• 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 - 22th of September

Hey everyone! Today is the last day of us talking about the native americans and the rework they are getting. We’ll be talking about the changes to the Federations and the new world setup. As you’ll see on the pictures for the map, a lot of tags have been split up in order to represent federations properly. A prime example is the Iroquois who will now be several tags and start in a federation at game start.

So let’s start with how to form them. Since we are splitting up the federal tags like the Huron and Iroquois I still wanted to retain some kind of identity for them. As such when you invite the first member to form a federation with you, you get the opportunity to also name the Federation. There are some default options scripted that can be based on Tags and Cultures which it will suggest for you, but you can of course just write whatever you want here.

1600776828277.png


We’ve also redone how leadership of the federation is decided. It is no longer decided on the death of the monarch of the leader in the tribe, instead we measure a cohesion value of the Federation. This value changes each month depending on the composition of the Federation but also some external factors. Keep in mind that any numbers & values are work in progress!

1600778713850.png


If cohesion hits 0% then it will trigger a change in leadership. In order to keep the cohesion high you want to keep similar cultures within your federation, however having one or two of a separate culture group won’t really be problematic. Another source of loss of cohesion is also if there are members that are stronger than the leader. For later in the game to help you keep a large federation together, if you have any colonizers on your border it will help you keep it together by having an external threat increasing your cohesion.

If a leadership change is triggered it will try to pick the strongest member to be the new leader, if the leader is the strongest then the federation will be disbanded. This entire process is 100% done in script, from calculation of members strength to what happens during leadership change. Currently for testing the strength is calculated from the max manpower of members and is done as a scripted function with an effect and looks like this:

Code:
calculate_federation_member_strength = {
    effect = {
        export_to_variable = { which = our_manpower value = max_manpower who = THIS }
        set_variable = { which = federation_strength which = our_manpower }

    }
}

Here’s the current list of values that affect your cohesion
  • -1 For every member not of leaders culture group
  • +1 For every member of leaders culture group
  • -1 For every member stronger than the leader
  • +1 for neighboring hostile Europeans

The aim here is to make Federations more something you can count on, instead of having to try and keep your prestige high or stack diplomatic reputation at all times just in case your leader at some random point dies, you can now count on it instead and try to plan around what you need to do in order to keep the leadership position.


Now I’m going to hand it over to a member of our beta program. @Evie HJ who have done the excellent work of reforming North America’s setup making it a much more vibrant and interesting place.

It's a whole (new) New World we live in

The setup for North America hasn’t really changed much at all since the release of Art of War, almost ix years ago – and, as far as the list of playable countries is concerned, since Conquest of Paradise even earlier. The new changes to the Native game mechanics in this patch provided a perfect opportunity to take a new look at a region that has remained largely untouched for a long time.

In some ways, this overhaul is our most ambitious review of the North American setup to date. The province count does fall short of Art of War (though fifty-three new provinces, not counting wastelands, is nothing to sneeze at), but the list of new tags is more than we ever added to North America at any single time. In fact, with fifty-six new tags, we’re adding more North American tags in this one overhaul than we have in the entire history of the Europa Universalis franchise.

Those tags are not evenly spread out across the continent. Two regions (the South-East United States and the Great Lakes and Saint Lawrence) get the lion’s share of the tags. Others like the Great Plains or Hudson Bay, get a handful of provinces or tags. The West Coast, for its part, where we know almost nothing of Indigenous people before the last century or so of the game, was entirely outside the scope of this overhaul. This applies to the provinces as well as the tags: in broad terms, we tried to add provinces in the same general region we were adding tags, to keep the amount of empty (or tribal land) provinces roughly similar.

With twenty-one new tags, it is the South-East United States that receive the most work in this new overhaul. The reason is simple: up until now, the 1444 setup in the game represented the historical situation around 1600-1650. The first 150 years of the game – a time when the last great cities of the Mississippian civilizations flourished in the region (the more northern city, like Cahokia, were likely abandoned by 1444)– were left out entirely. This was the first thing we set out to fix, and the new setup, as a result, emphasize the situation that early European explorers and archaeologists tell us about – not English colonists two centuries later. By and large, most of those new tags are settled nations, and (except the Cherokee) all belong to the Muskogean culture group. This is a compromise for some of them: while they spoke Siouan languages like Catawba, they were heavily influenced by the Southern Appalachian Mississippian culture, and it’s those cultural ties we chose to emphasize.

1600773970686.png


In the new setup, the Creek Confederacy is no longer available at game start, and the Cherokee are reduced to a one-province statelet in the mountains. In their stead, the Coosa Paramount Chiefdom is now the major power of the region. Though a one-province nation in itself, it rules through a network of subject states (Satapo, an area stretching from the Kentucky border to Alabama along the spine of the Appalachians. Surrounding it are a number of smaller, independent chiefdoms, including both sites visited by the De Soto expedition (Altamaha, Cofitachequi, Joara, Ichisi, Chisca, as well as Atahachi, the future home of Chief Tuscaloosa) and of Muskogean towns that would eventually form the seeds of the future Creek Confederacy, like Coweta and Kasihta. Further west, in the valleys of the Mississippi, they are joined not only by more of the chiefdoms documented by De Soto, (Quizquiz, Anilco, Pacaha and Casqui, the last three corresponding to the Menard-Hodges, Nodena and Parkin Mound archaeological sites), but also by the Natchez people, who would, in later century, become the last tribe to embrace Mississippian culture.

Further north, our other focus region was the Great Lakes of North America. Here, the main concern was nothing to do with our setup representing the wrong date (except along the Saint Lawrence, where the Iroquoians of the sixteenth century were mysteriously missing), and everything to do with the fact that the two most famous (con)federations of natives, the Hurons and Iroquois, were represented as monolithic nations with no use for the in-game Federation mechanism. Once it was decided to represent each of the nations making up those two confederations independently, adding in the other relevant nations in the region was an obvious choice. As with the United States South-East, these are largely settled nations of Iroquoian cultures, although a handful of them are migratory instead.

1600773986832.png


This gives us a sizeable five new nations where the one Iroquois tag used to be: Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga and Seneca (plus, starting much further south at game start but not forgotten, the Tuscarora). Opposing them are the less well-known member nations of the Huron Confederacy: Tahontaenrat, Arendaronon, Attignawantan and Attigneenongnahac. In addition to them, we have a selection of minor Iroquoian nations that can struggle to strike the right balance to remain neutral between these two powerful Confederacies. This notably include the aptly named Neutral Nation (Attiwandaron), as well as the Tionontate (or Tobacco Indians), the Wenro of far western New York, and the Erie of Northwest Pennsylvania (plus the already existing Susquehannock). As the last two (Erie, Susquehannock) represent nations that claimed large territory but with very little united government, they are represented as migratory nations. You can think of the migration as representing shifting balance of power among the different villages and groups of their respective nations, rather than actual physical relocation. Also represented as migratory are the first two Iroquoian nations ever encountered by European: Stadacona, on the site of present day Quebec City, and Osheaga (Hochelaga), in present Montreal. In their case, leaving them migratory was the simplest way to enable them to potentially vanish from the Saint Lawrence lowlands, as they did in the late sixteenth century.

Our changes didn’t stop at those new areas, though they received the bulk of the changes. Existing tags that represented larger confederations or culture group were split into (some of) their constituent parts: the Illinois are now represented by the Kaskaskia, Cahokia and Peoria, the Shawnee by Chalahgawtha, Kispoko and Hathawekela, and the Puebloan people expanded from Keres and Pueblo to Acoma, Zia, Ohkay Owingeh and Sandiat. In a similar vein, some particularly large groups that used to be represented by a single tag now have additional tags to represent them: this is the case of the Cree, with the addition of the Nehiyaw (Plains Cree) nation, the Ojibwe, who are now additionally represented by the Mississage for their easternmost group and the Nakawe (or Saulteaux) for their western bands, and the Sioux, now expanded to include the Wichiyena (Western Dakota) and Lakota nations. Historical confederations that were lacking some of their members or needing a boost also gained it: the Iron Confederacy gained the Nehiyaw and Nakawe, described above; the Three Fires now add the Mississage to their alliance, and the Wabanaki Confederacy of North-East North America can now count on the help of the Maliseet and Penobscot as well as the pre-existing Abenaki. Finally, three more tags are added on sheer account of their historical importance in the Colonial era, two as allies of New France, one as ally-turned-enemy of New England: the Algonquin of the Ottawa valley, the Innu of the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, and the Wampanoag of Massachusetts Bay.

1600774009748.png


Along with all these changes, we finally introduced Wasteland mountain ranges to North America. Not in the Rockies (where the handful of connections already represent major passes through the mountains), but rather, in the East, along the Appalachian mountains. While they may not seem like much today, they were formidable obstacle to westward expansion in colonial time, when it was said that there were only five paths from the East Coast westward that could be taken by large groups of people: around the mountains to the south in the Piedmont of Georgia, through the Cumberland gap on the border of Virginia and Tennessee, through the Cumberland Narrows of western Maryland, the Allegheny gaps of Pennsylvania, and finally through the valley of the Mohawk river, in New York. In addition, through it didn’t allow for east-west travel per se, the Great Valley of the Appalachians was another significant route through the region, running from Alabama to Pennsylvania. All of them are now represented in the game, along with the mountains that bordered them.

We also tried to adopt a somewhat consistent standard in the naming of provinces, and revise province names accordingly. The new standard prefers the self-given names of a Native group (tribe, nation, band…) who lived in the region where we can find one. If none can be found, other options include a name given to a local people by a neighboring tribe (provided it’s not derogatory), or a geographic name in a local Native language. In all cases, we now tend to favor native spelling where we are able to find it, though symbols that are particularly unusual in the standard Latin Alphabet may be set aside or approximated for our players’ benefit.


That’s it for today, as usual I’ll answer questions in the thread however there’s one I want to address yet again as it keeps getting asked and I can’t answer every single time it gets asked. People have asked if these features will be applied to South America or the Siberian Natives etc. It all depends on time, the main focus is to rework the North Americans and if I have time I will make sure it plays nice with others that can also benefit but it is not a priority. Next week will have it’s development diary written by Johan.
 
  • 153Like
  • 69Love
  • 9
  • 9
  • 9
Reactions:
I'm curious as to how you guys find or otherwise make flags for these nations. It seems as if many of them don't really have a historical unifying banner.

There are many ways we do this.

The most common is actually Native flags (or Native symbols on other flags) as are used today. While they're long after the game timeframe for the most part, they still represent icons and symbols used by the corresponding people, which we at times adopt wholesale into the game, and at other times, modify. In some cases one modern native flag can be the inspiration for two or three different in-game ones (I believe that's the case, for example, with the three Mississippian states of Arkansas whose flags all come from the modern Tunica tribe flag, who are reportedly descended from them). In some cases, we will also look at the flags of related or descendent tribes (we use a few Creek flags for the Creek mother towns, for example).

Sometime the flags are also drawn from symbols representing the Native people on non-Native flags. This is most notably (and recognizably) the case for Osheaga/Hochelaga, whose flag is nothing else than the golden pine on a red background that was recently added to the flag of Montréal to represent the role of the Native people in its history. As an Iroquoian symbol representing the Native people of Montréal, it felt like an appropriate symbol for Osheaga, an Iroquoian nation centered on Montréal Island.

Another way of doing things is to look at pottery or beadwork or similar art or craft from the corresponding people, and draw a flag inspired from the patterns found there. Etowah and Cahokia (although that one - deliberately, we wanted just a hint of room for player interpretation regarding just who the Cahokia tag reprpesent - comes from pottery associated with the city rather than the tribe) are examples of this approach.

And finally, sometime we just make the flags up where there are no other resources we can seem to find.
 
  • 12
  • 8Like
Reactions:
As is briefly mentioned in the diary, the Pueblo are all now one-province countries. The old Keres tag is now called Zia, with its southern province now owned by the new Acoma tag, and Pueblo has been replaced by the two tags of Ohkay Owingeh (this is a case where we are not using the formerly more common European name, because Catholic Saints really have no business in 1444 America) and Sandiat (or Isleta, I don't actually remember which of the two I decided on off the top of my head).

Florida, unfortunately, remains empty at this time. Perhaps a mistake in hindsight, but some arguably worthy tribes and nations were going to be left off wherever we decided to draw the line, and that's where we drew it.
I would like to see a screenshot if possible.
As for the tribes in Florida, it's a pity they won't be added.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Perhaps, but the best-known time a colonial overlord tried that, the result...weren't very pretty (although again, that's all within the scope of one colonial region in game). So it should come with some risk and challenges in game - not a freebie button.

(Connecticut colonized Vermont. New York claimed Vermont per its charter, and demanded that the crown confirm its right to it. The Crown did, and New York decided this meant the Connecticut settlers had no actual ownership of the land grant Connecticut sold them. The settlers promptly revolted against New York, which turned fairly quickly into a revolt against New York and the British (this was 1776 after all). In the end, after much negotiation and even fear that Vermont would defect back to the British rather than be included in the United States as part of New York, New York gave in and recognized they wouldn't be getting Vermont.)
While I like modeling of historical forces, there gets to a point where it's just a nuisance more than anything. Make it cost something. Make it raise liberty desire. I just don't want my colonies to be ugly because they decided to colonize something asinine.
 
Last edited:
  • 7Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Please rework Totemism.

At the moment it feels like a non-religion, much like Animism, just waiting to be converted, and that's really not an appropriate state for it to be left in when EU4 is finished.

Even something minor, or which reuses the system of another religion would be superior to what is currently in place.
 
  • 14Like
  • 12
Reactions:
I think there's a point where gameplay supersedes massively annoying the player with AI behavior because the AI doing it is historical. If you can make ti have a cost, fine, but even as someone who likes historical forces being modeled, I care less about that and more about my colonies not looking like garbage.

While I agree that gameplay supersedes historical nitpick, I would argue that colonies "not looking like garbage" is not really a gameplay concern (it doesn't actually affect what the colony is or what it does in the game, ie, actual game mechanics) so much as an aesthetic one.

And to me at least, history trumps aesthetics/border gore.
 
  • 8
  • 2Love
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
There are many ways we do this.

The most common is actually Native flags (or Native symbols on other flags) as are used today. While they're long after the game timeframe for the most part, they still represent icons and symbols used by the corresponding people, which we at times adopt wholesale into the game, and at other times, modify. In some cases one modern native flag can be the inspiration for two or three different in-game ones (I believe that's the case, for example, with the three Mississippian states of Arkansas whose flags all come from the modern Tunica tribe flag, who are reportedly descended from them). In some cases, we will also look at the flags of related or descendent tribes (we use a few Creek flags for the Creek mother towns, for example).

Sometime the flags are also drawn from symbols representing the Native people on non-Native flags. This is most notably (and recognizably) the case for Osheaga/Hochelaga, whose flag is nothing else than the golden pine on a red background that was recently added to the flag of Montréal to represent the role of the Native people in its history. As an Iroquoian symbol representing the Native people of Montréal, it felt like an appropriate symbol for Osheaga, an Iroquoian nation centered on Montréal Island.

Another way of doing things is to look at pottery or beadwork or similar art or craft from the corresponding people, and draw a flag inspired from the patterns found there. Etowah and Cahokia (although that one - deliberately, we wanted just a hint of room for player interpretation regarding just who the Cahokia tag reprpesent - comes from pottery associated with the city rather than the tribe) are examples of this approach.

And finally, sometime we just make the flags up where there are no other resources we can seem to find.

This is super insightful, thanks so much! I'll be sure to use these tips while working on my own mods :)
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
If a leadership change is triggered it will try to pick the strongest member to be the new leader, if the leader is the strongest then the federation will be disbanded.

Maybe my coffee hasn’t kicked in yet, but can someone explain this to me? I read it three times and it doesn’t make sense.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
While I agree that gameplay supersedes historical nitpick, I would argue that colonies "not looking like garbage" is not really a gameplay concern (it doesn't actually affect what the colony is or what it does in the game, ie, actual game mechanics) so much as an aesthetic one.

And to me at least, history trumps aesthetics/border gore.
I agree aesthetics aren't actually that important, but I feel like there should at least be a way for the player to cut down on things like the image I've attached without forcibly releasing the colony and re-invading. Again, totally fine with it costing something. I'd actually prefer it. Actually having to fight against an independence war for once would be pretty fun.
 

Attachments

  • Good Mexico.png
    Good Mexico.png
    934,8 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
  • 7Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I am surprised with this update of North America instead of South America (in worse current condition), since this is a patch about Indonesia, I assumed that you would try to represent in some way the unique commercial dynamics of the Portuguese empire. This dynamic is quite badly represented in the game, for example Portugal with the trade of Mali managed to be the richest country in Europe in the 15th century (without land conquests), something that is not possible ingame. By 1509 they had already reached Malacca and some years later they managed to dominate the trade in the region specialy species. The same with sugar in South America. This would cause a series of wars with other colonial powers, especially Netherlands, In my opinion this should be the most important thing to explore in a patch focused on indonecia during the 16-17-18 century.
 
  • 10
  • 1Like
Reactions:
You know what's neat? Being from a place that ingame now has a tag where before it was a colonizable province. I'm not a member of that tribe but I just have to play as Wampanoag when the patch comes out. Let's win this king Philip's war!
 
Last edited:
  • 6Like
  • 4
Reactions:
I would prefer a shared mission tree for all CN/ former CN.

That also would be cool that CN have shared missions, but in the case of USA or Mexico, i think that they deserve to have something unique. I would include into this Texas, Brazil and perhaps California and Australia.
 
  • 5
  • 2Like
Reactions:
These changes to Native Americans are very interesting! Since migration is more limited than it used to be, how can the Comanche start near the Rockies in 1444 and end up in Texas and Oklahoma as they are estimated to have had done by 1500 (at least according to Wikipedia)?
 
  • 1
Reactions: