• 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.
Hello and Welcome to yet another Europa Universalis development diary. Today we’ll first delve into the results of the survey we sent out earlier this autumn, and also do some comparisons with the analytics we have. We’ll also talk about some minor balance changes and an interesting new feature for our future expansion.

First of all, I’d like to thank the over 10,000 people who took their time to reply to all the questions in our survey. While this is but a fraction of the entire playerbase, it gives us an indication of what the more hardcore of the audience likes, with over half of the respondents having played over 1,000 hours.

The most common play-styles, by far, as reported was role-playing and changing history. It is probably not a surprise to anyone that you viewed Victoria to have the best economy, Hearts of Iron the best military, Europa Universalis the best diplomacy and Crusader Kings the best politics.

You also overwhelmingly prefer simulation over boardgame mechanics, and you think that we should focus more on the economical buildup and flavorful content.

While the Golden Century was easily the worst expansion in your eyes, the top 5 expansions according to you were.
  • Art of War
  • Common Sense
  • Emperor
  • Rights of Man
  • Mandate of Heaven

While talking about the survey, I thought it would be fun to look at the top 10 most played countries right now.

Code:
France          6.16%
Ottomans        5.08%
Austria         4.39%
Byzantium       4.39%
Custom Nation   4.23%
England         3.35%
Castile         3.29%
Brandenburg     3.11%
Ming            2.24%
Portugal        2.12%


A minor balance change for the people who play multiplayer and play with victory cards enabled, is the small little change that Estates will now become less loyal if you ally with nations which you have victory cards upon.

And for those that play as Cossacks and have the Sich Rada government enabled, as requested by the community, you now have the ability to raze cities, just like hordes does.

Finally, it's time to reveal another feature for our upcoming expansion, a new unit mission called Carpet Siege. It is similar to the hunt rebels mission, but with the difference that the army actively will avoid combat unless it is sure of winning, and primarily focusing on sieging down hostile territory. You can set it to just targeting specific areas on the map, or let it decide on its own when there are valid targets to consider.

eu4_15.png


Stay tuned, because next week Groogy will be back, talking about a major religion without unique mechanics that will get one.
 
I really wish Buddhism could get a rework. One of the big Three modern religions, but has a stupid Karma balancing mechanic.

Also Ottomans and Ming should get mission trees too.
The Ottomans tree should not just only permanent claims. While the Ming tree should be survival gameplay flavor-heavy, since the Ming explosion no longer be avoided.


It could be Buddhism. Buddhist karma bar is just a copy paste of the muslim mechanics with a little different amount of requirements for it to change. So the karma bar is not unique.

It has nothing unique about it and it is definitely a major religion then and now.
 
  • 3
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I once suggested that Ming and Ming revolters should have "Chinese generic missions". Ming is a very powerful nation at the beginning, in the hands of experienced players it can overcome Mingplosion. Granting them unique mission tree would overpower them.

Yes, and I say this as someone who plays 99.9% in Europe, we certainly wouldn't want any OP mission sets.
 
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Top 10 least played tags when?
 
  • 8Like
Reactions:
Make Judaism Great Again. No but really, it is bigger than Zoro which is getting a rework, can't Beta Israel get some love also? And give Christian and Muslim nations some more Jewish events while you are at it.

Also, how is Groogy doing? Did he catch The Big Sick? Is the rest of PDX doing alright?
 
  • 5Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Stay tuned, because next week Groogy will be back, talking about a major religion without unique mechanics that will get one.
Anyway so what are we actually doing with Zoroastrianism? Since in the start of the game they are not in any particularly strong position, a people in sort of a diaspora we’ve been focusing around that. We already have some remnants in Yazd but we are also adding the Parsi in Gujarat.
Zoroastrian is reusing something already existing, Sikhs are getting something entirely new. This is about just making sure there's "something" for faiths that currently have nothing.
I don't know that it's going to be Judaism... but it could be.
The diaspora reference kinds of weighs on me... how can you use the term and not be aware of what it initially described?
Make Judaism Great Again. No but really, it is bigger than Zoro which is getting a rework, can't Beta Israel get some love also?
Yeah. Judaism was basically Europe's only religious minority for centuries, and Jews were more common in EU4's timeframe than today.
I'm going to hope that Christian X is a cultural influence in the next dev diary.... if not, it may be time to mod.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
That is really interesting given how much conversation there is around what things are useful in competitive multiplayer or for minmaxing purposes whenever a new thing is announced. I guess that may be the bias of people who want to talk about the game on a forum.
No, I understand why multiplayer people are into minmaxing. For a competitive advantage. I'm just surprised for how much people talk about minmax setups that roleplay is still the most popular.

I ticked roleplaying and alt-history in the survey too, but I also like to min-max. Min-maxing makes it a lot easier to do alt-history as a tiny nation or to achieve your roleplay goals in multiplayer. That there are more discussions about min-maxing is probably that you can base that on hard numbers. A who is better at roleplaying his country discussion wouldn't lead anywhere, because there Is no optimal way to do it.

The feature sounds nice and all... but really? YET ANOTHER QOL improvement locked behind paywall? Things like army and navy missions, diplo manager, supporting independence, army templates, army auto-transport, ally objectives etc. should be part of the base game.

Paradox, this needs to stop.

He stellaris team has a good take on that. The all and mechanics are part of the free patch and the dlc uses the mechanics and adds stuff on top of it. Their DLCs also focus on one area of the game, while EU4 ones feel often all over the place.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
It's always been near the top when they've posted these stats. Remember, it adds +1 play every time a game is started. And what moderately popular nation requires about a dozen or two restarts to get right?

Wow, is that true? I would imagine the developers would have some sort of mechanism to filter out restarts to show truer statistics though? If not, I should play Kamchadals 1000 restarts a month for 3 months to see if they make the next figures...
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Not really sure you should add an Army Mission to a mechanic which should hardly be a thing.

Carpet Sieging? Is that really a thing we should look for in Eu4?

I dunno, seems like we are now promoting things that are not really healthy to overall gameplay.
I have to disagree. Micro-managing armies, particularly when you have a big empire and you're fighting on multiple fronts, is a complete pain in the ass. Like it or not, to build up sufficient warscore you do need to occupy a country, and that's what this system makes simpler.

Sure, micro is a good skill to have if you're handling battles against large enemy armies, and it's definitely important for critical multiplayer battles, but this system doesn't change that, so I can't really see how you can object on those grounds. This isn't about reducing the skill needed to be good at the game: it's about making it less tedious, and so you don't have to pause all the time to move armies. Frankly, I can't help but feel that criticism of this is pointlessly snobbish and elitist.

To be honest, even if Paradox did introduce something like Imperator's army AI, which effectively lets you automate your armies entirely if you want to, only intervening to micro for key battles as needed, then that would actually be a good thing. Chasing down small enemy armies is also a pain in the ass, arguably even moreso than having to siege down enemy provinces, but it's also fundamentally necessary to win wars decisively.

If you hate the idea of having options to automate these things, then you should also be critical of what makes them desirable in the first place, namely the way you have to build up warscore by defeating armies and conquering territories. Do you happen to have any constructive ideas about what should be done to address the need for tedious micromanaging?

This is a really great quality of life improvement, much like the ability to make army and navy templates was in Art of War, which similarly saved people time and effort, and made building armies and navies far less frustrating. My only real complaints are that it doesn't go far enough, as I hate having to chase down and destroy small enemy armies, and it also seems like it will be expansion-exclusive, rather than included in the free patch for everyone to enjoy by default.
 
Last edited:
  • 5Like
  • 3
Reactions:
I find it shocking, that you draw conclusions from a survey without addressing the problem which was already pointed out in the second comment to the survey post. The question about which game is best at which aspect didn't have the option to answer "I don't know". That made it impossible for me to even complete the survey. As far as I see it, it was only possible to finish the survey for people who fall into one of the following categories:
  • played all the games long enough to rank them
  • intentionally lied to answer the question
  • didn't really think through the questions
  • didn't care about giving correct answers
I think this completely invalidates the results from the ranking questions and probably skewed the result of the survey. I guess many min-max players were not able to answer the survey because they immediately see the problem with that question.

Edit: it would be nice if the people who disagree with me would explain why

I wouldn’t say it COMPLETELY invalidates the results of the survey, but it certainly does skew it wildly for many participants. For example, myself I have never actually played Vicky, but I’ve seen other people play, and I have a very general knowledge level of how the game’s systems work.

I definitely agree it would have been nice to preemptively pare out some of the answers, or have a slightly different set of questions based on the individual’s exposure to Paradox games.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Doesnt matter if its part of the game.

The question is if it should be and if promoting it with an army command really doesnt give out the wrong message.

Plenty of things could be done about it, like making Battles Won more important or making sieging down forts more important by increasing the zone of control.

Especially since the sheer number of new provinces that have been added since the last time they changed the fort mechanics.

Except the fox is already in the proverbial hen house, has been for years, and doesn’t look like it’s leaving anytime soon. This is like saying “Let’s first discuss about whether the fox should actually be here” instead of going “Well, it’s already here, let’s use this GUN to make the situation far more manageable.”
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Doesnt matter if its part of the game.

The question is if it should be and if promoting it with an army command really doesnt give out the wrong message.

Plenty of things could be done about it, like making Battles Won more important or making sieging down forts more important by increasing the zone of control.

Especially since the sheer number of new provinces that have been added since the last time they changed the fort mechanics.
Except even that doesn't really help, because you'll still have to do tedious micromanagement.

A lot of the time enemy armies will take weird routes to get to you, thanks to military access agreements, or they'll just run away from superior forces. And if you're fighting lots of enemies, then you'll potentially be chasing down dozens of different armies.

On top of all that, carpet sieging will still be necessary, because otherwise your enemies will keep recruiting more troops from their unoccupied provinces.

What you're proposing is not a solution, and if anything only doubles down on the problem of tedious micromanagement.

Really, EU4 should feature the same option to automate your armies that IR has, whereby you can task them to hunt enemy armies, siege forts and occupy provinces, and more besides. Micromanaging armies is still beneficial for key battles, so it's not like the actual strategy side of things is diluted in any way - it just eliminates all the time wasting that gets in the way of being able to actually enjoy the game.
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Really, EU4 should feature the same option to automate your armies that IR has, whereby you can task them to hunt enemy armies, siege forts and occupy provinces, and more besides. Micromanaging armies is still beneficial for key battles, so it's not like the actual strategy side of things is diluted in any way - it just eliminates all the time wasting that gets in the way of being able to actually enjoy the game.

I'd love that as well, but that is kind of impossible to code into EU4.
 
  • 9
  • 2
Reactions:
Devs, I beg you, add templates for special units like Streltsy or some resonable way to reinforce armies without building 1 regiment at the time. I've been so tired to doing so in my recent russian campaign
 
Last edited:
  • 5
  • 3Like
Reactions: