The 3 tiers...

[Johan]

We have countries in 4 tiers, when it comes to attention in the EU4 development process. This is for DHE, decisions, missions and (unannounced features and mechanics).

• Tier 1 - 8 countries (flavour and fun, behaviour vital for game progress)
• Tier 2 - 9 countries. (flavour and fun, behaviour important for game progress)
• Tier 3 - 16+ countries (flavour and fun, behaviour not vital for game progress)
• Tier 4 - the others.... where the minimum flavour level is EU3+EU2.

Tier 1

1. England - Arguably the winner of the time period.
2. France - Big blue blob is a must here, no game is complete without a strong France dictating western Europe.
3. Ottoman Empire - the major complaints on EU3 was the fact that they didn't become the historical threat they were.
4. Castille/Spain - We all want a big Spanish colonial empire on the map.
5. Muscowy/Russia - another failure of EU3 was that russia didnt form often enough, and you ended up with a fractured east.
6. Sweden - Swedish agression is what shapes the northeastern quarter of europe.
7. Portugal - in history and with our new trade system, their impact in the first 2 centuries changed europe forever.
8. Austria - The central european player that affected half of europe.

Tier 2

1. Netherlands
2. Poland
3. Venice
4. China
5. Denmark
6. Brandenburg/Prussia
7. Persia
8. Timurid/Moghuls
9. Japan

Some comments here.. Netherlands didn't make the cut for the top 8, as they don't exist at the start. While we would like to see them in a fair amount of games, they are not a guarantee to happen. Poland and Denmark, while important countries from the start and have a rich history, we chose Russia and Sweden ahead of them in that area, as Russia and Sweden were the winners historically.



Tier 3

1. Genoa
2. Burgundy
3. Lithuania
4. Mamelukes
5. Viyanagar
6. Oman
7. The Hansa
8. Scotland
9. Bavaria
10. Ayutthaya
11. Aragon
12. Milan
13. Korea
14. Hungary
15. Norway
16. Novgorod
17. Naples
18. Bohemia
19. Byzantium

All of these are interesting countries to play.. While Eu2 at most had 2-3 events for these countries, we aim for far more, to bring them closer to what tier 1 and tier 2 countries could expect.

 

[Captain Gars]

Maybe they could change tiers depending on the starting period.

These tiers are not an in-game mechanic like the eight great powers in Victoria - it's just a way for us to prioritize when developing the game and it's content.

 

[Captain Gars]

I didn't assume the place in each tier would matter.

It doesn't.

 

[Johan]

Byz are there cause of fans wanting them in..

I agree that Oman needs some love..

 

[Johan]

I don't think that a nation not being in a tier automatically precludes it from having any specific decisions. Especially since there're already Korean decisions in DW.

bingo

 

[Johan]

Updated the original post.. Korea, Bohemia and Oman are now in tier3.

 

[Johan]

Begging to add a country, I can understand.

But begging to take a country away, for real? What kind of sense does that make?

Don't get it either, as most of the work is already done-.

 

[Johan]

Just wondering what are the achievements of Oman in this time period? Truly curious since I see why add Bohemia and Korea but I don't know why add Oman,

They controlled the trade on the Indian Ocean before the Portuguese took control of it, and kept being an obstacle.

 

[Johan]

1. The above discussions are exactly the reason why the number of Tier 1 countries should have stayed at the original seven. Everyone is complaining about the non-inclusion of their country now they have expanded to eight.

What original seven?

 

[Captain Gars]

Sweden never was European great power. It was regional power. There is a big difference really. I am returning to this again and again: it was France and the Dutch financing Swedish campaigns during TYW, not Sweden financing the Dutch war against the Spaniards. It was the Dutch and English governments involving into the Swedish and Danish affairs not the Swedish into Dutch and English.

And I can say this again. Although the French subsidies were important they were not there at the start when Sweden invaded Germany. And 400.000 out of a yearly cost between 10 and 30 million is not really financing it.

 

[Captain Gars]

"The Schleswig-Holstein question is so complicated, only three men in Europe have ever understood it. One was Prince Albert, who is dead. The second was a German professor who became mad. I am the third and I have forgotten all about it." Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston.

Love that quote. Stumbled across it a few years ago when I was trying to untangle the Schleswig-Holstein mess

 

[Captain Gars]

No, It also determines their priority when it comes to proper AI behavior.

It doesn't say AI anywhere. We're not writing separate AIs for any countries. It's more about what countries to focus a bit extra on when balancing the game.

 

[Captain Gars]

"Subtle nudge"? You mean like an entire civil war chain with associated disruption that is likely to strike at the beginning of the game, and to top it all has the wrong trigger? (England and the war of the roses)

That event chain is flavor for a civil war - it doesn't nudge or push England in any direction, historical or not.

England/France should share top position

The individual position within a tier has no meaning at all.

 

[Captain Gars]

So, the Far East should be a dismal unbalanced failure because of this?

No but neither should it be tier 1 which is what started this debate.

 

[Johan]

In the defense of
Venice: They may have declined during the course of the history, but at the game start they still are very significant. They definitely would be worthy of a Tier 1 position.
Brandenburg: If you say that the complete timeframe of the game is important then Brandenburg MUST BE in.
China: Seriously, I know that the devs practically doesn't care at all about the world outside Europe development-wise, but only European countries in the first Tier is way too Europe-centric.

Which 3 to remove instead of them, and why those 3 and not Poland and Netherlands which I view as more important?

 

[Johan]

For all of you talking brandenburg over portugal..

How many of your games have you played past 1700 ?

 

[Captain Gars]

What Japan should have is some special treatment though, some kind of Sengoku system, or at least as different OPMs under the vassalage of the Ashikaga. It's just a nonsense if it's represented as one, unified country.

Japan wasn't represented as one unified country in Divine Wind and won't be in EU4, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

 

[Captain Gars]

The first Dev Diary said the Shogunate was scrapped, then this thread said Japan was a country with a place on the tier ladder. Assuming that meant there would be a unified Japan was reasonable to most of us.

I must have written at least ten times by now in the dev diaires that Japan won't be a unified country from start.

 

[Captain Gars]

Which was rather ahistorical...

It was but I didn't say we were gonna keep just as it was in DW, did I?

I thought you're starting the development based on DW, so it will be represented as unified.

Yes we built from what was in DW - but Japan wasn't united there so again I don't understand your point here.

You don't have to be so irritated

I wasn't irritated, but I'm starting to get. Either your reading comprehension is very poor or you're just trying to pick a fight.

Still, it would be a great shame if you really wouldn't plan anything to represent the Shogunate. And a strong proof that you really don't care even a little bit about anything outside Europe.

Again, when have we said that we aren't planning to represent the shogunate? And about not caring about anything outside of Europe: so far I've spent most of the time improving the map outside of Europe.

 

[Johan]

The irony though... 90% of the job on these is alredy done