Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

The 3 tiers...

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Europa Universalis IV 81899 EUIV: Bug Reports 448 EUIV: Suggestions 19148 EUIV: Technical Support 6720 EUIV: FAQ & Strategy Guides 235 EUIV: AAR's, Let's Plays, and Fan Fiction EU IV: Alternate History Short Story Contest Contr 29
Status
Not open for further replies.
Show only dev responses
Thanks for the info, Johan. Let´s hope we don´t get now one of those "debates" about "WHY MY COUNTRY IS NOT AT TOP TIER, YOU HAVE NO IDEA BLAH, BLAH, BLAH...¡"
 
A nation that had a large impact on northern and eastern Europe, protestantism and kept itself in high regards in the fields of science even after it's great power period, sort of earns it a place among the 8. Heck, even CA had Sweden as a major in Empire:TW, and they're British.

PS. Anyone else noticed how Johan and Captian Gars doesn't even have all their games purchased? Are they perhaps... Pirating their own games??? There is a conspiracy, and I aim to get to the bottom of this. DS.
 
I think that idea what DHEs actually are is getting more confusing. On the one hand we heard that they would be flavor only, there would be no determinism, and open outcomes. On the other hand we hear that they are 'vital for game's progress'. What does it mean? Does it affect AI to act historically? Is there game-changing events/buffs/maluses to achieve desirable 'game's progress'? Would game still pursue historical course if situation at given date is totally different from historical one? Wouldn't it make AI inflexible and predictable as a result?
 
Agree mostly with the list, the only change I would do would be put Sweden in tier 2, nothing against the swedes but I see nations on tier 2 that I think that are more important than Sweden in my honest opinion.
 
It's a good list, and not really surprising. I would, personally, change Sweden with Poland, but I accept that I am biased in my judgement, and I can see reasons why Sweden could be there just as well.

I`m mostly glad that OE and Russia are getting some attention (and hopefully help) as these 2 nations are underperforming the most in EUIII, hugely affecting the whole area.
 
Johan said:
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. The Hansa
  7. Scotland
  8. Bavaria
  9. Ayutthaya
  10. Aragon
  11. Milan
  12. Hungary
  13. Norway
  14. Novgorod
  15. Naples
  16. 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.
Click to expand...



Pretty nice to see you making a decision now.

I agree with some of the comments here too I'm not sure sweden beats poland in historical importance, but it's an understandable choice, especially when the decision can go either way with those 2 nations. EDIT: ofcourse thinking of the fact Lithuania is in Tier 3 you can kind of consider the combination of poland and lithuania as getting the same attention as the swedes.

my biggest troubles start showing up when I read the third tier. I get how a lot of these nations that were near the bigger nations could often have a lot of influence, behaviors and events. What I'm not sure about is why you don't kind of place them in 1 basket with their neighbours when it comes to building up their events. So that you can move a few to being just for this countrybut most events being possible to be formed by both. Often when you conquer a whole area it would be strange if you didn't start getting the events that were relevant to that area just because you didn't have more than 80% of the land-mass under your control.

we got big countries mixed together:
These sets have huge amounts of overlapping history.
Byzantium/Ottomans,
Hungary/Austria,
or
Burgundy(large landmass as well as ports)part of French tier design.
or
Alexandria/Marmeluks(already combined in 1 basket it looks like, since I didn't see the port being seperated there)
Not:
Hansa, is too difficult tradeport to stick in a basket with the danish or the prussians. I'm not sure how much focus on history I'd place there either. end of the tier 3 list.
also I don't mix milan/genoa; land and sea based cultures

Ofcourse that can make the list, difficult to read, and probably bigger.

Novgorod isn't a nation I'd place in the tier 3 list though. the rest are pretty big.
What I find missing in the list is america(Mayan maybe, despite being a dead nation) or maybe another african nation(not at the top of the continent but further south, like south africa or what's now congo(used to be some big countries in central africa).


Thnx for the list though. Look forward to finding out more about these nations next version of EU.
 
Last edited:
Good list, thanks for the info Johan.:)
 
Thanks for the info. Now I think you can lock the Bigger 8 - lesser 8 Nations thread I started ;)
 
Last edited:
thrashing mad said:
It sure do look like a list made by Swedes.
Click to expand...
More precisely, a list made by historians. Sweden was one of the great powers of Europe;the Peace of Westphalia confirmed the great changes taking place in Europe's balance of power, and Sweden,a winner,emerged as the dominant power in the Baltic for another half century.
 
Last edited:
thrashing mad said:
I think that idea what DHEs actually are is getting more confusing. On the one hand we heard that they would be flavor only, there would be no determinism, and open outcomes. On the other hand we hear that they are 'vital for game's progress'. What does it mean? Does it affect AI to act historically? Is there game-changing events/buffs/maluses to achieve desirable 'game's progress'? Would game still pursue historical course if situation at given date is totally different from historical one? Wouldn't it make AI inflexible and predictable as a result?
Click to expand...

If I understand this correctly it is not the DHE's that are considered vital but the countries and that's why they receive more attention and hence more DHE's, missions and decisions.
 
Nikolai said:
Actually, I think some of the devs have a background in history. I think it was mentioned once.
Click to expand...

But history ends up very subjective among Historians aswell, personally I'm really not going to bother caring any more, if this is as moddable as EU3, modders will be fixing whatever they disagree with in merely weeks and then in the months after the mods that make the game really great will follow with maps like MEIOU making your empires and kingdoms look actually good ingame.
 
Good list. As a humble Swede, switching Sweden with, for example, Venice, would be fine in my eyes, but I am not going to complain! ;)
 
Grubnessul said:
Sweden & Poland could be quite randomly exchanged. Apart from that, the list is not very disputable?
Click to expand...
Byzantium? I mean, that's not disputable given the interests of EU players, but it's pretty odd to give extra attention to a nation that should be swallowed up in the beginning of any game that follows a semi-historical path.

And given that BYZ is in, I'm surprised the USA isn't. I'm guessing that means the "late 18th century" = 1776.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back