Europa Universalis IV - 8 June 2021 - New monuments chosen for 1.31.5

[IndigoRage]

With Potosí, just make Cuzco and Mexico City or Tenochtitlan a monument.

It already is.

The solution is simple: tie it to whether or not the precious metals of the province are depleted. The upgrades could be justified as "expanding mining operations". Duh.

 

[davidvp]

Ahhh, no, didn't see, my bad.

And yes, that can be a solution, but still doesn't fill completely the monumentality concept of others.

 

[Aramenian]

I would love to see these monuments in the game:

1-Bakhchisaray Palace

Bakhchysarai Palace - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

2-Royal Castle, Warsaw

Royal Castle, Warsaw - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

3-Wawel Castle

Wawel Castle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

4-Jasna Góra Monastery

Jasna Góra Monastery - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

5-Mount Athos

Mount Athos - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

6-Gate of Dawn

Gate of Dawn - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

6-Jagiellonian University

Jagiellonian University - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Pavía]

I have an idea:
How about dynamic artwork for monuments ? As you upgrade your monument to the next stage, the artwork changes slightly
Kind of like how the art for forts changes in the siege view as the siege progresses. (But obviously in reverse )
I know the art team already has a lot on their plate regarding monuments, so it could be applied on a few of the monuments rather than all of them, and the artwork doesn’t have to change significantly.

for example older monument which were constructed before the games timeline, like the great pyramids could look worn out and rocky, and once you finally upgrade it to the final stage, it’ll look all shiny and white like the days it was first constructed.
For the monuments which were constructed during the games timeline, the beginning stages could show the monuments under construction, and the final stages could show it fully constructed.

I think it’d give a lot more satisfaction to the player too!

This is a fantastic idea, but I don't think they will do it because it will require a lot of work from the artists. And they probably want to dedicate more resources to content that they can monetize rather than improve features we've already paid for (unfortunately).

Well, think about this as a math problem. We already have about 50 monuments. Having dynamic artwork for each level would mean having another 100 images of similar quality instead of those in the game.

Instead of that, we could have Art Team working on having 100 new images for 100 new monuments. What would make community happier? As a former long-time player, I'd think the second path is the best.

Disclaimer: I'm not saying that we'll do another 100 new monuments. That's a decision we've not taken yet. Anyway, answering the second post, we're already improving features players have already paid for (these new monuments are a good example, IMHO), and we'll do it for a while, as we're currently working hard to improve the state of the game.

How will the Tower of Belém monument Interact with the Tower of Belém event?

I assume the Tower of Belém event still happens for those without Leviathan, but what about for those with it?

Do they still get the event to Build the tower? Do they lose the event? Or will they get a different event instead?

And in that case, what about the +25% Defensiveness modifier that Lisbon would normally get from the Tower of Belém event? This new monument doesn't have any defensiveness modifiers, so does this mean Leviathan owners will still get the defensiveness modifier from the event or will they lose the defensiveness bonus?

This tower was first and foremost a defensive structure, it's primary effect should be local defensiveness, so if it's not part of the monument itself, it should at least remain part of the event bonus for Leviathan owners.

Belém Tower event will have two different effects for people with or without Leviathan.

I don't really understand Austria's national monument being anything but Schönbrunn palace. Also, the Ottomans aren't able to use the pyramids of Giza after their historical conquest of Egypt. Is that intentional?

It is frustrating to play paid content only to have every other monument locked behind a cultural or religious barrier. Monuments are flexible and are often twisted to the uses of conquerors. It is quite historical, actually, to reappropriate the symbols of the past (a famous example being Hagia Sophia). Maybe some kind of decision?

Some ancient monuments requirements (Parthenon, Petra and Pyramids) are a bit reworked for 1.31.5. Anyway, we'll continue thinking about monuments requirements for future patches.

well... time to conquer spain , and accept their culture!

for Jerusalem, does it stack with current modifier? or will it lead to a removal?

I read in a separate thread that the monuments of Jerusalem and Kaaba are replacing the triggered modifiers. Users playing without leviathan have the triggers as usual still.

Jerusalem province modifier will be replaced by the monument for people with Leviathan, while Mecca province modifier will remain, as it's for Christian countries, while Kaaba is only useful for Muslim countries.

Good, but sorry, Potosí shouldn't have been even considered for Monument.
The city passed from 165k inhabitants in 1625 to 70k en 1750, and finally just 8k in 1825 when mines were exhausted. The loss of precious metals was extremely fast, not even the population lasted, contrary to monuments which are meant to last.

With Potosí, just make Cuzco and Mexico City a monument. (But hey, actually you can't take a real life man made edification from those as a monument, not a city or mountain, as for example Tenochtitlan temples as monuments but only work for Aztec culture and religion).

But Potosí truly doesn't fit the concept of monument.

How could you upgrade such monument when in real life it ONLY declined??

I strongly recommend taking some from the Flavor Universalis mod. Estern Europe, Africa, and Asia need some monumental love.

It already is.

The solution is simple: tie it to whether or not the precious metals of the province are depleted. The upgrades could be justified as "expanding mining operations". Duh.

Ahhh, no, didn't see, my bad.

And yes, that can be a solution, but still doesn't fill completely the monumentality concept of others.

We replaced the +3 produced goods Potosí province modifier for a +1 produced goods modifiers in each tier of the monument. So, the point is investing in the great mine exploitation will give you more money, as historically happened, instead of just taking and exploiting the province. As Potosí doesn't have any requirements, that can be done by Andean countries, but also by foreign conquerors.

From my personal POV, having 165K inhabitants in a place as Potosí in 1625 is pretty impressive; but the idea about its "monumentality" was also shared by other members of the team, and the people that voted it. Anyway, adding some effects about the mine depletion is an interesting suggestion, we'll think about how that fits the current monuments feature.

 

[traskott]

Good job chap, Jose Manuel is very proud of you

 

[rasplay1]

so when is beta?

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

Belém Tower event will have two different effects for people with or without Leviathan.

In that case, wouldn't it make sense for the +25% defensiveness from the event in non-leviathan to be included in the monument bonuses in Leviathan?

Because otherwise Leviathan would be essentially removing the defensiveness modifier of the Belem Tower, which was the whole point of the tower.

Unless the event has different effects that also include the defensiveness modifier?

 

[I'm gaming]

We already have some suggestions for Korea in our 'long list', and it's a region where a monument would be worth. Can't promise when we'd be able to add more monuments to the game, we'll have to think about it in the next months.

Please don’t do anything to Korea. Judging from Sankin-kotai palace and Himeji castle, I’m convinced that whatever you do to Korea will make it worse.

 

[Peachrocks]

Could the Mosque of Djenne give a religious unity benefit if occupied by a Pagan nation? Since there's a lot of them around there. Mali itself is mostly Pagan with only its capital being Sunni IRC. Or some other benefit? The one thing I don't like about monuments is that many of them don't do anything at all unless you are the right religion/culture. Some of them I think would have some if not lesser benefits. I admit it, Benin is my most played start. I like their tier 3 and tier 4 unit models .

I mean I get it, you don't want to encourage people to blob like crazy and get stacks of benefits for taking all the monuments but if they were improved and invested upon, their benefits could theoretically change to reflect the nature of the 'new' owners. So while the baseline benefits could be 'only if you meet x', upgrading them could be more universal but would still be best if you had the matching religion. It makes sense to me giving some degree of heathen tolerance or religious unity for improving a religious structure that does not match the nations religion, especially if they are humanist.

 

[QuantusTempus]

Hello first time posting on this forum and most of this response seems to be pretty much focused around modifiers to these things. From your developer diary you say that "...Cerro Rico del Potosí, the richest silver mine in South America, and a place that once hosted the most populous city in the region." which is all well and good but misses out quite a large part of that mine's history - you know the 8 million slaves who died in it. Sorry to be blunt but please actually include context for these historical monuments because that description as of yet is a missing enormous amounts of important information. Sorry this has to be my first post but I was actually pretty shocked that's how it is being described.

 

[DaddyParietal]

Hello first time posting on this forum and most of this response seems to be pretty much focused around modifiers to these things. From your developer diary you say that "...Cerro Rico del Potosí, the richest silver mine in South America, and a place that once hosted the most populous city in the region." which is all well and good but misses out quite a large part of that mine's history - you know the 8 million slaves who died in it. Sorry to be blunt but please actually include context for these historical monuments because that description as of yet is a missing enormous amounts of important information. Sorry this has to be my first post but I was actually pretty shocked that's how it is being described.

First, I'm pretty sure anyone who is even interested in a game like EU4 and set around the time period of colonization (aswell as having pretty important mechanics tied to that very act) probably understand the implications of a silver mine in South America during that time period, aswell when it is called the "richest silver mine in South America".

Secondly, EU4 is about alternate history, and while it is good to recognize history as it was, this discussion is broadly about its usage in the game as it starts in 1444 and not in its historical context of 2021. Important to recognize the history, but its grossly off-topic for this discussion and for the purposes of introducing it as a feature of the game. If you have to recite a Wikipedia article for every monument then the team would spend more time writing the dev diary then actually working on the content to showcase in said dev diary, I believe this was a nice middle ground... if you can read between the lines.

 

[Frostcreep]

Interesting. Just one thing bothers me. Why do all muslim monuments give positive piety? One granting mysticism would be a nice change (iirc the samarkhand one did in its first iteration)

It's like the devs forgot piety gives bonuses both ways and treat it like patriarch authority, It's already hard enough to keep mysticism and with these monuments it's even more of an impossible task.

 

[subzero12479]

It's like the devs forgot piety gives bonuses both ways and treat it like patriarch authority, It's already hard enough to keep mysticism and with these monuments it's even more of an impossible task.

Idk, when i play a muslim i basicly naver get any mysticism since all those decisions make all your new rulers start at like +50 and each dow on a heretic or heathen gives an other +25. So a -piety modifier would imo be rather bad since it would constantly reduce your legalism. Maybe it would be good if it would give +piety if you are above zero and -piety if not? Could also be good for buddhists and carma i think.

 

[Frostcreep]

Idk, when i play a muslim i basicly naver get any mysticism since all those decisions make all your new rulers start at like +50 and each dow on a heretic or heathen gives an other +25. So a -piety modifier would imo be rather bad since it would constantly reduce your legalism. Maybe it would be good if it would give +piety if you are above zero and -piety if not? Could also be good for buddhists and carma i think.

Oh for sure there needs to be some balancing around the whole mechanic outside of monuments, because at the moment you have to really really focus on mysticism to ever get the bonuses, which I think is a disservice to the idea of having 2 sides in the first place. But the monuments just compound the issue even more in the current state.

 

[Spartanlemur]

How "Cerro Rico del Potosí" won I don't know.

People voted for a silver mine? Seriously?

 

[QuantusTempus]

First, I'm pretty sure anyone who is even interested in a game like EU4 and set around the time period of colonization (aswell as having pretty important mechanics tied to that very act) probably understand the implications of a silver mine in South America during that time period, aswell when it is called the "richest silver mine in South America".

Secondly, EU4 is about alternate history, and while it is good to recognize history as it was, this discussion is broadly about its usage in the game as it starts in 1444 and not in its historical context of 2021. Important to recognize the history, but its grossly off-topic for this discussion and for the purposes of introducing it as a feature of the game. If you have to recite a Wikipedia article for every monument then the team would spend more time writing the dev diary then actually working on the content to showcase in said dev diary, I believe this was a nice middle ground... if you can read between the lines.

First, I'm pretty sure that interest in EUIV and the specific examples of colonial atrocities are not correlated and asking for the developers to acknowledge that fact in their flavour text for it helps people understand the context of it. I'll continue on this for a little bit because it's worth making the point. The game already is problematic enough around the subject of colonialism (see mechanics of ferocity and aggression when it comes to indigenous populations), so hand waving that "people understand the problems of colonialism" when its clearly not represented in the game is quite a valid criticism of a game based on historical events.

Secondly, I would argue that as mechanics in the game use historical events to introduce mechanics and concepts the history is clearly a mechanic of the game and not "grossly" off topic when introducing new mechanics which go back to events. Its usage in the game is an explicit reference to the large scale mining under the Spanish colony so its not talking about "its historical context in 2021", rather than its importance to pre-colonial Andean cultural significance of the map. So yes its inclusion does demand a context from history and not "its historical context in 2021". Also want to address the comment on having to cite a wikipedia article - the wikipedia article (like many on issues such as this) is scant at best and does not include a great deal of detail rather a brief statement on the debated number of deaths and their relevance to the Viceroyalty of Peru's death toll overall. The devs have a responsibility to present these things in their proper context, and if they do that in the game that is fine however from the developer diary it is insufficient to present it differently.

I only reply to this in hopes that the developers see the criticism and at least discuss it amongst themselves. My comment was in response to the dev diary but if there is a place where criticism can be discussed with the developers I am happy to repost all of this here.

 

[Spartanlemur]

I only reply to this in hopes that the developers see the criticism and at least discuss it amongst themselves. My comment was in response to the dev diary but if there is a place where criticism can be discussed with the developers I am happy to repost all of this here.

History had more than its fair share of misery, but I do not want a constant reminder of the suffering of the human race throughout my video games, thank you.

I play Paradox games to enjoy myself and perhaps even learn a few interesting things about the past. I don't play them to get depressed, and I reject what I expect will be your response that we somehow "deserve" to be depressed or that it is a burden we must bear to "remember the past".

It's your choice to see the glass half empty, I'm going to see it half full.

 

[Vin55]

all humans suffered before the western world developed free thinking, and laws witch protected one from power of the state as individual. Even now wast areas have no law or the law of the strong. When one speaks of slaves, one should not forget that most peasants in Europe were not free, but owned. In Russia even after Napoleon. The human desaster of the indians was bad of course, but just look at the mongol hordes or the timurids. Their wars killed more than ten million people in central asia and europe.
Humans did kill each other in wars and still do so now. This is of course not right but is part of the game of power. There are some good flavour events with the natives, one would need a population to showcase how the plagues and the enslavment affected them or take up to 90 percent of their dev.

 

[DaddyParietal]

asking for the developers to acknowledge that fact in their flavour text for it helps people understand the context of it.

The issue is that the game is based around alternate history which the implementation of this monument, as the developers have said, is not specific to colonizers and can in-fact be used by the pre-Colombian Americans. The addition of flavor text of this nature would hinder the actual usage in the game. EU4 is not a game about repeating and learning about history. Though many have learned alot through playing these games, it is not an academic tool and any way you view this game from an academic angle will be problematic. EU4 is not the game for this type of flavor text on the monument itself. HOWEVER, if colonizers do get to the region, they could put an flavor event when the monument loses its trade good that can be along the lines of what you suggest.

problematic enough around the subject of colonialism (see mechanics of ferocity and aggression when it comes to indigenous populations), so hand waving that "people understand the problems of colonialism" when its clearly not represented in the game is quite a valid criticism of a game based on historical events.

EU4 is first and foremost an Alt History game. While the historical context of the period is important and shouldnt be ignored in the context of the game mechanics, it isnt a history book. The game doesnt shoehorn any player into devastating the region in a similar fashion to the actual events, and most players dont even have to touch the region if they are so inclined. This is why this advocacy doesnt mean much beyond some flavor events for very specific nations. Dont expect this to be a history book because everything after 1444 is almost unteachable academically, even some events.

Its usage in the game is an explicit reference to the large scale mining under the Spanish colony so its not talking about "its historical context in 2021", rather than its importance to pre-colonial Andean cultural significance of the map. So yes its inclusion does demand a context from history and not "its historical context in 2021"

I have no doubt that its importance as a Spanish colony had some bearing on its inclusion in this game, as the game centers around that time period. But seeing from the time period it is introduced in - 1444, there is not much you can say regarding deaths or slavery without looking at it from 2021. The 2021 context may have introduced it, but, if you read much of this forum post, people are concerned about monuments and the time periods they were in. Cerro Rico del Potosí existed in 1444, maybe not to the extent it did irl but it did exist. And in 1444 anyone could mine and exploit its resources. Any flavor text should be focused on its presence in 1444 and should not add 2021 historical context in a game that overwrites that exact period via player actions and choice. By all means, go and play the Inca and protect Cerro Rico del Potosí from the Spanish savages, but to throw historical context like that in everyones face in a game like this is just unwarranted.

Not saying that the atrocities didnt occur and shouldnt be recognized, just that EU4 is the wrong medium to raise awareness about this topic. In a game that is Alt history and overwrites the period of history that this event occurred in, it wouldnt make sense to add it as flavor text for the sake of making the player feel bad for something that they would have no control over. You really think players would enjoy not being able to control whether they killed millions on people when they take one province in a 10 year old map game?

By all means, spread awareness. EU4 is just not the medium to do so. You obviously want some sort of rectification through some means, but potentially ruining other peoples fun in a game about choice is not the way to do it. Unless you want people to choose whether to kill 8 million people over the course of several hundred years (which I suppose would also be unacceptable), then its best to utilize another medium to get you message out.

Best of luck

 

[QuantusTempus]

The issue is that the game is based around alternate history which the implementation of this monument, as the developers have said, is not specific to colonizers and can in-fact be used by the pre-Colombian Americans. The addition of flavor text of this nature would hinder the actual usage in the game. EU4 is not a game about repeating and learning about history. Though many have learned alot through playing these games, it is not an academic tool and any way you view this game from an academic angle will be problematic. EU4 is not the game for this type of flavor text on the monument itself. HOWEVER, if colonizers do get to the region, they could put an flavor event when the monument loses its trade good that can be along the lines of what you suggest.


EU4 is first and foremost an Alt History game. While the historical context of the period is important and shouldnt be ignored in the context of the game mechanics, it isnt a history book. The game doesnt shoehorn any player into devastating the region in a similar fashion to the actual events, and most players dont even have to touch the region if they are so inclined. This is why this advocacy doesnt mean much beyond some flavor events for very specific nations. Dont expect this to be a history book because everything after 1444 is almost unteachable academically, even some events.


I have no doubt that its importance as a Spanish colony had some bearing on its inclusion in this game, as the game centers around that time period. But seeing from the time period it is introduced in - 1444, there is not much you can say regarding deaths or slavery without looking at it from 2021. The 2021 context may have introduced it, but, if you read much of this forum post, people are concerned about monuments and the time periods they were in. Cerro Rico del Potosí existed in 1444, maybe not to the extent it did irl but it did exist. And in 1444 anyone could mine and exploit its resources. Any flavor text should be focused on its presence in 1444 and should not add 2021 historical context in a game that overwrites that exact period via player actions and choice. By all means, go and play the Inca and protect Cerro Rico del Potosí from the Spanish savages, but to throw historical context like that in everyones face in a game like this is just unwarranted.

Not saying that the atrocities didnt occur and shouldnt be recognized, just that EU4 is the wrong medium to raise awareness about this topic. In a game that is Alt history and overwrites the period of history that this event occurred in, it wouldnt make sense to add it as flavor text for the sake of making the player feel bad for something that they would have no control over. You really think players would enjoy not being able to control whether they killed millions on people when they take one province in a 10 year old map game?

By all means, spread awareness. EU4 is just not the medium to do so. You obviously want some sort of rectification through some means, but potentially ruining other peoples fun in a game about choice is not the way to do it. Unless you want people to choose whether to kill 8 million people over the course of several hundred years (which I suppose would also be unacceptable), then its best to utilize another medium to get you message out.

Best of luck

Just to clarify a point here, if it is "alt history" then why is the monument named for the silver mine and not as would have been the case in 1444 Sumaq Urqu which was not mined by the indigenous Andean population. It was not mined as a silver mine until the Spanish Conquest, when they gave it the name "rich mountain". If the monument is there to enable "alt history" then maybe write it as such.