Europa Universalis IV Developer diary 17 – Honey, don’t you want to talk about it?

  • 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.
Nice improvements to diplomacy, thanks. I want to suggest that vassals and PU nations should be surrounded with color of their masters in political map:

vassalspus.png


I think this is a good idea, though I'd prefer if the colour is only around the outhermost borders and not the mutual internal borders, so in this case no red line between SWE and NOR, no brownish yellow between HUN and TRA etc. but only the borders they share with countries that do not have the same overlord
 
Great DD especially the 'enemy is my enemy' part.
Hopefully there will be some chance that Meso Americans would join up with Spanish to beat Aztecs, as well as colonization warfare between Western powers & their respective native allies.
 
Great DD especially the 'enemy is my enemy' part.
Hopefully there will be some chance that Meso Americans would join up with Spanish to beat Aztecs, as well as colonization warfare between Western powers & their respective native allies.

The question is, if this system allows for such a situation: A is a rival of B, B is a rival of A, B is a rival of C, C is a rival of B, C is a rival of A, A is a rival of C. A allies with B against C and they bring C down. After this A and B continue their rivalry.
 
I think this is a good idea, though I'd prefer if the colour is only around the outhermost borders and not the mutual internal borders, so in this case no red line between SWE and NOR, no brownish yellow between HUN and TRA etc. but only the borders they share with countries that do not have the same overlord

Problem with that is vassals encapsulated within their master country like the OPM vassals of France.
 
I really hope they pull through and make this the way EU was meant to be made. I can't stand another minute looking at CKII's infrastructure :p
 
Not bad.
 
n Europa Universalis III, relations were bi-directional. If you liked someone, then they liked you. This is definitely not the case in the real world, and it is something we really wanted changed for Europa Universalis IV. Now someone may not like you, while you like them, and to this we’ve adapted the system we introduced in Crusader Kings II.


One of the strengths of Crusader Kings II was that when someone hated you, you knew why, and we felt this would be cool to bring into Europa Universalis IV.
How would you know whether someone likes you, and assuming you could truly have access to such information, how could you retain the same opinion of him? e.g. how could you keep liking someone when you know he doesn't?

IMO the opinions of others should be hidden to the player.

Moreover, what is the use of displaying the player's "mechanistic" opinion towards someone? Shouldn't the act of liking or disliking someone be left entirely up to the player?
 
Impact of expansion depends on what you conquer and how those countries view it.

Poland won't care much if you conquer Tangiers as Castille, but Aragon & Portugal may be a bit wary, while Morocco & Algiers will hate it.

Fantastic, I think this is one of the key things needed to take the EU series on to the next level.
 
The question is, if this system allows for such a situation: A is a rival of B, B is a rival of A, B is a rival of C, C is a rival of B, C is a rival of A, A is a rival of C. A allies with B against C and they bring C down. After this A and B continue their rivalry.

Mmmmh. With the means we have, it COULD happen that A and B both get the positive modifiers for answering the call to arms and seeing the war to the end, which could smooth tensions considerably. I don't know how the AI chooses rivals, though.
 
Moreover, what is the use of displaying the player's "mechanistic" opinion towards someone? Shouldn't the act of liking or disliking someone be left entirely up to the player?

There is mechanical effect (it is easier to wage war on your hated enemy), so there is that.

It makes sense that even if king absolutely hates the neighbor, the rest of the country necessarily doesn't.
 
Moreover, what is the use of displaying the player's "mechanistic" opinion towards someone? Shouldn't the act of liking or disliking someone be left entirely up to the player?

Well it shouldn't be left entirely up to the player, because then the AI and the player are playing by different rules.

Since relations decide how easy it is to make certain actions, it's good that player choice is constrained in this way. It shouldn't just be a case of "I'm Spain and I want to be allied to the ottomans, even though we are different religions and cultures and have no common enemies".
 
Will say, the new interface is much prettier than EU3. I always though EU3's interface was godawful ugly.
 
I'd really like if they took some of the titles system from ck2. I.e. you could conquer China with Malacca, you could declare the "sultanate of China" or something like that instead of keeping the same misleading tag. Likewise if you, as ulm, conquer the entire Bavaria region, you could take the tag of "kingdom of Bavaria".

Basically, I'd like the idea of a ranked, culturally and geographically determined tags instead of you, as some obscure OPM, keeping the same tag for hundred years despite conquering Persia and India. You could declare yourself as the "empire of Persia" instead, or something. And there would be clear incentive to do this; it shouldn't be purely cosmetic either.

I'd also love it if Muslim middle eastern monarchies would be named after their ruling dynasty.
 
Basically, I'd like the idea of a ranked, culturally and geographically determined tags instead of you, as some obscure OPM, keeping the same tag for hundred years despite conquering Persia and India.
I will be curious to see how well EU4 handles tag changes. It would be nice to not need to do the save-resign-reload dance every time one happens.
 
I don't know if anyone has pointed this out yet, but in the initial screenshot, "aggressive" should be spelt with two Gs.
 
Thrace was probably siege stealed by his 'allies' and Candar is an Ottoman vassal, so stop this thrashing of the Ottoman player, whoever he is. Ok!? :angry:

Your the Unusually cautious human Ottoman Player arent you?