

Why not just allow the players to draw borders of their own? This would allow players to create their own provinces which they could name whatever name they want to give to provinces they create. Borders often followed rivers or mountain ranges and later they were drawn along longitude and latitude and possibly even lay lines.

Would this even be possible?
Not likely. Maybe in EU6 or EU7?