Hello everyone! We’re getting close to release and there’s not much left to cover in our Development Diaries. So today's diary will be about things I think we’ve missed in previous ones. Even though we have had 57 development diaries, not including this one, there’s still been things that have slipped. So it will be sort of a leftover scraps Dev Diary. First up, shortcut/hotkeys.

So how it used to work in order to set up your own shortcut keys in the interface of EU4 you had to mod the interface files, or download a mod from the Steam Workshop. But we’ve now implemented a way for you to configure these settings inside the game instead. EU4 is a game with a lot of interfaces and buttons so we can’t really have a settings screen listing every single possible shortcut. So instead we added this button in the game.

Clicking on that will let you then click on any button in the interface that has a shortcut and assign it a new one. Clicking on let’s say the Split in Half button for armies will prompt you with this.

Letting you pick whatever key shortcut you want for that button.

Next is a pet peeve of many, your subjects using their colonist for settlement growth where or when you don’t want it. So we’ve added a simple little Subject interaction where you can allow or forbid this to specific subjects.

So not much to say there, so let’s move on to something I’ve seen discussed from time to time within the community, which is the French Vassal Swarm. I thought I had already covered this before but no harm in being extra clear. France starts with a very powerful nobility estate and a special privilege specifically for them.

Besides being in control of a lot of land from the start, this privilege also gives them +10% Influence making it a hard one to get rid of. There is an equivalent that exists for any other nation that is not French as well, the requirement to pick it requires that you have at least 2 vassals. I hope this clears up any potential misunderstandings from our previous talks about the French Vassal Swarm.

Minority Expulsions have gotten changes to try and make Europe not too homogenous in culture. IT no longer costs diplo power but it also does not convert the home province of the culture/religion. The modifiers that affect its costs are now focused on the money cost instead of the diplo cost. The development that you get in the new world province now also reduces the amount of development that “stays” in the home province to represent the movement of people, and through that sort of making it cheaper for you to culture convert at home. We’ve also made the AI very reluctant to do it overall.

We’ve done some smaller balance changes. First we’ve changed so you can’t overrun an army that can fill out it’s combat width. Overrun being the mechanic where you insta wipe on day 1 if you have 10x the size of the enemy. Going forward we are also looking into redoing some policies values like the 20% Infantry Combat Ability, try and lower the sources of Army Tradition as a whole as we don’t want it to be this easy to get a floor of 100% Army Tradition. We are also looking at reviewing the Hussite modifiers.

I want to end this Development Diary by retracting one of our previous promises, we said at the start of working on this patch that we would solve so you could restart back to the menu. However we have to admit defeat here as we’ve put a lot of resources in trying to fix it but EU4’s architecture simply can’t support resetting it’s game state properly. So even though we thought we had an early victory in getting this to work, after intensive testing it’s shown that we are basically still at square 1. I am very sorry that we have to backtrack on this, especially if it was something you were looking forward to.

Next Dev Diary will be the patch notes for the 1.30 Update.

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

[

It's cringe on cringe, mate
Not derailing this entire conversation into 'realism VS gameplay' Great Holy War, but only on your points about specifically minority expulsions.
It WAS very useful. Less money used for colonization, no need to bother with infidels from whatever region we are talking about (be it Morocco, Ireland, Fetishist Africa etc. etc.), indirect buff to your CNs by boosting development WITHOUT hurting your development and with a discount on MP cost (yes you paid DP, but that still was less, than you would pay to develop CN provinces). This feature allowed many different colonizers to be more fun to play with because of all this. And it still had it drawbacks - your colonizer had to babysit those minorities for entirety of colonization, not allowing you to cycle him efficiently, worsened risk of target province to get occupied and stopped expulsion (so you once again you need to babysit those colonies sometimes, especially during some colonial wars), and the DP cost still was there, something to consider from time to time.
To summarize - it was quite balanced feature, doing more good, than harm (red isles homogeneity - like who cares? realism lovers? ). Should it have been changed? Yeah, maybe...sometimes this 'moderately easily' attained homogeneity was ridiculous even for pure 'gameplay' players (and yeah yeah - realism was almost butchered there). Should it have been castrated like they claim it will be (like seriously - lowering your states development is extreme! Hordes can get pure MP for doing that!)? I would strongly say - NO.

PS: On a side note - strategy part of game choices should NOT consider immersion and/or roleplay at all, actually. Strategy choices can and should intertwine with immersion and RP choices (at least, for a complex genre games like EU4), but there should be clear strategy benefits from a choice for that choice to be strategic. Otherwise we are talking less of a strategy game and more of a ... different genre game. And that's can be ok and even good, but strategic players can start liking such a game less

Agree to disagree mate.

However, i believe its perfectly possible to find a middle ground between the immersion and the utilitarian lines of thought that we can both agree on.

Just make expulsion have some other benefits that compensate the drawbacks, or add something that mitigates the drawbacks (example: provinces you expel a minority from gain a substantial development increase discount and conversion cost discount during the duration of the expulsion cooldown) while still not converting the province you are expeling from.

 

[Twoflower]

@Twoflower Point 5 is really an epicenter, all others are circles around and taste based. And yes, feature was balanced towards powerplay. Removing it is not an option (by sheer logic - PDX will not remove cornerstone feature of DLC they introduced not long ago), applying better changes to it - yes. While we are on it - mind sharing your ideas how this feature can be salvaged?

The thing is: this feature was conceptually a bad idea. It was part of a "flavour pack" for Iberia. Those flavour DLCs are supposed to give more historical detail and flavour to playing certain countries, in this case, Castile-Spain, Aragon, Portugal, Navarra and Granada. They are, conceptually, not supposed to strictly make those countries more powerful and they're not supposed to be pay-to-win mechanics. I am not saying that many features in the flavour packs released so far do not do that - that would be very easy to disprove - but that this is how flavour packs should be.
Even those features in other flavour packs that could be considered pay-to-win features, like the Russian buttons, try to have some basis in historical and represent a special aspect of a country.

Expulsion of minorities is a bad feature not only because it is pay-to-win, but because it does not add any historical flavour.

Its historical base is (probably) the infamous Alhambra Decree and the edict of expulsion of the Moriscos of 1609. Both of which were and are already represented by ingame events. Everything else about this feature is wildly ahistorical. There was no expulsion of Jews, Muslims or Moriscos to Spain's new world colonies. To the contrary, the concept of "Limpieza de Sangre" was strictly enforced in the Spanish colonial empire. The Spanish Laws of the Indies explicitly forbade emigration of Jews and Muslims and people with recent Jewish and Muslim ancestors to its colonial empire. Yes, there were (of course) a few Jews, Muslims and Moriscos who still emigrated to the colonies in violation of that law. However a game feature where Spain actively encourages something that historical Spain prohibited does not add flavour, it subtracts flavour and creates misconceptions about history.
For this reason, there really is nothing to salvage about this feature as a part of the Golden Century DLC. Its inclusion left me (and I am basically a Paradox and EUIV fanboy ) very, very disappointed. The Golden Century DLC would be better and more valuable without it.
If removal of the feature from a DLC is seen as problematic, the best thing to do would be a new feature for the Golden Century DLC to replace it. Special estate privileges - that could represent stuff like the Fueros as a very important peculiarity of Iberian law, the concept of Pactisme in the Kingdom of Aragon, the Honrado Concejo de la Mesta (the powerful association of sheep ranchers in Castile), the Germanies (artisan guilds) in the Kingdom of Valencia. Or something about the Limpieza de Sangre. Or some events about the School of Salamanca, which combined scholasticism with humanism to develop a concept of human rights and international law (this I would personally love, having had the great privilege of studying a bit of international law in Salamanca). There are many infinitely fascinating aspects about Spain's political, legal, cultural and intellectual history in the EU4 timespan that would deserve a spotlight in a flavour pack about Spain/Iberia - while shipping Moors, Moroccans and Sicilians to the New World by Expulsion of Minorities drastically misrepresents Spanish history.

 

[Larva]

The thing is: this feature was conceptually a bad idea. It was part of a "flavour pack" for Iberia. Those flavour DLCs are supposed to give more historical detail and flavour to playing certain countries, in this case, Castile-Spain, Aragon, Portugal, Navarra and Granada. They are, conceptually, not supposed to strictly make those countries more powerful and they're not supposed to be pay-to-win mechanics. I am not saying that many features in the flavour packs released so far do not do that - that would be very easy to disprove - but that this is how flavour packs should be.
Even those features in other flavour packs that could be considered pay-to-win features, like the Russian buttons, try to have some basis in historical and represent a special aspect of a country.

Expulsion of minorities is a bad feature not only because it is pay-to-win, but because it does not add any historical flavour.

Its historical base is (probably) the infamous Alhambra Decree and the edict of expulsion of the Moriscos of 1609. Both of which were and are already represented by ingame events. Everything else about this feature is wildly ahistorical. There was no expulsion of Jews, Muslims or Moriscos to Spain's new world colonies. To the contrary, the concept of "Limpieza de Sangre" was strictly enforced in the Spanish colonial empire. The Spanish Laws of the Indies explicitly forbade emigration of Jews and Muslims and people with recent Jewish and Muslim ancestors to its colonial empire. Yes, there were (of course) a few Jews, Muslims and Moriscos who still emigrated to the colonies in violation of that law. However a game feature where Spain actively encourages something that historical Spain prohibited does not add flavour, it subtracts flavour and creates misconceptions about history.
For this reason, there really is nothing to salvage about this feature as a part of the Golden Century DLC. Its inclusion left me (and I am basically a Paradox and EUIV fanboy ) very, very disappointed. The Golden Century DLC would be better and more valuable without it.
If removal of the feature from a DLC is seen as problematic, the best thing to do would be a new feature for the Golden Century DLC to replace it. Special estate privileges - that could represent stuff like the Fueros as a very important peculiarity of Iberian law, the concept of Pactisme in the Kingdom of Aragon, the Honrado Concejo de la Mesta (the powerful association of sheep ranchers in Castile), the Germanies (artisan guilds) in the Kingdom of Valencia. Or something about the Limpieza de Sangre. Or some events about the School of Salamanca, which combined scholasticism with humanism to develop a concept of human rights and international law (this I would personally love, having had the great privilege of studying a bit of international law in Salamanca). There are many infinitely fascinating aspects about Spain's political, legal, cultural and intellectual history in the EU4 timespan that would deserve a spotlight in a flavour pack about Spain/Iberia - while shipping Moors, Moroccans and Sicilians to the New World by Expulsion of Minorities drastically misrepresents Spanish history.

That's deep. I can see how from this viewpoint feature is doomed.

 

[holyvigil]

Minority explusion could be useful without changing the religious/culture make up of Europe.

One thing that could be done is for 10 years after getting rid of the trouble maker minorities it reduces unrest in that province by -5.

 

[ordermaji]

Hi. I have over 5k hours in this game. Please don’t nerf the infantry combat and Calvary combat policies so hard. They make me take ideas I wouldn’t otherwise take and thus encourage different play styles in single player. Taking them away just takes away the fun. Espionage and Aristocratic are hard to justify most of the time unless you go for stacking those modifiers.

This feels like a multiplayer focused change. Again. Make sure to not to use dev clash and multiplayers the as the only guide for these kinds of changes. It just feels punitive. like you’re completely ignoring that most players of EU4 don’t do multiplayer.

 

[Lil_Debil]

If your brand new DLC is focused on Europe and you have updated the revolution mechanics, can we PLEASE have horizontal revolutionary flags? I'm not going Rev. as Germany or Russia mostly because my eyes will bleed when they see that flag

 

[Twoflower]

Call me dumb but where the fuck in this dev diary did you address the problem of the French vassal swarm ? You didn't. You present a modifier that, for all accounts, makes the vassal swarm even stronger. The concern is that France will just have too many troops and manpower (Yeah don't forget the base 10k+dev for every nation) and could even just declare wars and let it's vassal do the job while doing nothing. Do you even know what a vassal swarm is ? We speak of VASSAL SWARM and you tell us about some ESTATE modifier ? Seriously those dev diaries looks like politicians interviews sometimes. You say you are going to address the problem but you don't at all and speak of something almost entirely unrellated. I don't wanna sound disrespectful or anything, but this is seriously unnerving. You don't clear any misunderstandings. You don't. If you want to tell me you do, I'm sorry but you guys need to see someone. No one cares about that modifier, we care for a balance problem in the game right now that this update was supposed to fix and is instead completely buffing. Wtf does this modifier has to do with that issue ? Can we get an honest answer ? If you've made thing even more unbalanced just say so, don't hide behind empty words and meaningless presentations.

Anyway, thanks for the work on this update, it seems like it's gonna be one of the best since the game released, for Europe at least. I know I sound a bit salty, which I am, but I'm thanksful for the job done don't get me wrong. Hyped to play Emperor.

I am not contradicting you, but just wanted to point out that it's not just the estate modifier. The nobility estate also starts out in control of 49 % of France's crown land, which is (supposedly) significantly higher than for most other countries.
The dev diary on the changes to estates was not entirely clear on this, but as I understand it, having an estate owning a large share of your land is quite a mixed bag. On the one hand, the larger an estate's share, the larger the positive effects from some privileges (e.g. the Increased Levies privilege for the nobility seems to give +1 % national manpower per 4 % land share). On the other hand, there is a penalty to absolutism and autonomy growth for having a low share of the crown lands.
Also, the increased nobility influence from the privilege means that the nobility will get a larger share of all new conquests. Meaning that it could be quite tricky to lower the nobility's share of crown lands.

Since neither you nor I have yet played with the new system, it is hard to say whether the direct effects from the privilege - more nobility influence, penalty to absolutism - and the high starting crown lands will be enough to balance the benefits of the vassal swarm. It is rather likely that in 1444 the vassal swarm will make France a much tougher opponent than in 1.29. The autonomy growth and the penalty to absolutism (directly from the privilege and from high crown lands) might however be quite a debuff in the long term, which might even make it desirable to get rid of the privilege.

 

[Honon]

Move the first paragraph to being last, like an additional argument, and not the main argument, and you'll get better results. Salt is understandable, but better keep your thoughts cool and rational, only spiced with emotions.
Also, you won't be paying diplo points now - not that it really matters, feature is still being castrated

Your assessment is a fair one if my intent was a defense of minority expulsion. In honesty though, I was never particularly affectionate toward minority expulsion except that it makes Portugal play more palatable and the second paragraph represents the afterthought it really was.. I feel there can be a reasonable debate about what to do concerning minority expulsion either way. However, I am excessively annoyed at the hypocrisy in the demands for X feature in an alternate history game based upon the nebulous "realism" argument, which more often then not is based on incorrect and unresearched assumptions about the real world. These players are fully willing to tolerate ahistorical results and mechanics that they enjoy. It is only mechanics they dislike that suddenly must be exactly realistic. World Conquest is a perfect example. Historically, it wasn't that no country conquered the world, it was that no country could conquer the world. It was an impossible feat with the logistics technology of the day. However, certain posters will defend the realism of one tag while demanding X other feature be removed because it isn't "real". The fact that something did not happen in history isn't, on its own, a reason for anything in a game where you already accept deviation from history.

As far as persuasion, the "realism" argument is a rationalization and not the actual basis for belief. Accordingly, it is impossible to "persuade" someone who makes that argument to adopt a different position through reasoned discussion concerning realism. You might as well attempt to persuade someone to switch parties by exposing the logical failings of their "reasons" for adopting that parties political positions.

The point I was making concerning Minority Expulsion wasn't that it shouldn't have been nerfed, but that it is not a good thing to make it entirely useless simply because some people don't like that other people use it. If Minority Expulsion is so damaging to the game that players need to be outright barred from using it, the feature should simply be removed from the game. Having a feature in the game which cannot be used isn't a feature, it is a bug.

As far as the current iteration of Minority Expulsion, I am aware that it no longer directly costs diplo points. But it removes development from a province in your direct control. This is a monarch point cost as to get back to your original development, you would have to expend monarch points.

 

[PrussicAcid]

Hi. I have over 5k hours in this game. Please don’t nerf the infantry combat and Calvary combat policies so hard. They make me take ideas I wouldn’t otherwise take and thus encourage different play styles in single player. Taking them away just takes away the fun. Espionage and Aristocratic are hard to justify most of the time unless you go for stacking those modifiers.

This feels like a multiplayer focused change. Again. Make sure to not to use dev clash and multiplayers the as the only guide for these kinds of changes. It just feels punitive. like you’re completely ignoring that most players of EU4 don’t do multiplayer.

From +20% infantry combat ability to +5%.. (innovative + quality) This is not a nerf, it's a repeal.

Why to stay catholic then if you can take +10% infantry combat ability for free as hussite? Again, a strange way to balance this game. By nerfing or buffing few isolated things without a whole vision of the game mechanics. Before, stay catholic was tedious, rp, or courageous. Now it is just stupid.

 

[Honon]

From +20% infantry combat ability to +5%.. (innovative + quality) This is not a nerf, it's a repeal.

Why to stay catholic then if you can take +10% infantry combat ability for free as hussite? Again, a strange way to balance this game. By nerfing or buffing few isolated things without a whole vision of the game mechanics. Before, stay catholic was tedious, rp, or courageous. Now it is just stupid.

You assume there this isn't based on the whole vision of the game mechanics. Assuming competence (which we should) the Changes to these policies are probably intended as a "repeal". I imagine that Paradox decided that Minority Expulsion and the Espionage/Aristocratic policies were were unhealthy for the game but could not be removed without pushback. So, instead, the Devs nerfed them into unplayability to effectively remove them from the game without facing the backlash of deleting them.

Also, it shouldn't escape notice that Combat Ability is strongly relied on by Eastern Europeans while Minority Expulsion is useful to Iberians. In an expansion centered on Central Europe, nerfing these two groups can make the Central Europeans feel stronger without directly buffing these countries more then what Emperor already does.

 

[Balesir]

Expulsion of minorities is a bad feature not only because it is pay-to-win, but because it does not add any historical flavour.

It seems to me that the feature reflects several things outside Spain; I have never really thought of it as a "Spanish" feature. The highland clearances, Irish emigration under the British Empire and movements of American First Nations to reservations further west have been the things conjured up by this mechanism for me; and the cultural echoes that resulted from them still remain to this day.

Having said this, I think the revised version actually fits the history better, and would note that the target of the phenomenon was as often as not religious rather than cultural (hence the distinctly puritan protestant flavour of some areas of North America, for example).

 

[adin85]

From +20% infantry combat ability to +5%.. (innovative + quality) This is not a nerf, it's a repeal.

Why to stay catholic then if you can take +10% infantry combat ability for free as hussite? Again, a strange way to balance this game. By nerfing or buffing few isolated things without a whole vision of the game mechanics. Before, stay catholic was tedious, rp, or courageous. Now it is just stupid.

Yeah we should nerf too other military policys like 5% discipline or awesome 10% artillery bonus(Hegemony Naval). Espionage and Innovation itself are crap. Cavalry dont have any importance in late game.

 

[grommile]

This feels like a multiplayer focused change.

Single-player has such a large skill imbalance between the human and everyone else that it's very difficult to assess game balance properly because the AI is, in many ways, a gibbering idiot.

So balance changes naturally tend to get based on multiplayer, because there you have at least a reasonable chance of having more than one competent player at once to assess things with.

 

[connor1314]

So will this expansion have a paid content pack?

 

[Lord Hoosier]

So any nation with 2 vassals gets the French Vassal Swarm bonus?

 

[BrotherJonathan]

So any nation with 2 vassals gets the French Vassal Swarm bonus?

Not sure, but I think so. It seems to me that this feature is designed to incentivize gathering vassals in the early game, while making them more of a liability as time passes, mirroring the transition to a centralized administrative state.

 

[Dart_Faust]

when we get new DLC ?

 

[Republic of Mercury]

when we get new DLC ?

The 9th of June.

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

However, I am excessively annoyed at the hypocrisy in the demands for X feature in an alternate history game

I am excessively annoyed at the denial of the validity of arguments based on historical accuracy, in a game who literally describes itself in the official page as "Rule your nation through the centuries, with unparalleled freedom, depth and historical accuracy"

which more often then not is based on incorrect and unresearched assumptions about the real world

Then point out the historical innacuracies of those people's views instead of vaguely implying you know better.

These players are fully willing to tolerate ahistorical results and mechanics that they enjoy.

ahistorical results are completely different from ahistorical mechanics.

Its different to use realistic and historical mechanics to achieve an ahistorical outcome, compared to outright have ahistorical mechanics.

The difference between Cultural Conversion and Expulsion is that although both can be used for ahistorical outcomes, cultural conversion can be used for historical outcomes, thus its an historical mechanic, while expulsion as it stands is a completely ahistorical action which doesn't represent any historical event whatsoever and it outright cannot be used in an historically accurate way.
But i would still accept it if the A.I would not use it, since although ahistorical it is realistic enough to be included, but the A.I does use it, and often.

It is only mechanics they dislike that suddenly must be exactly realistic.

No mechanic needs to be exactly realistic, its impossible to make everything exactly realistic, but all mechanics need to have some Historical basis to justify their addition.

World Conquest is a perfect example

Apples to Oranges, World Conquest isn't a mechanic. Its the outcome of an entire playthrough and result of the use of hundreds of mechanics.

Historically, it wasn't that no country conquered the world, it was that no country could conquer the world. It was an impossible feat with the logistics technology of the day

There is no "Conquer the world" button.
You need to activately pursue that goal for hundreds of years and its by no means an easy task, which the A.I will never achieve.
You see, i have no problems with the game allowing Bretton to disappear from France and appearing in Cuba, that is if the player actively worked towards this outcome by colonizing cuba with Bretons and then converting Brittany to French.
I do have a problem if the game requires me to necessarily do both, maybe i just want to colonize Cuba with Bretons and not ethnocide Brittany. And i have an even greater problem because the A.I will consistently do it.

With that being said i also believe World Conquest should be much harder than it is.

However, certain posters will defend the realism of one tag

This feels like projection.
Those who defend one tag are players who defend gameplay and freedom (a bit like you) over realism and accuracy.

The fact that something did not happen in history isn't, on its own, a reason for anything in a game where you already accept deviation from history.

Like i said, ahistorical outcome =/= ahistorical mechanics.
I accept ahistorical playthroughs.
I do not accept that the game mechanics are supposed to achieve ahistorical playthroughs.

As far as persuasion, the "realism" argument is a rationalization and not the actual basis for belief.

I am being extremely clear with my reasoning here.
I want to be able to colonize the U.S.A with the Irish and not simultaneously ethnocide Ireland.
There is no obscure hidden agenda behind this. Its extremely straightforward.

Accordingly, it is impossible to "persuade" someone who makes that argument to adopt a different position through reasoned discussion concerning realism.

You can easily persuade me to accept any mechanic by pointing out an historical event that this aims to achieve.
In the case of minority expulsion, you need to exemplify a country which successfully ethnically replaced another culture by shipping them to one of their colonies.

As far as the current iteration of Minority Expulsion, I am aware that it no longer directly costs diplo points. But it removes development from a province in your direct control. This is a monarch point cost as to get back to your original development, you would have to expend monarch points.

Who says you need to get it back to the original development?
As i see it, the intended use of this mechanic is to lower the development and thus lower religious and cultural conversation costs.

Having a feature in the game which cannot be used isn't a feature, it is a bug.

Except, it CAN be used.

Just because you feel like it isn't worth it doesn't mean it can't be used.
I don't consider exploiting development worth it either, i never pressed any of those buttons (except admin to avoid bankruptcy spirals), but i still theoretically enjoy that mechanic and would not request its removal.

 

[Gunthah]

If removal of the feature from a DLC is seen as problematic, the best thing to do would be a new feature for the Golden Century DLC to replace it. Special estate privileges - that could represent stuff like the Fueros as a very important peculiarity of Iberian law, the concept of Pactisme in the Kingdom of Aragon, the Honrado Concejo de la Mesta (the powerful association of sheep ranchers in Castile), the Germanies (artisan guilds) in the Kingdom of Valencia. Or something about the Limpieza de Sangre. Or some events about the School of Salamanca, which combined scholasticism with humanism to develop a concept of human rights and international law (this I would personally love, having had the great privilege of studying a bit of international law in Salamanca). There are many infinitely fascinating aspects about Spain's political, legal, cultural and intellectual history in the EU4 timespan that would deserve a spotlight in a flavour pack about Spain/Iberia - while shipping Moors, Moroccans and Sicilians to the New World by Expulsion of Minorities drastically misrepresents Spanish history.

Judging by the dreadfully poor effort to represent aspects of Spanish history they did in Golden Century (pirate republics and discounts to creating muslim colonies in America), they probably won't create anything new, though those you mentioned would all be great ideas. My guess is they won't even fix the whole post-Alpujarras expulsion of Moriscos they changed for GC or the wildly ahistorical Iberian government reform.