• 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.
Welcome back to our weekly series of development diaries about Europa Universalis. This time we’ll talk about two features that will be part of the next expansion.

Theocracies
This is based on something we read in the suggestions forum. Monarchies and Republics have had their Legitimacy and Republican Tradition, but Theocracies haven’t had a unique mechanic yet. The next expansion will add a concept we call Devotion. Devotion ranges for 0 to 100, and impacts several thing.

Devotion impacts your religious abilities, your prestige gain and your tax-income.

You primarily gain devotion from high religious unity and the devoutness idea. Low stability will decrease it, while being Defender of the Faith will increase it.

There are also a lot of events that impact your devotion.

Another unique mechanic for theocracies is the fact that they always have an heir, and they have somewhat of control of it.

If you do not have an heir, you get a chance to select one heir. Heirs are age 40+ with random stats. You can then pick one of the following.

  • A Local Noble – Loses 5 devotion, but gains +10 Prestige
  • A Foreign Noble - Gains +100 relation with a random nation.
  • A Merchant's Son - +25% yearly income, lost 10 devotion
  • A Papal Protege – Catholic only. Gains +10 Papal Influence
  • A Talented Theologian: +10 Devotion
  • A local preacher – +5 Devotion & -10 Prestige


Government Ranks
A new feature in the next expansion is the introduction of proper Government Ranks. In previous versions, most countries would either be simply a Kingdom or a Republic, with a few special cases like Byzantium's Imperial Government and vassalized Kings becoming Dukes. If you don't get the expansion, this changes little, but for those with it most government types will come in three ranks: Duchy, Kingdom and Empire. While these are the names of the ranks, it doesn't mean there aren't any ranks for Republics - Venice's Serene Republic is on the same level as a Kingdom, for example.

Countries will start with whatever is closest to the rank they had historically, so the King of Burgundy becomes the Duke of Burgundy, while Byzantium is very much an Empire despite no longer having a special government form. Vassals, Marches and non-Elector members of the HRE are always Duchy rank, and certain government types only come in a single rank (such as Ming's Celestial Empire, which is always an Empire). Countries that are not locked to a particular rank can raise their rank through the Government screen by fulfilling certain requirements such as a certain level of prestige and total development level of your nation.

So what benefit do you get from a higher government rank, besides a new title and fancier headgear? Well, for one, higher government ranks are able to change their National Focus more often, with the default 25 year cooldown being 20 years for Kingdoms, and a mere 15 years for Empires. The bonuses granted from each government are now also set per rank, with government types getting more autonomy reduction from the higher ranks, while others such as Steppe Hordes have their base government bonuses to force limits, manpower and looting speed increased by higher government ranks.

Finally, this system also comes with a complete and mod-friendly overhaul of how government names and titles are handled. Under the old system, if you wanted to for example call your Greek Emperor a Basileus, you would have to create a particular localisation string that might get overwritten by other localisation strings, and there was no ability to differentiate between the titles of say, a Greek Western Technology Group Emperor and a Greek Eastern Technology Group Emperor. Under the new system, you script specific government name/title entries that might look something like this:


Code:
byzantine_monarchy = {
rank_1 = PRINCIPALITY
rank_2 = KINGDOM
rank_3 = EMPIRE


ruler_1 = AUTOKRATOR
ruler_1_female = AUTOKRATEIRA
ruler_2 = DESPOT
ruler_2_female = DESPOTISSA
ruler_3 = BASILEUS
ruler_3_female = BASILISSA

trigger = {
   government = monarchy
   tag = BYZ
}
}


The game goes through the government entries, picks the first one it finds where the trigger evaluates true, and applies those government titles to that nation. This means that if you so desire, you could create a complete unique set of government names for each and every country in the game!


AQP3Ng9.jpg
 
Though this DD mention Devotion
religious idea is weird for non-Christian, and religious system is still awful in Far East.

Suggestion:
  1. Idea group will change like Aristocratic/Plutocratic
  2. Merge Confucian & Shinto into Buddhist system
  3. Divide into 2 Schools of Buddhism + Confucian, Shinto
    1. Theravada : in South Asia and Southeast Asia
    2. Vajrayāna : in Tibet and North Asia
    3. Confucian : in China and Korea
    4. Shinto : in Japan
    each sect has unique feature, ex: Buddhist Theocracy (Lama!) only available for Vajrayāna.
Buddhist_sects.png

 
Last edited:
  • 7
  • 2
Reactions:
You seem to be playing a different game than the rest of us. Are you sure it's called Europa Universalis?

Indeed, but the French Empire only came to be late in the game's timeframe, therefore a mechanics just for them wouldn't serve much purpose, so it will instead be also used for false empires like the Byzantine, Holy Roman (if united), Russian and Ottoman ones.

False? the holy roman emperor, the byzantine emperor the russian tsar and the ottoman emperor all belived themselves to hold the emperor title created by augustus. An I was of course refering to what the time period was about not the game. But granted I would love the game to be less blobby too. Perhaps the new development system will make the ai and players focus on other stuff than blobbing.

I think it will be more along the lines of Emperor in all but name. Spain, Portugal, Britain, and in the CK2 time frame Cnut's domains were effectively empires, they were in some cases larger than the HRE and ruled over multiple cultures. But the leaders still referred to themselves as Kings. I will find it hilarious if Trebizond starts at Emperor tier as well. The Holy Roman Emperor may be given precedence at events and treated with respect but in practice say the Ruler of United Scandinavia or Burgandy beating down France and blobbing all over would be effectively emperors.

Being an emperor has nothing to do with holding lots of power. A emperor is a title with religious overtones. The roman emperor was pontefix maximus, and later the rightful ruler of all christians (though not all christians accepted that was the case) who had to be crowned by a religious leader (the pope in the catholic countries, and a patriarch in the orthodox). The chinese and Japanese emperors likewise had similar ideas. I'm not sure how the emperor of India of the brittish monarch factors into that, since as far as I understand they created the title.
 
Last edited:
Though this DD mention Devotion
religious idea is weird for non-Christian, and religious system is still awful in Far East.

Suggestion:
  1. Idea group will change like Aristocratic/Plutocratic
  2. Merge Confucian & Shinto into Buddhist system
  3. Divide into 2 Schools of Buddhism + Confucian, Shinto
    1. Theravada : in South Asia and Southeast Asia
    2. Vajrayāna : in Tibet and North Asia
    3. Confucian : in China and Korea
    4. Shinto : in Japan

Confucianism is not a "sect" of Buddhism.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Being an emperor has nothing to do with holding lots of power. A emperor is a title with religious overtones. The roman emperor was pontefix maximus, and later the rightful ruler of all christians (though not all christians accepted that was the case) who had to be crowned by a religious leader (the pope in the catholic countries, and a patriarch in the orthodox). The chinese and Japanese emperors likewise had similar ideas. I'm not sure how the emperor of India of the brittish monarch factors into that, since as far as I understand they created the title.

Well, in origin 'imperator' just means 'commander', but yes, it had developed religious overtones in the Christian world. Towards the end of the era, a distinction arose between titles based on country name and titles based on ethnic groups, with the latter having more secular nationalist connotations and less 'divine right' about it. So for instance Napoleon had himself styled 'Emperor of the French', not 'Emperor of France'. (An example that has survived to the present day is the 'King of the Belgians', which is a bit odd seeing as 'Belgians' didn't exist as a nation before the title was created, and arguably still don't in a cultural sense.) Still, I think Protestant countries where the monarch is head of state wouldn't be especially shy about declaring an 'Emperor of <country>'. Catholics, Orthodox and Copts would probably seek the permission of religious authorities.

In the Muslim/Persianate world you had 'padishah'/'shahanshah', which didn't have religious connotations and was used quite freely by the most powerful rulers, as opposed to 'caliph' which is an explicitly religious title and is likely to anger rival claimants to the 'Caliphate'. The Ottomans claimed both the legacy of Rome and the Caliphate, but even if they hadn't, they could still have called themselves padishahs. So we can imagine an empire-tier Muslim country is led by a 'padishah' who is not necessarily a 'caliph' (unless he's unified Islam or what have you).
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Yes but thats the Problem with china and japan were shinto and conficianism were used along with buddhism

Yes, not to mention Dao. Confucianism and Dao aren't even really "religions" in the western sense at all (highly debatable). That's why East Asia has been sorely wanting special mechanics in this area for ages, because it just doesn't fit neatly into the Abrahamic "true-faith/heretic/heathen" categorization.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Confucianism is not a "sect" of Buddhism.

I know what you mean, but Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism influence each other in history.
Three teachings harmonious as one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_teachings

"Confucian" is just a term to represent philosophy in China under game system.
Maybe it can be design to combine with faction system or even replace it.
 
Being an emperor has nothing to do with holding lots of power. A emperor is a title with religious overtones. The roman emperor was pontefix maximus, and later the rightful ruler of all christians (though not all christians accepted that was the case) who had to be crowned by a religious leader (the pope in the catholic countries, and a patriarch in the orthodox). The chinese and Japanese emperors likewise had similar ideas. I'm not sure how the emperor of India of the brittish monarch factors into that, since as far as I understand they created the title.

The problem with attempting to force a European title on states across the world is that all the different titles used by those states tended to have entirely different meanings and connotations. An "emperor" is not the same as a "huangdi" which is not the same as a "Khagan" which is not the same as a "padishah" which is not the same as a "Sapa Inca" which is... well you get the idea. The only thing these terms that tend to all be called "emperor" have in common is that they are at a rank above most other rulers in a given region, which is all this rank system should represent.
 
  • 8
  • 1
Reactions:
Well, in origin 'imperator' just means 'commander', but yes, it had developed religious overtones in the Christian world.

Well its only the mordern romantic languages who use the word imperator (though augustus himself was fond of the title), the romans themselves used augustus. The holy roman empire kaiser (caesar is pronunced kaisar in latin), the byzantines baseilius and the russians tsar (again from caesar/kaisar). And none of those means commander. So no country which has ever had an emperor had that problem (except the brittish, and again theirs did lack the religious component).

Towards the end of the era, a distinction arose between titles based on country name and titles based on ethnic groups, with the latter having more secular nationalist connotations and less 'divine right' about it. So for instance Napoleon had himself styled 'Emperor of the French', not 'Emperor of France'. (An example that has survived to the present day is the 'King of the Belgians', which is a bit odd seeing as 'Belgians' didn't exist as a nation before the title was created, and arguably still don't in a cultural sense.) Still, I think Protestant countries where the monarch is head of state wouldn't be especially shy about declaring an 'Emperor of <country>'. Catholics, Orthodox and Copts would probably seek the permission of religious authorities.

And yet it was a catholic who broke the system. Only after the austrians were forced to give up the claim to be holy roman emperors did protestants start calling themselves emeprors. And then only one cuntry did, germany who by containing the bulk of the old holy roman empire actually had a legimitimate claim to ressurect it. They were basically saying, "hey! we restored the empire!". Of all the empires that were declared after the fall of the HRE the germans were the only ones who did so with the intention that it meant what it had always meant (well except the austrians who just kept using the title like napoleon had never forced them to give it up).
The ones who started declaring secular empires after the hre fell were france spain portugal and so on. But again as I said if the HRE is dismantled (like it was in reality) I think that anyone should be able to claim emperorship but before that happens it should be more restricted.

In the Muslim/Persianate world you had 'padishah'/'shahanshah', which didn't have religious connotations and was used quite freely by the most powerful rulers, as opposed to 'caliph' which is an explicitly religious title and is likely to anger rival claimants to the 'Caliphate'. The Ottomans claimed both the legacy of Rome and the Caliphate, but even if they hadn't, they could still have called themselves padishahs. So we can imagine an empire-tier Muslim country is led by a 'padishah' who is not necessarily a 'caliph' (unless he's unified Islam or what have you).

Yeha but the Ottoman emperor also called himself caesar aongst his title. He wasn't just emperor in that he held a title we chose to translate to emperor he actually claimed to hold The Imperial Title (the one that in one way or another has given rise to the words used for emperor in every european language). Shashansha doesnt really mean emperor it mean the ruler who rules over the rulers if i'm not mistaken. So king of kings basically.


Edit: the distinction isnt religious it's lingual, in all the countries whee the word for emperor derives from caesar it's treatedas if there is only one emperor and iof there are two one is an usurperer. In the ones where emperor/imperator is used it's treated like there can be any number of emperors just like there can be any number of kings.
 
Last edited:
The problem with attempting to force a European title on states across the world is that all the different titles used by those states tended to have entirely different meanings and connotations. An "emperor" is not the same as a "huangdi" which is not the same as a "Khagan" which is not the same as a "padishah" which is not the same as a "Sapa Inca" which is... well you get the idea. The only thing these terms that tend to all be called "emperor" have in common is that they are at a rank above most other rulers in a given region, which is all this rank system should represent.
Definatly and I'm not sayign all titles emperor tier titles should work the same but the ones that have these religious overtones should be have harsher conditions to be attained. Emperor tier titles might not require more than secular power to attain, but titles that in europe has been translated to emperor ha sgenerally had these tones and having those attainable by simple secular power is a nog go. It's simple certain religions or cultures use diffrent systems. Or it could even be depending on the region of the capital.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I think this is a great addition and is historically relevant. I would also like to see in the future general and leader portraits.. I don't know why but it adds a lot more flavour to me.
 
So the PUs for Burgundy are (in order) Picardy, Brabant, Flanders, Hainaut, Holland, and Luxembourg?

I posted this in the previous DD:




I reluctantly concede that one could make 2 - 4 in the first section PU's for Burgundy, even if technically historically incorrect. We don't have a Namur tag though, do we, so I'm not sure quite what to do with it (part of Brabant I guess). Hainaut and Holland shouldn't be separated as two different PUs, as the two had been combined since 1299 (that PU had long since been integrated!) - Hainaut was the senior title, so if they must be part of a PU with Burgundy, it should be united and under the title of Hainaut. As for Picardy, it really wasn't a single feudal entity at the time - it was a combination of French crown territrories and minor vassals that were ceded en masse to Burgundy under the Treaty of Arras. I just can't see it as a PU, but outright conquered territory held directly by Burgundy. At worst, if it has to be part of a PU, combine it along with Artois as part of Flanders (which needs to include Franche-Comte!).
I've always wondered why Burgundy was so big at the start. Thanks for this.
 
what you mention is before Song dynasty.

But in EU4 time frame, the conflict among them is negligible for strategy simulation game.

IMO, this debatable theme is too minor for player.

Whats debatable about it?