EU4 - Development Diary - 19th of May 2020

[Hiram_Maxim]

I must say the art for this batch of achievements is WAY better than the ones introduced in Golden Century.

 

[Farck]

To answer some comments:

- Yes, some players only play for achievements.

- For any achievements hunter, this list is underwhelming and disappointing (just 15...).

Previous direction of EU4 understood the mindset and love of some EU4 players for achievements. Not the end of the world, it is just sad to see a step back on this.

 

[EarlKonrad]

To answer some comments:

- Yes, some players only play for achievements.

- For any achievements hunter, this list is underwhelming and disappointing (just 15...).

Previous direction of EU4 understood the mindset and love of some EU4 players for achievements. Not the end of the world, it is just sad to see a step back on this.

Yup. I have 1,3K hours in EU4 and they only thing I do, and ever did, is achievement hunt. To me this list is extremely disappointing. Not only there are very few achievements, but I also don't see the point in hunting most of them.

 

[Twoflower]

Achievements are a matter of taste.
I personally think they are the worst thing to have been introduced to the Europa Universalis franchise (yes, worse than expulsion of minorities ) because they create an expectation of the game and its mechanics that couldn't be any further from what I like about it. Therefore I am very glad for any developing second not spent on creating achievements. But that is just my two cents (and this is not supposed to disparage anybody that happens to enjoy achievements).

 

[threetypesofcorn]

I try not to think too much about achievements and only play for my own reasons, but after six years? Maybe I try to prove something to myself I dunno. It's something I try to balance out.

Though I'd say states being a geographically predetermined area, and the 1-2-3 mission trees are worse offenders when it comes to create an expectation of the game.

 

[Lord Hoosier]

None for Good King Rene!?

 

[The_Sound_Of_Violence]

None for Good King Rene!?

He already has one, you know.

 

[Lord Hoosier]

He already has one, you know.

He does!?

 

[The_Sound_Of_Violence]

He does!?

 

[TurtleShroom]

How exactly do you directly become Mexico or Texas as an Old World nation? Is there some way to move capitals now?

 

[KVPMD]

How exactly do you directly become Mexico or Texas as an Old World nation? Is there some way to move capitals now?

I think you have to give away your provinces in the old world, then move capital, yes.

 

[KVPMD]

Achievements are a matter of taste.
I personally think they are the worst thing to have been introduced to the Europa Universalis franchise (yes, worse than expulsion of minorities ) because they create an expectation of the game and its mechanics that couldn't be any further from what I like about it. Therefore I am very glad for any developing second not spent on creating achievements. But that is just my two cents (and this is not supposed to disparage anybody that happens to enjoy achievements).

While I value your opinion to dislike achievements (they often replace real replayability in games and I hate this, too) I don't think this is how EU4 dev works or should work. I guess achievements are kind of fast content even so also it is no mayor resource. But mostly: EU4 supports multiple ways to play. Roleplay. Tall. World conquest. Achievements.

They are a way to support a type of play (kind of like win conditions in multiplayer are) where the objective and also starting condition changes from game to game. I can totally feel this. It also incorporates a different type of difficulty. Not by giving the AI some additional changes to be hostile or haver better ruler but just by the hardness of start to target. This playstyle needs support as any other (and I therefor hope the new state mechanic supports wide play better that the current corruption). Only think I miss kind of are achievements to tallm play (I think venice has one).

 

[Twoflower]

While I value your opinion to dislike achievements (they often replace real replayability in games and I hate this, too) I don't think this is how EU4 dev works or should work. I guess achievements are kind of fast content even so also it is no mayor resource. But mostly: EU4 supports multiple ways to play. Roleplay. Tall. World conquest. Achievements.

They are a way to support a type of play (kind of like win conditions in multiplayer are) where the objective and also starting condition changes from game to game. I can totally feel this. It also incorporates a different type of difficulty. Not by giving the AI some additional changes to be hostile or haver better ruler but just by the hardness of start to target. This playstyle needs support as any other (and I therefor hope the new state mechanic supports wide play better that the current corruption). Only think I miss kind of are achievements to tallm play (I think venice has one).

My problem with achievements is that their mere existence has in the past been an argument against changes to the game:
- against changes to discourage blobbing because there are achievements requiring world conquest
- the "One Faith" achievement has been used as an argument against changes that made conversion harder
- there will quite probably be someone complain about the (badly needed) changes to expulsion of minorities because of the "You get a new home, and you get a new home" achievement

And, in my opinion perhaps the worst offender, is the "Core-Fu" achievement. It evidently is based not on history, but on a rather silly pun, it has the rather random requirement of revoking five cores, and it has explicitly been used as an argument by the devs against removing Corfu as an independent vassal of Venice in 1444, although there is precious little historical reason for Corfu being independent at that point. Paradox have finally budged in 1.30 and given Corfu to Venice, but still, this is perhaps the main reason why I have a problem with achievements.

 

[Blackwhitecavias]

How exactly do you directly become Mexico or Texas as an Old World nation? Is there some way to move capitals now?

I'm pretty sure you can't: Those formables require you to play as a former colonial nations. The player can form them by releasing and playing as their colonial nation.

 

[Kimbole]

I like achievements because they give me a bit of structure to games, and make sure I play a range of countries. I think they generally have been good in EU IV because a lot require you to play in quite different styles and settings, rather than just grind (increase power base until you're big enough to take over the target provinces). As a result the ones I am most looking forward to here as the Mulhouse achievement, the Defender of the Faith achievement and, despite having played France quite a bit, Napoleon's Ambition. A bit of potential to roleplay and potentially expend effort keeping other countries in line (or even just around) in ways that you wouldn't normally.

Not inspired by the Knights achievement. How many achievements require taking over all or some of the Levant/Anatolia/Egypt (i.e. either be or get big and fight the Ottomans/Mamluks)? I reckon about 12/15 depending on how strict you are , not including World Conquests. With the Knights already having an achievement to form Jerusalem, the new Knights achievement seems very much like retreading old ground in this area...

 

[KVPMD]

My problem with achievements is that their mere existence has in the past been an argument against changes to the game:
- against changes to discourage blobbing because there are achievements requiring world conquest
- the "One Faith" achievement has been used as an argument against changes that made conversion harder
- there will quite probably be someone complain about the (badly needed) changes to expulsion of minorities because of the "You get a new home, and you get a new home" achievement

And, in my opinion perhaps the worst offender, is the "Core-Fu" achievement. It evidently is based not on history, but on a rather silly pun, it has the rather random requirement of revoking five cores, and it has explicitly been used as an argument by the devs against removing Corfu as an independent vassal of Venice in 1444, although there is precious little historical reason for Corfu being independent at that point. Paradox have finally budged in 1.30 and given Corfu to Venice, but still, this is perhaps the main reason why I have a problem with achievements.

This is helpful inside and I totally agree on achievements should not drive the game development. If badly needed you can play on older versions anyways. And already to many achievements use the wording puns requiering a special name therefor discouraging name changes, province changes and nation redrawing. That IS bad design and I don't advocate that and in fact criticized the Mulhausen (? I'm German so I may spell this wrong) or Bologna achievement. Could have been any italian nation for the later and any German nation possesing the province of Mulhausen on the other one. This would have been bad enough.
On the other hand clear and good maintainable achievements like Hansa tag, Hungary in general or other nations (minor German ones, Brittany, Balkans, Malta...) are missed instead another one for the knights. Getting more alternative history ones like Sunset Invasion would be cool. Indian Trade Companies in Europe for instance.

 

[Vin55]

They missed out in the achievements if england and Irland dont count as islands they are all max very hard so no impossible and most are medium no fun one like becoming Italy and getting the Roman Empire or forming Germany and completing the missions I mean those would be very straightforward.

 

[grotaclas]

They missed out in the achievements if england and Irland dont count as islands they are all max very hard

The fact that the achievement says "on islands" and not "are islands" leads me to believe that it uses the same definition for island that is used for the pirate republic and the Empire of Mann achievement and that it doesn't use the "province is an island" definition which is used to spawn institutions. By the first definition England and Ireland are islands.
Your comment inspired me to write an article about islands on the wiki

 

[Scorpene]

I like achievements because they give me a bit of structure to games, and make sure I play a range of countries. I think they generally have been good in EU IV because a lot require you to play in quite different styles and settings, rather than just grind (increase power base until you're big enough to take over the target provinces). As a result the ones I am most looking forward to here as the Mulhouse achievement, the Defender of the Faith achievement and, despite having played France quite a bit, Napoleon's Ambition. A bit of potential to roleplay and potentially expend effort keeping other countries in line (or even just around) in ways that you wouldn't normally.

Not inspired by the Knights achievement. How many achievements require taking over all or some of the Levant/Anatolia/Egypt (i.e. either be or get big and fight the Ottomans/Mamluks)? I reckon about 12/15 depending on how strict you are , not including World Conquests. With the Knights already having an achievement to form Jerusalem, the new Knights achievement seems very much like retreading old ground in this area...

Hey there

First of all i want to say that i agree fully with the TwoFlowers post about the fact, Achievement should be a consequence and not the cause of developpement.

Second of all, as i created the "on the Rhodes again" achievement, i can tell you why i built it so.
I have the Achievement to form Jérusalem with the Knights, and once i reached it, i almost insta left the game, mainly because i couldnt do anything. I was too big to join the HRE, too far away to have Christians ally, and my bro the Ottoman was kinda fed up because i stole some lands he wanted badly.

My idea was to provide more content to a Knight player, as now, once you have built up Jérusalem, you are asked not only to build it but also to take back all lands that were stolen to the Catholic (from a Crusader perspective), and of course, without allying the Ottoman.
I admit that the run should look a bit like the Lazarus one, where, as Serbia you are stuck between Hungary and Otto, but i think it should be even harder.

That was my 2 cents

 

[AirikrStrife]

The fact that the achievement says "on islands" and not "are islands" leads me to believe that it uses the same definition for island that is used for the pirate republic and the Empire of Mann achievement and that it doesn't use the "province is an island" definition which is used to spawn institutions. By the first definition England and Ireland are islands.
Your comment inspired me to write an article about islands on the wiki

something that bothered me in my emperor of mann run last year, does arguin and that one province in namibia count as islands then?