EU4 - Development Diary - 8th of September 2020

[Rudolf Nechvile II]

Considering these reworks and the new religion in Australia, can we possibly see some changes to colonial nations? I would really love to see this:

• Colonies should be limited to expansion in their region. Perhaps add events and liberty desire for them wanting to expand further as was the case with the Thirteen Colonies wanting to expand west. Colonies should also try to focus on the coast before pushing in and a bit better at colonising across ocean (e.g. Caribbean and Australia).
• Colonies don't switch colour when you form a different tag. I'm not sure if it was a bug, but my colonies as Holland didn't become orange upon forming the Netherlands.
• Western Amazon and that basin in California (forgot it's name) wastelands don't get coloured when colonies follow the proper borders of the regions.
• Subjects' colonies don't integrate into your colonies when inheriting a PU or annexing vassals. I know people like the extra merchants, but I prefer prettier borders.
• Colonies also no longer convert religion and culture for some reason, probably because of the introduction of expulsion. Perhaps you could even use holy orders like edicts for territories and trade companies to act as a religious centre limited to a state (should help with making Philippines Catholic as Spain).
• Colonial Nations should always have the primary culture and religion of the overlord upon formation. I noticed that when I expelled Catholic Francien to Louisiana as Anglican Britain, the CN had that culture and religion, possibly because of where the capital spawned.
• Colonies should also gain a ton of liberty desire if their parent nations is almost fully occupied, and there is historical precedent with Napoleon's occupation of Spain. Colonies in general should get more liberty desire (perhaps through DHEs) during the age of revolution, not less! This would definitely make New World formables more common and prevent Portugal consisting of one Pacific island, running a huge subject in the New World.
• You should be able dictate the capital of your colonial nation, making the first one free. This is just so that I can set the historical capitals if I wanted to, dictate more defendable or developed land, or even one of the Seven Cities of Gold.
• Colonial nations should automatically seize colonies, if possible, in their area.

 

[ius]

At the game's release many years ago, I was astonished that every nation was playable, and thus I started as a native american. Huge love.

 

[Wagonlitz]

while in real life they only established their first colony in the 17th century

Not true. Roanoke was founded in 1588, i.e. the XVIth century. It failed, sure, but that doesn't change that it was XVIth and not XVIIth century.

You do have a point about your general points, though. England is quite fast and Portugal doesn't focus too much on Asia.
Though, this is a game of alternative history, so why shouldn't England be allowed to go colonial faster? If you don't get things like the War of the Roses and the various wars of the XVIth century wouldn't it then be plausible for Britain to go colonial earlier?

And Portugal did go big in Brazil and I don't see why she couldn't try things in the Caribbean. Though, I do think she very much should keep trying for the Far East too, as there's no reason not to and it was something she'd worked towards long before game start.

 

[The Q]

Are there going to be any unique changes for the Iroquois government? This is do to their very unique confederation that formed between the five tribes.

Would it also be possible to change their names from the Iroquois to the Haudenosaunee?

One of the things that I have thought of regarding the changes to their government is creating semi autonomous provinces or states with unique reforms regarding military, development or trade between the different tribes that make up the Haudenosaunee. There could also be an "appeasement" mechanic for the central government that would change the amount of money or manpower that the nation receives from each of the tribes. This could also extend to having a from of disloyalty in the case of a war where a tribes contribution to the confederacy is cut off or reduced due to a low appeasement level. Expanding upon that, the Haudenosaunee eventually added in a sixth tribe, which could be replicated in a form of semi integration of a vassal and levels of governance in the central government due to the sixth tribe not being allowed to partake in the decision making of the nation. Additionally, the government could serve as a block to a rapid expansion of the nation by balancing the amount of territories that each tribe controls due to the way that the government was set up by having the two strongest tribes required to be in agreement with one another to prevent conflict between the tribes.

 

[po8crg]

I'm assuming you're going to continue not to represent the massive destruction of the diseases brought to the Americas via the Columbian Exchange, because destroying 50-80% of everyone's development would be both depressing and no fun.

Also, that means that 1444 is deliberately way low on development in the Americas, especially in North America, because you're representing the tribes as they were after the plagues when they met the Europeans, rather than as they actually were in 1444. This is fair enough - I just want a confirmation that there's no plan to do so, and that you recognise that North America was actually a lot more populous and settled (especially the Mississippi valley, but not only) in 1444 than it is in the game.

 

[Nyvis]

The devastation stuff is gross. Natives were great at managing the land, and didn't in fact devastate it by sitting on it until they had to move. A lot of their societies were in fact sedentary or close enough before disease brought them down. I'm tempted to call it straight up offensive.

The land claims are a good idea, but the implementation of land use using devastation really doesn't sound like a good portrayal of native americans.

I think a more interesting idea would be to rely on migration to increase your claimed borders, and have your claimed borders drive your civilization size by representing how much land you have to bring resources in, with all of it being lightly managed, as natives did by tending to the land even when they moved around.

 

[The Q]

The devastation stuff is gross. Natives were great at managing the land, and didn't in fact devastate it by sitting on it until they had to move. A lot of their societies were in fact sedentary or close enough before disease brought them down. I'm tempted to call it straight up offensive.

The land claims are a good idea, but the implementation of land use using devastation really doesn't sound like a good portrayal of native americans.

I think a more interesting idea would be to rely on migration to increase your claimed borders, and have your claimed borders drive your civilization size by representing how much land you have to bring resources in, with all of it being lightly managed, as natives did by tending to the land even when they moved around.

I would agree. I think it would be better to make it more of a migration to expand influence over territory limited to the size of the tribe. This would allow for them to gain automatic claims on other tribes or European etc. nations who settle there. There could also be a leasing mechanic built in though I'm not sure how that one will go over.

 

[CPU Taro]

SEA, Africa, and the Americas were the three areas I wanted to see get more attention. So one and a half out of three is a pretty good start.

 

[Wagonlitz]

A lot of their societies were in fact sedentary or close enough before disease brought them down. I'm tempted to call it straight up offensive.

Unless you want the plagues represented then you can't bring up how things were before the Europeans arrived. We'll have to disregard how things were IRL in 1444 and instead do it like they were post the European devastation, since otherwise we'll have to model that devastation and that's not gonna be fun. Espceially not as it's something you'll be utterly unable to prevent due to how it was biological and a certainty due to 20k years of separation.

Now, the tribes should have a reason to migrate around, as they did do that, at least post European devastation. Is having the provinces get devastated if you don't migrate the best solution? That I don't know. It's quite possible it's a horrible solution, but you'll need to give them some incentive which severely disincentives both player and AI from just camping int he same province all game.

 

[Sete]

Not true. Roanoke was founded in 1588, i.e. the XVIth century. It failed, sure, but that doesn't change that it was XVIth and not XVIIth century.

You do have a point about your general points, though. England is quite fast and Portugal doesn't focus too much on Asia.
Though, this is a game of alternative history, so why shouldn't England be allowed to go colonial faster? If you don't get things like the War of the Roses and the various wars of the XVIth century wouldn't it then be plausible for Britain to go colonial earlier?

And Portugal did go big in Brazil and I don't see why she couldn't try things in the Caribbean. Though, I do think she very much should keep trying for the Far East too, as there's no reason not to and it was something she'd worked towards long before game start.

That's like 12 years before the 17th century. His point remains.
It's all fun and games saying that Portugal should focus on CoT on Asia, but unless feitorias win battles, it wont happen.
Portugal went big on brazil after they found the gold in 1650,early game focus should always be asia.

 

[Nyvis]

Unless you want the plagues represented then you can't bring up how things were before the Europeans arrived. We'll have to disregard how things were IRL in 1444 and instead do it like they were post the European devastation, since otherwise we'll have to model that devastation and that's not gonna be fun. Espceially not as it's something you'll be utterly unable to prevent due to how it was biological and a certainty due to 20k years of separation.

Now, the tribes should have a reason to migrate around, as they did do that, at least post European devastation. Is having the provinces get devastated if you don't migrate the best solution? That I don't know. It's quite possible it's a horrible solution, but you'll need to give them some incentive which severely disincentives both player and AI from just camping int he same province all game.

If you're not going to do it properly, do what MEIOU did, remove the natives all together and stop torturing their memory.

If you insist on portraying the post disease tribes as all the natives, at least represent their attachment to the land and careful managing of it in a less terrible way.

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

Not true. Roanoke was founded in 1588, i.e. the XVIth century. It failed, sure, but that doesn't change that it was XVIth and not XVIIth century

If you want to be that specific then Portugal should already start with a colonist because they began colonizing Madeira in 1419.
But i'll give you this argument, even if England started colonising in 1588 that alone would already be a massive improvement on making colonization more realistic, hell i would even be happy if they started in 1520-30 even. But as it stands they usually start in 1480-90 which is too early imo.

And in before you argue about John Cabot, he is gained via Event, so England could still get the event and gain an explore early on, but not a colonist.

Though, this is a game of alternative history, so why shouldn't England be allowed to go colonial faster? If you don't get things like the War of the Roses and the various wars of the XVIth century wouldn't it then be plausible for Britain to go colonial earlier?

They clearly should, if you play as them and choose to do so ofc.
Any country in the hands of the player should be able to take exploration at the first idea and dominate the colonial game if they focus on doing as much.
But in my opinion, at the hands of the A.I, the countries should try to stick to their historical routes unless the global context makes that route impossible, unrealistic, or opens a much more profitable opportunity.
So an A.I England in a game that remains fairly historical in Western Europe should only take Exploration the 16th century (I'd say about their 4th idea).

And Portugal did go big in Brazil

Below average at best. It took them 300 years to colonize the same area as Spain did in 50 and England and France did in 100.

and I don't see why she couldn't try things in the Caribbean.

Because it only had a population of 1.5 Milion people.
You can't settle if you don't have the settlers to do so, colonization speed should be somehow influenced by your "population" (abstracted by core development or core province number or smth)

Though, I do think she very much should keep trying for the Far East too, as there's no reason not to and it was something she'd worked towards long before game start.

There is a very specific gameplay reason they don't. They can't. They are too weak to do it. Even as the player it requires some insane exploitation and experience to be able to pull off an Historical Portuguese run in the Far East.

 

[MindWideShut]

Thanks a lot for this Dev Diary, it's a pleasure to see "left-asided" regions being reworked, with good ideas and commitment.

Yet, something bothered me deeply when approaching the end of the diary ; more precisely this part :

While you stay in a single province the tribe will be causing devastation in that province, until it eventually reaches a 100%. In addition to this each tribe has a tribal development that grows each month little by little as long as the province hasn't reached 100% devastation. The larger the tribe is, the faster the devastation goes up to simulate their increased consumption.

So, european nations, with the development of coal industries, large cities, roads, etc. will not alter their environment, but when they stay "for too long" on ancestral lands, native americans devastate these lands ?
I don't want this question to be felt as agressive, although the primary justification given in the DD for this mechanic's existence is a stick agitated against the player who wouldn't play the migration game.
Additionally, for the few I know, semi-nomadism was not the way a relevant number of tribes lived, prefering sedentarism, with a well developed agriculture (and if their land got devastated, I'm not sure they're to blame for it...)
I would have better understand a raise of autonomy as time passes if a stick is really needed here, but I guess it would make a conflict with the 0% autonomy on capital province.

(For Mississipi tribes, especially the Comanches, there is a great book from Pekka Hämäläinen that might help or inspire :
Pekka Hämäläinen, The Comanche Empire, New Haven (Conn.)/Dallas (Tex.), Yale University Press, 2008, 500 p. (ISBN 978-0-300-12654-9). )

Cheers !

 

[Wagonlitz]

That's like 12 years before the 17th century. His point remains.

Oh I know. I was just nitpicking.

If you're not going to do it properly, do what MEIOU did, remove the natives all together and stop torturing their memory.

If you insist on portraying the post disease tribes as all the natives, at least represent their attachment to the land and careful managing of it in a less terrible way.

So you're saying that they ideally should be represented accurately and then have huge devastations happen when getting in touch with the Europeans, or am I misunderstanding you?

 

[gigau]

@Groogy , would it be possibly to have a defines so that, should modders want it, abandonning a province or a native nation migrating does not wipe the variables, flags, modifiers of the province, please ? pretty please with a cherry on top ?

 

[Wagonlitz]

If you want to be that specific then Portugal should already start with a colonist because they began colonizing Madeira in 1419.

I fully agree with that. Portugal should start with a colonist.

But in my opinion, at the hands of the A.I, the countries should try to stick to their historical routes unless the global context makes that route impossible, unrealistic, or opens a much more profitable opportunity.

Why, though? Why should the AI be railroaded instead of being able to adapt to the changing realities of the world.
I'm one of those who prefer as realistic a game as possible, not a railroaded one. By realistic I mean realistic mechanics which produce plausible results. Lots of mechanics aren't too realistic atm, though that doesn't change that i want things realistic if possibl.

Also, note, how things happened in history often was NOT plausible at all and if they hadn't happened people would complain about how unrealistic they are. That's something people often miss. They think how things happened historically was bound to happn no matter what and that things should always stay close to that, but that just railroads things, isn't terribly realistic/plausible, and ruins immersion due to how nations might do things whihc go against their situation in game. Also lowers replayability if the AI is railroaded.

A prime example of a historical event which was very unlikely/implausible is the Burgundian inheritance and all the fallout happening from it. For one then it replied on Charles the Bold having trouble producing an heir. That wasn't certain to happen at all, and there not being other heirs in his dynasty was implausible too. Him then dying at Nancy was quite the random chance too. In total the inheritance was a fluke. Now, the game starts so close to it that some of the causes were sent in motion already and it was so major so it's to a large extent railroaded in game, but it is an example of something which, if later in the game, should be exceedingly rare to happen.

As such then an England who isn't bugged down by continental dealings and internal struggles should have the possibility of going colonial very early, because why not? Is there any plausible reasons for her not to aside form that she didn't do it IRL? For all we know then her not doing it IRL might have been really unlikely.

Also, if you limit the AI, but allow the player to do what she wants, then the AI will be even easier to beat since the player will be able to do all kinds of effective things, and e.g. go to the New World for colonial nations early, whereas her opponents will be limited by railroading and hence gain a disadvantage compared to her which will make her even faster be able to utterly stomp them underfoot.

colonization speed should be somehow influenced by your "population" (abstracted by core development or core province number or smth)

That I'd very much like to see. Anything which tries and bring population into the game and tries to limit things to what would be realistic with a given population is something I really want.

There is a very specific gameplay reason they don't. They can't. They are too weak to do it. Even as the player it requires some insane exploitation and experience to be able to pull off an Historical Portuguese run in the Far East.

True. It's hard, though, since the Far East can't be too weak and did have some strong realms, but the Europeans also need to be able to gain inroads, and espceially coastal ports, but without roflstomping the nations there too early.
Institutions spreading way too fast and hence making late game be technologically more on par than early/mid game also is a problem, since IRL the technological disparity just grew and unless something happens in game to realistically have that disparity not happen then it just makes little sense. Though I'm not too knowledgeable about why the various nations in the Far East fell behind. Or rather, the nations in Front and Hither India, since China is bound to be down to her self isolation.

But yeah, without having Portugal be able to move in, at least in Front and Hither India, then it will be impossible for her to recreate her empire. But it's hard, as you also don't want her to e.g. take all of Hither India.
And things like Macau can be hard to model too.

Additionally, for the few I know, semi-nomadism was not the way a relevant number of tribes lived, prefering sedentarism, with a well developed agriculture

Was that before or after the EUropean contact, though?

 

[TheDarkMaster]

Does reforming still disable the federation mechanic, making it pointless to include in the game as a way to defend against Europeans?

 

[pizzapicante27]

Was that before or after the EUropean contact, though?

Semi-nomadism becomes MORE frequent after European contact not less, previous explorers give more accounts to established communities numbering well into the thousands with settlements "extending far beyond the horizon".

When European expansion begins the inter wars, diseases and pressure that it causes, moves many tribes to abandoning (or more commonly being forced to abandon) their settled lands, usually into the south to places like Apacheria and Comancheria which btw actually had formal diplomatic relationships with both New Spain and Mexico.

 

[tom025]

A very welcome addition, thanks @Groogy !

I'm so hypped to the update for north american tribes

 

[pizzapicante27]

I disagree with the claim that Colonization is too fast, Spain in real life Colonized the Americas far quicker than they ever do in this game.

By 1550, the Spanish AI has about 1 or 2 colonial nations, while its real life counterpart would have the game equivalent of 4 or 5, Spain always underperforms colonialy.

On the flip side, England and Portugal always overperform. England usually takes Exploration as their second idea and begins colonizing in the 15th century, while in real life they only established their first colony in the 17th century, that is WAY too early.

Portugal has its priorities wrong and overfocuses in American colonization instead of focusing in reaching Asia and taking CoTs in Africa and Asia, often taking Expansion as their second idea and using their age bonus to hog the Americas instead of using it along Africa to reach Indonesia before the Reformation.

America gets fully colonized too early because of England and Portugal overperforming, but Spain underperforms. This is not an issue with Colonization speed, but an issue with AI priotities.

Problem is that that map is not accurate, it shows the places that Spain had CLAIMS to, not the places it controlled, for many centuries the prehispanic, alllied and rival empires in the continent continued to persist, Tlaxcalla was an existing subject of Spain and remained along many actively independent empires like the Zacatecs and Mixtec kingdoms, the Guamar Confederacy (which actually won its wars against Spain), the Yaki Confederacy etc..., heck in places they persisted well into the time of the Mexican Republic, that map for example shows Spanish control of Yucatan, but the only settlement that existed there that was actually functional and spanish-dominated was Merida which well into the 20th century existed with its walls permanently closed due to constant mayan raids and conflicts.

The same can be said of Peru or the central regions in Paraguay were even today Guarani continues to be a major linguistical factor, and those are just random examples of the situation, so yes, there is A LOT that can be made on the continent.