• 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 - 21st of May 2019

Hey folks, it's time for another EU4 dev diary! My name's Mike, and like my good colleague @Caligula Caesar I've been part of the EU4 Content Design team since December. We've been working on a solid chunk of Europe, and it's time to start showcasing some of this work. As @neondt has mentioned before, we've had a lot of suggestions and feedback from the community, and through further earnest exchanges we've refined the map further.

But, before we get to the end, let's talk about the process quickly, because I know that's what you truly crave.


image1_smol.png


This image is what was used to pitch the idea of what would end up becoming the revised province layout in northern Italy. As you'll see in a moment, it differs from what we ended up with in a couple of ways- Como was added later, along with a split in another North Italian province. Province 5 was originally conceived as a separate Aquileia province (since the country still exists as a releasable in Friuli, it was tempting to see what could be done with it) but that idea was eventually discarded in favor of a new Trieste province.


image2_smol.png


Southern Italy developed much closer to what the original draft envisioned. The southern half of the Italian Peninsula has only a few additions, Avellino being the one that probably sticks out the most. The island of Sicily received a bit more attention, with the island's three provinces turning into five instead. Its new divisions were guided a little bit more by game design priorities than historical divisions, as historical divisions like Sicily's real province of Trapani had sizes and shapes that would have really stuck out like a sore thumb in EU4.

Unlike the northern Italian proposal, the southern Italian one was nearly implemented as-is. The biggest difference is that “Agrigento” had its name changed to “Girgenti”, which seemed more accurate for the period. Conversely, several proposed name changes to pre-existing provinces were not implemented, as they just didn't seem necessary upon review.


“Show us the new map already!” I can hear you guys politely demanding. Fine, fine!


italy_whole.png


Three new countries were added to the map as independent states. In the far north is the Prince-Bishopric of Trent, an Austrian country in control of an Italian province. To the west lies Saluzzo, nervously wedged between Savoy and France. In Romagna, Bologna is now an independent republic coveted by its neighbors.

Alongside these three countries are a couple new potential revolters. Padua and Verona now have cores on their respective provinces and can break away from Venice if the stars align, and Spoleto now exists as a core in Spoleto province, in case the Papal State's control of Central Italy ever starts to fall apart.

If we zoom in a little, more details reveal themselves.


northern italy.png


As the conversation linked at the start of this post highlights, Como originally was not considered, but after some discussion it became apparent that the inclusion of it (or at least something north of Milan) was called for. Thus, Como's complete contours now complement the comprehensive composition of that corner.

The creation of a separate Bologna province also prompted a revision of the remnant of old Romagna province; the old province's capital is now Ravenna, and Ravenna was taken by Venice in 1440 or 1441, so Romagna now starts off under Venetian rather than Papal control, although the Papacy does retain its core on the province. I'm sure this is fine and will definitely not be a source of tension between the two countries.


southern italy.png


Southern Italy was implemented essentially as described above. Sardinia received some attention and now includes Arborea as its own province on the west side of the island, but other Sardinian giudicati were not included primarily for the sake of balance- Sassari province in northern Sardinia has only 3/3/2 development as it is, and splitting that in two would create provinces with as little development as an Uzbek province in the Steppes.

Aside from the obvious mapwork, there is one other thing we added to southern Italy:

two_sicilies.png



And there you have it! Next week, we'll be talking about missions.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The province of “Campagna and Marittima” was established first in the end of the XII Century, with Frosinone as its Capital.

It makes no sense to call a province as a city and make another’s city capital. It’s better to name the province as the administrative division and then place the capital.

Frosinone was the seat of the government of the province, so it should take the cake.

In my Suggestion about the Papal States, I used Campagna as the name and Frosinone as the Capital.

As for the Latina suggestion, I admit I wanted to make a Dev reply to the post, because I find Terracina not the ideal name for the province. Shame to me, I guess.


It was indeed estabilished early, but Ferentino was the capital until the 16th century. Italian wiki even says that the seat was moved to Frosinone as a dmal and neutral border fort due to Neapolitan pressure. And Frosinone itself only started to develop later on - by late 18th century, it still had a population of only 3000, when many other cities nearby were much larger.
https://it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campagna_e_Marittima
 
I figured the best way to represent Perugia was by having it as a Papal province with high autonomy. Like Bologna, in the 15th century it had an ambitious signoria at the helm, this is true, but its closer proximity to Rome meant that even at the Signoria's height, the Papacy seemed to exert more influence there than they could in Bologna at the same time. While it took Battle Pope Julius II getting militarily involved for Bologna to really come back into the Papal fold, Popes Sixtus IV, Innocent VIII and others were already repeatedly intervening in Perugian politics on their own.

History is never clear-cut and in this period in particular there's a lot of cases of polities that could be read one way or the other. Ultimately, based on the influence of the Popes and how the two cities were ultimately reincorporated into the Papal State, I made the call the way I did.
Thanks for the explanation. However, Perugia being fully integrated while Bologna being independent is a big difference and from what you said here, the difference between them does not sound that big. If Perugia was more tightly under Papal rule, perhaps Perugia being a vassal while Bologna being independent or Perugia being integrated while Bologna being vassal would be a better solution.
 
I figured the best way to represent Perugia was by having it as a Papal province with high autonomy. Like Bologna, in the 15th century it had an ambitious signoria at the helm, this is true, but its closer proximity to Rome meant that even at the Signoria's height, the Papacy seemed to exert more influence there than they could in Bologna at the same time. While it took Battle Pope Julius II getting militarily involved for Bologna to really come back into the Papal fold, Popes Sixtus IV, Innocent VIII and others were already repeatedly intervening in Perugian politics on their own.

History is never clear-cut and in this period in particular there's a lot of cases of polities that could be read one way or the other. Ultimately, based on the influence of the Popes and how the two cities were ultimately reincorporated into the Papal State, I made the call the way I did.


At the same time as I was working with the above reasoning, I didn't want to remove any countries from the map if I could help it. Especially with Federico da Montefeltro, I didn't want to remove Urbino. So, ultimately I left it as it is. It is a little arbitrary, I will not deny that, but I had some reasons for making the calls I did.


Signorias are weird and aren't quite monarchies. A dictatorship or oligarchic form of government seems most apt for them. Even Florence under the Medici is in the game as a republic.


I was partially motivated by meta-reasons, as I enjoy playing CK2 from time to time and came to this looking at its relation to the Middle Ages as much as I did looking at how things played out during the EU4 period. Plus, with Perugia addressed as a province with high autonomy and and certain surliness, I wanted something else for the other central province in the Papacy's domain. Thus, Spoleto.

Let me reply in order:

1) Perugia required a war for the Pope’s to bring it under their full control. Local autonomy ticks down over time, but the conquest of Perugia was a conquest, not a slow integration. The province of Perugia (not Umbria) with high local autonomy does nothing to represent its situation and does not add anything on the strategic plane. For me it’s a really odd and wrong decision. But you made it arbitrarily so what can I say?

2) Why is Bologna independent though? Bologna was stille the seat of a Papal Legate which tried to interfere as many time as possible in the administration of the city. If you made Bologna a rebellious vassal it would have been fine and less arbitrary. It seems like you favor nation based on sentiment, which is the worst thing to do.

3) I did not ask to remove Urbino. I was asking to make Perugia and Bologna vassals to the Pope. So the combined strength would make them disloyal and would require ability for the Papal States player to bring them under full control. It would have been the soundest choice in my opinion.

4) You made a government reform only for Dithmarschen. I do not understand why you cannot modify the Dictatorship government to have a fixed dynasty and pretender-like Revolts. I also described 5 whole ways to portray an Occult Signoria in game in my lengthy suggestion about the Papal States and Central Italy. The most conservatives ones are implementable less than a day.

I’m not happy with how Florence isn’t portrayed either. Since this is the European Update, I expected more love for Europe. It seems like you are walking on the path of less resistance. This game was bold, once.

5) So you favored a nation over the other, introducing something completely ahistorical because you like that in another game? I’m baffled. I have preferred no answers on this.
You’re basically saying that “a nation that was very much alive and not wanting to be put under the Pope’s control is a fully integrated province but a Duchy which was long dead and would never appear again in history again is a perfect releasable nation”.
 
Last edited:
It was indeed estabilished early, but Ferentino was the capital until the 16th century. Italian wiki even says that the seat was moved to Frosinone as a dmal and neutral border fort due to Neapolitan pressure. And Frosinone itself only started to develop later on - by late 18th century, it still had a population of only 3000, when many other cities nearby were much larger.
https://it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campagna_e_Marittima

You could opt for Ferentino as the capital, of course. But since the developers seems to have already used Frosinone then it would require less work.
 
Siena wasn't a harbor-city, this has been adressed multiple times in the suggestion sub-forums. And the Romagna was more than the surroundings of Ravenna, so please rename Romagna to Ravenna.

I'm also not happy with Bologna's independence, it should be an unruly vassal. It feels really strange how many German tags are vassals or integrated parts of other tags while Bologna gets a 'free pass'. Sorry, I just can't get behind that.

A more in-depth look will follow like last week, when I get home. @Van Kasten I feel you my friend, the arbitrariness can be felt from miles away. There have been so many good suggestions.

Also disappointed that square-Venice didn't die.
 
Beware Mighty @Mingmung, the destroyer of maps!

At least for me, Southern Italy looks fine (except two-province state). The Northen part could and should be more divised but still nothing criminal.
 
Last edited:
Siena wasn't a harbor-city, this has been adressed multiple times in the suggestion sub-forums. And the Romagna was more than the surroundings of Ravenna, so please rename Romagna to Ravenna.

I'm also not happy with Bologna's independence, it should be an unruly vassal. It feels really strange how many German tags are vassals or integrated parts of other tags while Bologna gets a 'free pass'. Sorry, I just can't get behind that.

A more in-depth look will follow like last week, when I get home. @Van Kasten I feel you my friend, the arbitrariness can be felt from miles away.

Also disappointed that square-Venice didn't die.

Coastal Siena is a sin that is there since game release I believe.

Romagna is an area that consists of the EU4 provinces of Ferrara, Bologna and Ravenna. So please change it to Ravenna. Also, Ravenna could be added as a releasable nation, since it was conquered in 1441, just three years from game start!!!
 
Beware Mighty @Mingmung, the destroyer of maps!

At least for me, Southern Italy looks fine (expect two-province state). The Northen part could and should be more divised but still nothing criminal.
The amount is fine (in my opinion), and many requested provinces and tags implemented. Just not happy with some of the finer detaills I and @Van Kasten pointed out. The new map of Germany has similar issues.

Three main issues:
- Some province-names
- Some province-owners
- The choice of releasables

I will check city-locations when I'm home, but Siena and Görz do stand out.
 
I'm not a big knower of Italy but I got a feeling that central Italy looks a bit poor? In provinces and tags?

Also since the number of tags increases could the Archduchy and Kingdoms get an extra dip slot now? We have been running with four since 2013 and the number of tags has I don't know, been doubled?
 
Bergamo (city) should be more to the north and Saluzzo (city) more to the east (very, very close to the border).

Also, it seems like the city of Görtz isn't really located in the province, even. A shame it isn't a tag, too.
 
I guess no Grosetto on the coast of Siena, because then Tuscany would have 6 provinces. As much I wanted to see Grosetto (to make Siena inland), at least as much I DON'T want to see Tuscany divided into two states.
I would rather make 6-province states a thing, there are plenty of places where there are 5 provinces, but there could be one more (Britanny, for example: I hope they add Léon, but I feel bad about splitting it into Haut- and Bas-Bretagne).
Also, the province I miss the most is Aosta, since I want Arpitan culture to be a thing.

But I wouldn't support adding stupid little provinces like Piombino, Massa, Rimini, and whatever those obsessive perfectionists plan.
 
Last edited:
Is the 20 province penalty cap of merchant republic going to be changed? Otherwise RIP European-Venetian full core. (Starting with 5 provinces in Italy (25% of cap) -> 8 provinces in Italy (40% of cap), without any more development)
 
Is the 20 province penalty cap of merchant republic going to be changed? Otherwise RIP European-Venetian full core. (Starting with 5 provinces in Italy (25% of cap) -> 8 provinces in Italy (40% of cap), without any more development)
They will also have their holdings in the Adriatic and Mediterranean, which start as state cores.
 
We will surely be adding new ideas to them. More details on that another time.

Someone mentioned Italy's areas. Actually, the result of adding more provinces was that areas ended up looking much nicer now than in 1.28 (even if the colours generated for all of them seem to be conspiring to make it not look so at the moment):

View attachment 482542

I wanted to ask you sir is will you perhaps add the ability to rename states and territories that you, as a player, control ?
 
Bergamo (city) should be more to the north and Saluzzo (city) more to the east (very, very close to the border).

Also, it seems like the city of Görtz isn't really located in the province, even. A shame it isn't a tag, too.
One factor with Saluzzo and Bergamo is that the cities render weirdly when they're on steep slopes. Both those were moved to their present locations because the cities looked extremely funky otherwise.
 
One factor with Saluzzo and Bergamo is that the cities render weirdly when they're on steep slopes. Both those were moved to their present locations because the cities looked extremely funky otherwise.
That's understandable, but what about Görz for example? Its vanilla position was quite alright.
 
Last edited: