• 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.
Welcome to another Europa Universalis IV development diary. Everything is going fine with the development of Leviathan, as we are working on polishing content at the moment.

We have talked about some major improvements to playing tall in previous diaries, with possibilities of stacking manufactories and concentrating development. Today we will talk about something that synergies nicely with both these features.

Centralizing a State

The final new Playing-Tall option is the ability to Centralize a State. This action reduces the administrative cost of a state by as much as the value of 20 development points.

Centralizing States costs 100 Government Reform Progress points and takes five years to complete.

This interaction is available both through the state interface and through the macrobuilder.
eu4_26.png


Never Mothball
A small thing that might make the top 3 of some peoples requested lists, and may be completely ignored by others is a small toggle for individual forts to never mothball.

We are adding a small checkbox in the province interface that if enabled, that fort will never mothball when you mothball every fort in your country from the military screen. This is something you may want to use when you may want to save money on lots of forts, but never risk it with the important forts next to France.
eu4_25.png


Canal changes
With the new monument mechanics, we moved the old great projects system to be using the new monument code internally as well, which gives a few benefits, in that you can upgrade them as well. Each upgrade takes about 10 years further, and about 1000 gold each. We are also making the canals available from an earlier technology as well, from admin tech 26 to admin tech 22.

Previously the canals, besides opening the paths, gave a +20 trade power to the location, now instead they are giving these.

  • Tier 0 +10 Trade Power to Location, and +1% Trade Power to the Controller.
  • Tier 1 +20 Trade Power to Location, and +2% Trade Power to the Controller.
  • Tier 2 +30 Trade Power to Location, and +3% Trade Power to the Controller.
  • Tier 3 +50 Trade Power to Location, and +5% Trade Power to the Controller.




Next week we’ll be back and talk about colonial nations.
 
Could logistics ever be reworked?
I believe it is very much possible to rework logistics within using current mechanics in a way that works and improves gameplay and realism significantly.

Surely it would still be greatly simplified and nowhere near HoI tier, but an improved is very likely possible, and i hope it's on the menu one day.
 
Last edited:
  • 5
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Government progress is one of the only resources that tall generate faster than wide, so, trying to create mechanics for tall based in government progress points spend is a good idea.
The problem is: Spending government reform progress points to increase governing capacity is something that is already present in game (expand administration button), rebalancing numbers don't fix the problem because when you have 2 things making the same thing (increasing GC) and costing the same resource (reform progress) one of the 2 will always be mathematically the better option and the other will be useless and never used.
What we need is make "Centralizing State" give some other thing beyond better governing capacity cost, so, this will not be redundant with expand administration button.

The better idea posted in this thread is in my opinion one of the ideas of "Bandua_of_Gallaecia":

"Maximum Absolutism dependent on the percentage of centralised states example: +20 at 100% Centralised States, -20 at 0% Centralised States
Again it should be gained on the basis of percentage of centralised states and not a fixed gain per each centralisation.

-15% Minimum Autonomy on state (And yes, this means all uncentralised states should henceforth be given a minimum default of +15%)"


In this case, game should consider states that have never been centralized by the tag that controls them at the moment like uncentralized and should maintain track of the percentage of centralized/uncentralized states for each tag.
 
  • 10
  • 4Like
  • 1Love
  • 1
Reactions:
The early diaries for 1.31 all excited me. I was pretty hype when there was talk of canal changes and a focus on tall play, which I’ve always felt was very weak in EU4. These last couple diaries have made me dread 1.31, because some good content is going to be wrapped up with these myopic “tall” mechanics.
Ask yourself if anyone is going to get any joy at all out of a new button to smack every 20 years. Are you even getting any joy out of it at this point?
That has been my experience too. Personally I started dreading 1.31 when they announced the new government specific Idea groups (like Aristocratic and Plutocratic) and realized whoever designed them wasn't very familiar with how hordes play.
 
  • 7
Reactions:
My design-philosophy is "believable worlds", and I much prefer making games like HoI3 and Victoria 2, which are games on top of simulation mechanics. EU4 philosophy was to have some sort of central limitation mechanic which became known as Mana, and that was just too succesful.

However, to clarify...

I did lots of the mechanic stuff changes at Imperator after release, and also approved the design plans for everything up to 2.0. I would love to do things like that for EU4, but its just not possible.

The things below are some of things I did for Imperator post release.

Stability, Warexhaustion, Legitimacy rework with increases being over time instead of a button press.
Pops changing over time, and not by direct interaction.
Removal of Mana
Logistics for armies
C'man, you are saying that it is possible to develop EU4 only by adding buttons? Because I recall great changes such as 1232 forts overhauls, westernization, gov reforms etc. I'm not asking that you make a different game out of EU4, just don't add new button and call it a day by saying: "You can play tall now! It's fun! Another button to push!".
 
  • 31
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Centralize State and Expand Administration do the exact same thing already. The only difference is that Expand Administration has a lower starting cost that increases each time you use it.

Quite frankly, I'm disappointed if this is what Paradox considers a mechanic to help tall play.
 
  • 12Like
Reactions:
One thing I’d really like is for the button clicks to really mean something. So tall players get a nice shiny button that works out only for them but actively gimps wide players. the same for vassal loving players, and the other gameplay styles
 
  • 5
  • 2Like
Reactions:
So in order to get, say, the missions for Mahajaphit or Hawaii we'll also need to buy this? Feeling less excited to get my hands on those sorts of changes.
 
  • 6Like
Reactions:
What engine limitations? Holy Fury, the final expansion for CK2 added creative new features that gave you deeper and fun ways to play, like warrior lodges, bloodlines and several new succession types and governments.
Johan has said that pops - possibly a decent way to add internal management - are out of the question for EU4. I would argue that this is not because the game engine cannot theoretically handle it - Victoria 1 could -, but because he is unwilling to implement such a fundamental change to the game mechanics that late in the development cycle of the game. Which is a fair point.

While I agree I rather see a new game that won't be limited by the code and engine, aiming to be closer to IR 2.0 or a Vicky game, the fact that the EU4 is very complex and a problem to program and do deeper tweaks dangering the game stability and gameplay, CK2 on its last expansion didn't add something such innovative, because that what you post " warrior lodges, bloodlines and several new succession types and governments" were already on the game, the game was based in roleplaying, characters and religion/feudal mechanics, HF just add more ingredients to that. It is not so easy to say that if Vicky 1 has populations this game should have a population the same way (or closer) to Vicky, by that same rule, the game should also have nearly the same character features that CK has or like if HOI1 to 3 were a thing, Vicky 1 and 2 when it is come to recreate WW1 should share the same possibilities. The engine limitation and the many incompatibilities it could have with the already existence features is a fact.

I don't expect so much of the next EU4 updates, but tweaks, reworks, overhauls and nothing more. If the game expects to have some dynamics features like pop and trade like IR, this will have to be addressed in the sequel, right now I don't know if EU5 will come soon, but I really expect the next game of Paradox is about to announcer, it is Vicky 3.
 
Last edited:
  • 5
  • 1Like
Reactions:
While I agree I rather see a new game that won't be limited by the code and engine, aiming to be closer to IR 2.0 or a Vicky game, the fact that the EU4 is very complex and a problem to program and do deeper tweaks dangering the game stability and gameplay, CK2 on its last expansion didn't add something such innovative, because that what you post " warrior lodges, bloodlines and several new succession types and governments" were already on the game, the game was based in roleplaying, characters and religion/feudal mechanics, HF just add more ingredients to that. It is not so easy to say that if Vicky 1 has populations this game should have a population the same way (or closer) to Vicky, by that same rule, the game should also have nearly the same character features that CK has. The engine limitation and the many incompatibilities it could have with the already existence features is a fact.

I don't expect so much of the next EU4 updates, but tweaks, reworks, overhauls and nothing more. If the game expects to have some dynamics features like pop and trade like IR, this will have to be addressed in the sequel, right now I don't know if EU5 will come soon, but I really expect the next game of Paradox is about to announcer, it is Vicky 3.
Nobody asks for pops in EU4. Also - nobody wants new meaningless buttons. There is a middle ground, as someone already said - Holy Fury and Imperator 2.0 proved it's possible.
 
  • 10
  • 9
  • 1Like
Reactions:
My design-philosophy is "believable worlds", and I much prefer making games like HoI3 and Victoria 2, which are games on top of simulation mechanics. EU4 philosophy was to have some sort of central limitation mechanic which became known as Mana, and that was just too succesful.

However, to clarify...

I did lots of the mechanic stuff changes at Imperator after release, and also approved the design plans for everything up to 2.0. I would love to do things like that for EU4, but its just not possible.

The things below are some of things I did for Imperator post release.

Stability, Warexhaustion, Legitimacy rework with increases being over time instead of a button press.
Pops changing over time, and not by direct interaction.
Removal of Mana
Logistics for armies
I usually only post on Imperator: Rome as I started with that game my paradox forum "career" and not here on EU IV, but with the latest dev diaries I decided to post at least this message:

The good:
I think you did a good job at the last stages of your time on I:R, turning it into the right direction, which was a very good base for Arheo and the I:R team to follow and build up on. You did a good job creating a lot of paradox games in the past and while I don't like "Mana" how it was implemented in I:R at release, I think you did a good job in EU IV as it is the only paradox game I'm fine with having it.

The bad:
I think I:R had a too short development time, but it was to some extent you, who decided putting badly received things into the game. I'm saying this not to blame you, but I think that was already a time, when some of your design ideas hadn't found too much common ground with the players. And it seems to me EU IV follows this path now, where we get more and more buttons, which grant us instant bonuses for a arbitrary cost. While I understand the reasons behind it, like doing something for tall players - which is great - the execution of this intention is not great and not fun. The "never mothball" feature is great, because it's more a useful QoL improvement with some game impact, but we receive more and more button "smashings" which are named as cool features or mechanics, when they just unimmersive buttons. Imo it reminds me more of calculating in an excel sheet than playing a historical nation from the 15th to 19th century. While EU IV often got such "magical" buttons in the past, they usually fitted better in the overall game and had at least some immersion. I think we are now at the point, were we have too much buttons instead of actual mechanics and flavour (besides missions and I guess the new upcoming wonders are a bit in that direction too). So I - and it seems a lot of other people - don't see the believable world anymore, but therefore more and more button clicking, where we have to imagine, how this worked in reality instead of the game is presenting us that believable world.

The conclusion:
My critic above isn't meant to be harsh on a personal level, you have done a lot for the paradox games. I always wanted a paradox grand strategy game in the ancient time and you made it possible and with 2.0 it's finally in a good state :) But I hope you understand, that more and more people aren't satisfied with the current direction of EU IV. Instead of a lot of buttons rather add one or two actual mechanics or more flavour or rework/refine a smaller feature and make it more fun than now. If large overhauls or addition aren't a thing anymore for EU IV after Emperor, I guess at some point EU V would be a better idea than more buttons for EU IV. I feel sad writing this critic, especially pointing it out to a specific person, but I guess the forum is the place to post my opinion, if I'm not agreeing with the direction of a game I like and I care about as player. Best wishes to you and your team nonetheless!
 
Last edited:
  • 17
  • 7Like
  • 1
Reactions:
My design-philosophy is "believable worlds", and I much prefer making games like HoI3 and Victoria 2, which are games on top of simulation mechanics. EU4 philosophy was to have some sort of central limitation mechanic which became known as Mana, and that was just too succesful.

However, to clarify...

I did lots of the mechanic stuff changes at Imperator after release, and also approved the design plans for everything up to 2.0. I would love to do things like that for EU4, but its just not possible.

The things below are some of things I did for Imperator post release.

Stability, Warexhaustion, Legitimacy rework with increases being over time instead of a button press.
Pops changing over time, and not by direct interaction.
Removal of Mana
Logistics for armies
Would you ever consider removing the Mana bit from EUIV (or possible remove it in a hypothetical EUV)? Personally, I would prefer if your ability to advance was based on your economy and ability to put resources into developing rather than using mana. You would then have to manage a trade off between investing more in tech, ideas, increasing province development, armies, navies, colonising, converting etc. rather than having this magic pool of mana that you use for your most important actions.
 
  • 6
  • 5
Reactions:
The problem I have with this isn't the numbers, it's the mechanic itself. It does functionally the same thing as expand administration at a reasonably similar cost. Drastically changing that cost in any way would make the mechanic totally unbalanced so they have to stay relatively similar. This means we have two mechanics that do functionally the same thing, for no real reason
 
  • 14Like
  • 1
Reactions:
The most important thing that can be done with reform points is to total them correctly for each bookmark date so that you aren't starting 1492 or later like it's 1444.
 
  • 5Like
Reactions:
Would you ever consider removing the Mana bit from EUIV (or possible remove it in a hypothetical EUV)? Personally, I would prefer if your ability to advance was based on your economy and ability to put resources into developing rather than using mana. You would then have to manage a trade off between investing more in tech, ideas, increasing province development, armies, navies, colonising, converting etc. rather than having this magic pool of mana that you use for your most important actions.
ADM/DIP/MIL is an essential quality to the franchise. A game that neither accumulates mana nor rolls against a monarch stat may be a fine game, but just not an EU game.
 
  • 6
  • 5
Reactions:
If you want to make playing tall more interesting there are two fundamental principles you need to follow:

1. Progression: goals to achieve and obstacles to overcome.

2. Decisions and consequences: risk vs reward, tradeoffs, short term vs long term gain etc.

I think the main reason playing tall is not interesting is because there are no obstacles. Nothing is actively working against you, trying to prevent you from getting your development up or decreasing autonomy or whatever. You just click buttons and then wait until you can click again. Compare this to playing wide, where you have other countries, rebels, disloyal subjects, aggressive expansion and overextension all getting in your way or actively working to ruin your day. Overcoming them is very satisfying.

It's not enough to simply add more things for the tall player to do. You have to add more things for them to beat.
 
  • 10Like
  • 5
  • 2
Reactions: