Europa Universalis IV Developer Diary 10 - It all belongs to Mother Russia...

[Sarmatian]

The entire game should be set up as to follow history in a plausible way, barring any intervention of the player. Not every time of course, that would be boring, but most of the time it should. So, in the end, AI Poland should be declining, most of the time. I wouldn't mind seeing a powerful Poland dominating central Europe and beyond every once in while, but not every game. Not even every other or every third. Maybe, once in 10, 15 games.

This is not to say that Poland isn't important, but it's power for the better part of the time period was in decline. If devs give Poland such a starting position that even AI Poland could be dominant quite often, it kinda breaks the game for me. Yes we could argue that if X or Y didn't happen, then maybe someone would have done Z and Poland would have been much more powerful. Thing is, you could argue the same for about any state on the planet. Even better case than could be for the Ottomans, who were much greater threat and for a longer time than Poles, and again, I wouldn't want to see Ottomans controlling Paris very often.

 

[Chamboozer]

No in 1821 it wasn't. Plenty of countries did well within the period, but by the end of it were in a bad way. It's how well they did over the course of the entire game that counts, and Poland did so badly in that timeframe it didn't even exist at the end. Every other nation that was still on the map at the end did better.

Periodization like this is silly. The game takes place over the course of 400 years, but that doesn't mean you can take the map in 1821 as evidence for what countries were 'lucky'. If the game was 1444-1944, would you say that France is not a lucky nation because it was conquered near the end of the time frame?

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

Periodization like this is silly. The game takes place over the course of 400 years, but that doesn't mean you can take the map in 1821 as evidence for what countries were 'lucky'. If the game was 1444-1944, would you say that France is not a lucky nation because it was conquered near the end of the time frame?

In what way was Poland lucky? It had a brief flowering where it was a vast, poor country and then it got spit-roasted by its neighbours. Look, it did more than a lot of other countries but it is in no way in the same league as England, Russia, France, etc in this era. Not even close.

 

[Gustav91]

The entire game should be set up as to follow history in a plausible way, barring any intervention of the player. Not every time of course, that would be boring, but most of the time it should. So, in the end, AI Poland should be declining, most of the time. I wouldn't mind seeing a powerful Poland dominating central Europe and beyond every once in while, but not every game. Not even every other or every third. Maybe, once in 10, 15 games.

This is not to say that Poland isn't important, but it's power for the better part of the time period was in decline. If devs give Poland such a starting position that even AI Poland could be dominant quite often, it kinda breaks the game for me. Yes we could argue that if X or Y didn't happen, then maybe someone would have done Z and Poland would have been much more powerful. Thing is, you could argue the same for about any state on the planet. Even better case than could be for the Ottomans, who were much greater threat and for a longer time than Poles, and again, I wouldn't want to see Ottomans controlling Paris very often.

I'd like that to, that the AI would try to follow the historical way. But if I play a major power and take an ahistorical route, I'll intervene their course and leave space in an other area someone else take my position and it will change everything. But say I'll start as a minor and don't reach the big arena the historical route for the others will most likely be as it was.

 

[Talq]

Aren't lucky nations optional? Aren't they in the same category as difficulty levels?

 

[macd21]

The entire game should be set up as to follow history in a plausible way, barring any intervention of the player. Not every time of course, that would be boring, but most of the time it should. So, in the end, AI Poland should be declining, most of the time. I wouldn't mind seeing a powerful Poland dominating central Europe and beyond every once in while, but not every game. Not even every other or every third. Maybe, once in 10, 15 games.

This is not to say that Poland isn't important, but it's power for the better part of the time period was in decline. If devs give Poland such a starting position that even AI Poland could be dominant quite often, it kinda breaks the game for me. Yes we could argue that if X or Y didn't happen, then maybe someone would have done Z and Poland would have been much more powerful. Thing is, you could argue the same for about any state on the planet. Even better case than could be for the Ottomans, who were much greater threat and for a longer time than Poles, and again, I wouldn't want to see Ottomans controlling Paris very often.

Whereas I think it should be the opposite (that the game should easily explore potential 'what ifs', even without player intervention) and see the Polish case as a good example why. During the first half of the game period Poland was a strong player in the east. Even a few slight changes could have made a huge difference - an heir here, a royal marriage there, a different alliance etc. To have Poland decline in almost every game either requires that they A) be nerfed B) face boosted enemies or C) have the game be heavily scripted.

 

[unmerged(63836)]

Whereas I think it should be the opposite (that the game should easily explore potential 'what ifs', even without player intervention) and see the Polish case as a good example why. During the first half of the game period Poland was a strong player in the east. Even a few slight changes could have made a huge difference - an heir here, a royal marriage there, a different alliance etc. To have Poland decline in almost every game either requires that they A) be nerfed B) face boosted enemies or C) have the game be heavily scripted.

Yeah - loads of historical developments happened as they happened, because of single won/lost battle, monarch dying from illness, a heir being born or not, etc. Highly chaotic and random events. It's very simplistic view on history to dismiss that. What if Ivan the Terrible had happier childhood with his parents living longer? There might be no Oprichina, Russia might never develop it's trademark despotic political traditions, there might be no Time of Troubles, etc.

Plus, player's altering influence goes beyond his country and neighbours he is interacting with. For example, if I'm consistently battling and weakening Ottoman Empire as Hungary, it totally reshapes balance of power in the whole Mediterranean, Balkans, Persia, Middle East, Black Sea steppes, and beyond. There might be new powers rising in resulting power vacuum.

AI that is scripted to blindly follow historical course would be terrible. Hopefully, devs would not rely on it too much, and AI would have some ability to adapt and change when faced with altered realities. If it's literally slightly nudged equivalent of EU3's AI it should be ok, though seemingly huge bonuses from NIs presented in this DD are a bit concerning.

 

[DanubianCossak]

AI doesnt have to blindly follow history, but if in 9/10 games i have 50 provinces sized Ottomans sitting right beside Candar, Karaman and Dulkadir (or OPM or 2PM) in 1600s and 1700s, while they could wipe them out in less than 6 months, theres definitely a problem, specially so if such Ottomans decide to go and invade Poland or Bohemia instead of killing off Turkish minors in, well, Turkey. Or one of my favorites, in 9/10 games Castille (or CAS > SPA) ends up eating Portugal. Sometimes id rather have deterministic AI than that.

 

[unmerged(63836)]

AI doesnt have to blindly follow history, but if in 9/10 games i have 50 provinces sized Ottomans sitting right beside Candar, Karaman and Dulkadir (or OPM or 2PM) in 1600s and 1700s, while they could wipe them out in less than 6 months, theres definitely a problem, specially so if such Ottomans decide to go and invade Poland or Bohemia instead of killing off Turkish minors in, well, Turkey. Or one of my favorites, in 9/10 games Castille (or CAS > SPA) ends up eating Portugal. Sometimes id rather have deterministic AI than that.

Or smarter AI that would prioritise targets better (taking ease of conquest, religious/cultural similarities, wealth, distance, and territorial 'blobbiness'/integrity into account). I think that in EU3 AI was influenced only by badboy, relations, and current power of targeted countries, leading to ridiculous opportunistic gangbangs resulting in English/Spanish Anatolia for example. With badboy gone and replaced with CK2-ish system it should be better. Question is if AI would 'think' when considering provinces to conquer? Would naval/colonial nations target provinces along new trade routes if opportunity arises, or would Portuguese AI be scripted to colonise/conquer X and Y, while Netherlands A and B as in history?

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

I think the new monarch points system is going to ensure that history can diverge pretty spectacularly by the sounds of it.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

And that's what the main problem is. Just because they did not in the history, they still should be able in the game, if you play them. But with Russia, Austria, the OE, and most likely Brandenbug will have special, overpowered NIs, there is no chance...

I agree, but you can be constructive with your remarks. If you outline your ideas in a polite and elegant way, there's a small iota of chance that it'd be listened to in some form.

I have nothing to do with MMtM. By the way, the independent developers, such as myself decided not to be involved any more in the development of Magna Mundi in any form because of how badly both Paradox and Unverso Virtual handled the situation.

Well, nothing is preventing you from getting involved to MMtM. UV disowned it and the ones working on it are all fans and volunteers who dream of a dev coming to help them.

The mod has a lot of what you wanted and it's there for you to play and help develop. But oh well, it's your choice.

But the income of Jan Sobiski was 1/72e of that of the King of France. (Source: Palmer's History of the Modern World) So this whole, big land was quite worthless.

Poland's only notable for inheriting Lithuania and help beating back the Turks.

 

[unmerged(47479)]

But the income of Jan Sobiski was 1/72e of that of the King of France. (Source: Palmer's History of the Modern World) So this whole, big land was quite worthless.

Please, keep in mind that this is a comparison of kings' income (Louis XIV - king of centralised, absolutist state (l'état, c'est moi) vs John III Sobieski - king of noble republic) and it does not reflect properly the comparative wealth of mentioned countries. While France was indeed much richer than Poland at this time, it would be an exaggeration to say that it was 72 times as rich.

 

[Red_warning]

There is an interesting wiki article dealing with past GDP and PPP of countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

How accurate it is I do not know though, it's wikipedia after all.

 

[Invalid Name]

The national ideas thing is way to gamey. You should be selecting ideas that are similar to what the countries had because it makes sense to do so and is necesssary to survive, not because you get a gamey bonus at the end.

 

[Baneslave]

The national ideas thing is way to gamey. You should be selecting ideas that are similar to what the countries had because it makes sense to do so and is necesssary to survive, not because you get a gamey bonus at the end.

Whole idea of national ideas is gamey, you know.

 

[k_merse]

Well, nothing is preventing you from getting involved to MMtM. UV disowned it and the ones working on it are all fans and volunteers who dream of a dev coming to help them.

The mod has a lot of what you wanted and it's there for you to play and help develop. But oh well, it's your choice.

I signed an agreement. I stick to my word given.

Whole idea of national ideas is gamey, you know.

But as long as they are the same to everyone, it's just a game technique to make you able to become more advanced. But EU4 system gives extra NIs to certain countries and the rest of them remains with standard NIs. Which is, indeed, gamey in a way.

 

[chatnoir17]

But as long as they are the same to everyone, it's just a game technique to make you able to become more advanced. But EU4 system gives extra NIs to certain countries and the rest of them remains with standard NIs. Which is, indeed, gamey in a way.

It is also same by events, decisions and missions. In EU3 there are some special cakes which are allowed to certain countries. I know MMtM removed many of them, though.

 

[Svip]

But as long as they are the same to everyone, it's just a game technique to make you able to become more advanced. But EU4 system gives extra NIs to certain countries and the rest of them remains with standard NIs. Which is, indeed, gamey in a way.

That's a broad generalisation of how the NIs will work. The 'rest' are divided into subgroups.

 

[Grubnessul]

Please, keep in mind that this is a comparison of kings' income (Louis XIV - king of centralised, absolutist state (l'état, c'est moi) vs John III Sobieski - king of noble republic) and it does not reflect properly the comparative wealth of mentioned countries. While France was indeed much richer than Poland at this time, it would be an exaggeration to say that it was 72 times as rich.

I do not argue France was 72 times wealthier, but the state revenues were. Hence the money used to make the country more successful/powerful. if the Polish kings had access to a similar portion of their country's wealth, Poland would have been a lot more successful.

 

[Darkrenown]

And that's what the main problem is. Just because they did not in the history, they still should be able in the game, if you play them. But with Russia, Austria, the OE, and most likely Brandenbug will have special, overpowered NIs, there is no chance...

Please don't quote me wildly out of context. Or if you misunderstood me, I was commenting on the "Winged hussars = Tiger tanks" line, with the point being that just like the Tiger couldn't win WWII for Germany, the Winged Hussar could not "win" the period for POL-LIT; one powerful unit can't make up for an overall poor situation.