EU4 Development Diary - 18th February 2016

[loup99]

Hey, i know you are making an africa update in eu4, but aren't you worried that all of it will be eaten by Spain? I think, that fir european nations to explore inner africa, there should be massive costs, like armies going missing, conquistadors dying, and manpower spending.

We have reasons to belive that will not be the case.

Does this hint some mechanics? Source: IAMA : https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/477sfq/we_are_paradox_development_studio_creators_of/

 

[Hoon Ding]

In all my games the europeans (the portugese were not quicker than the english!) came to the indian ocean only in the xvii century. The main reason - the portugese were busy conquering morocco, senegal and guiana. I like the new african map, but I fear it will make colonisation even slower.
Many people have offered to make colonisation in africa harder - but also conquest in africa should be made harder.

And another point. (I will talk about west africa but it applies to central africa too.) I like that the discoveries are now tied to the regions. But I think the regions should be reworked a bit. Now all western africa is discovered by spain in about 1470s (if not earlier) long before it can send conquistadors to explore the interior. But if the region is split into coastal and continental parts then the continental part can stay terra incognita for much longer I believe.

And I like the idea of trade posts instead of colonies on the african coast by the way. It would solve many problems at once - allow easier access to the Indian ocean and slow down the scramble for africa.

 

[TheDungen]

In all my games the europeans (the portugese were not quicker than the english!) came to the indian ocean only in the xvii century. The main reason - the portugese were busy conquering morocco, senegal and guiana. I like the new african map, but I fear it will make colonisation even slower.

This is true making conquering africa harder will only further destabilise the course of events if the AI keeps insisting on doing it.

 

[Jomini]

I can only speak for my parts of the map, but as I said way back in the North America dev diary during Art of War (note : the Rockies passage was opened up earlier, in Conquest of Paradise)...

The predominance of the natives in that region also led us to expand the number of provinces in the Pacific Northwest and northern Alberta. These regions would have been extremely difficult if not downright impossible for westerners to settle on any sort of large scale in the game timeline (though they did see a number of trading posts). The Natives, however, had no such difficulties living in those provinces, and since they're the primary players on the plains and in the mountains, we felt the game would be better off with the extra provinces.

The same philosophy and principles applied to my map contributions here - "making the region interesting for locals" was my priority. "What outsiders could have done in the region"...wasn't.

I'm not going to apologize for going with that set of priority. Largely because I stand by my choice, and am not sorry at all.

And yet none of this has ever been true. The native population densities here are lower than a lot of the interior steppe provinces we leave unsettled. The natives on the Fraser specifically said they were not able to move large bodies of men through the pass you created (literally they told Fraser that the route was all but impassable to small bands). There is insufficient calorie density to march an army, any army over that pass.

The rockies remain one of the most boring places in the world. What should have been a fun "back to the wall" theater for wars between the Haida and the Salish with some European proxy fights has become just another blob inland and unite NA run. Pretty much every interesting strategic dynamic the locals actually faced you massively undercut to the detriment of making their gameplay experience unique and interesting.


And this is exactly what the new map expansion does as well. It takes places that played differently because that actual unique threat vectors and turned them into yet another giant blob of provinces and statelets. We likely will get a kludge of a new religion that is somehow supposed to make this interesting and maybe a few new combinations of static modifiers - so pretty much welcome to NA/Mexico/the Andes/West Africa 5.0.

 

[Evie HJ]

Some notes on that topic.

1. The Fraser Canyon is a north-south obstacle, not an east-west one. Up to Yale (eastern side of the coast mountains) the Fraser is eminently passable. It's the north-south segment along the Chilcotin plateau that's the problem.

2. The existence of native trade, communication and transport through overland trails in the coast mountains is a proven fact ; not only did the trade exist, but the inland Carrier natives had a special name for those trails, derived from the coast-unique resource (Eulachon grease) they were able to trade for with the coast thank to those trails (Grease trails). The most notable of which is the one the Carrier (Dakelh) proposed to Alexander Mackenzie as an alternative to the Fraser in 1792 (the map as it stand does not accurately represent the location of that passage, because it would have implied adding a second wasteland area to BC. It was pushed south to simplify the map a little).

3. Fraser, on his way down, benefitted from one such grease trail along the shores of the canyon. Which, would imply natives did in fact know ways around or through the canyon.

4. Mackenzie was not only warned about the danger of navigating the canyon ; but about the threat of the tribes that lived around its banks. Which implies the region was not quite as uninhabitable as you'd like it to be and that the inhabitant of the region had enough contact with those further up the river to develop a reputation as hostile.

The passage of armies is one test among many. The passage of significant (in this case, significant enough to get the routes named after the trade) trade and communication through a particular route is another. In my view of map design, the later is often sufficient to open a passage.

I know you likely disagree. That's your prerogative. But while I understand your philosophy on what the map should be like, and respect your right to it, I don't agree with it, and have no intention of changing that.

 

[TheDungen]

Some notes on that topic.

1. The Fraser Canyon is a north-south obstacle, not an east-west one. Up to Yale (eastern side of the coast mountains) the Fraser is eminently passable. It's the north-south segment along the Chilcotin plateau that's the problem.

2. The existence of native trade, communication and transport through overland trails in the coast mountains is a proven fact ; not only did the trade exist, but the inland Carrier natives had a special name for those trails, derived from the coast-unique resource (Eulachon grease) they were able to trade for with the coast thank to those trails (Grease trails). The most notable of which is the one the Carrier (Dakelh) proposed to Alexander Mackenzie as an alternative to the Fraser in 1792 (the map as it stand does not accurately represent the location of that passage, because it would have implied adding a second wasteland area to BC. It was pushed south to simplify the map a little).

3. Fraser, on his way down, benefitted from one such grease trail along the shores of the canyon. Which, would imply natives did in fact know ways around or through the canyon.

4. Mackenzie was not only warned about the danger of navigating the canyon ; but about the threat of the tribes that lived around its banks. Which implies the region was not quite as uninhabitable as you'd like it to be and that the inhabitant of the region had enough contact with those further up the river to develop a reputation as hostile.

The passage of armies is one test among many. The passage of significant (in this case, significant enough to get the routes named after the trade) trade and communication through a particular route is another. In my view of map design, the later is often sufficient to open a passage.

I know you likely disagree. That's your prerogative. But while I understand your philosophy on what the map should be like, and respect your right to it, I don't agree with it, and have no intention of changing that.

I'm sorry was that about africa or north america?

 

[Jomini]

Some notes on that topic.

1. The Fraser Canyon is a north-south obstacle, not an east-west one. Up to Yale (eastern side of the coast mountains) the Fraser is eminently passable. It's the north-south segment along the Chilcotin plateau that's the problem.

2. The existence of native trade, communication and transport through overland trails in the coast mountains is a proven fact ; not only did the trade exist, but the inland Carrier natives had a special name for those trails, derived from the coast-unique resource (Eulachon grease) they were able to trade for with the coast thank to those trails (Grease trails). The most notable of which is the one the Carrier (Dakelh) proposed to Alexander Mackenzie as an alternative to the Fraser in 1792 (the map as it stand does not accurately represent the location of that passage, because it would have implied adding a second wasteland area to BC. It was pushed south to simplify the map a little).

3. Fraser, on his way down, benefitted from one such grease trail along the shores of the canyon. Which, would imply natives did in fact know ways around or through the canyon, and that the inhabitant of the region had enough contact with those further up the river to develop a reputation as hostile.

4. Mackenzie was not only warned about the danger of navigating the canyon ; but about the threat of the tribes that lived around its banks. Which implies the region was not quite as uninhabitable as you'd like it to be.

The passage of armies is one test among many. The passage of significant (in this case, significant enough to get the routes named after the trade) trade and communication through a particular route is another. In my view of map design, the later is often sufficient to open a passage.

I know you likely disagree. That's your prerogative. But while I understand your philosophy on what the map should be like, and respect your right to it, I don't agree with it, and have no intention of changing that.

Oh please. Larger volumes of goods in terms of value and poundage were moved across the Arctic pack ice than that. We had sustained circumpolar trade routes in ivory, iron, and blubber that crossed larger areas during this era. If our only criteria is trade paths then we need to open up all the litoral ice in the game.

As far as the large population, please. Large populations adjacent to slaving bodies, like the Haida, either fight the slaving bodies or are geographically isolated from the slaving bodies. In spite of your silly claims that these transits would be viable for native forces, we have no records (oral, genetic or otherwise) that show any slaving incursions across the Rockies. Just like with the new ahistorical Africa connections we see slaving societies go drastically further distances to procure slaves in spite of there being allegedly "large populations" near to hand.

The truth is humans can live anywhere and the entire Frazer expedition was sub-battalion size. Aggressive populations that would kill a few men there would not be able to put a dent in larger forces - like the several hundred mustered by Haida raids. Of course several hundred Haida raiders would have extreme difficulty getting the calories needed to cross that area and we are still not getting into the regiments of EU.


Frankly the most telling thing here is that you have no problem devaluing the actual history of the groups in question. The fact that all their recorded strategy assumed these lands were impassable to their own forces is meaningless to you. Like any good politically correct imperialist, your goals are vastly more important than preserving the uniqueness and historical accuracy for the peoples in question.

 

[grommile]

The passage of armies is one test among many. The passage of significant (in this case, significant enough to get the routes named after the trade) trade and communication through a particular route is another. In my view of map design, the later is often sufficient to open a passage.

If you make an area a province, you enable me to march ten thousand men and their artillery train through it on the way to somewhere else.

Trade routes are represented by the trade node system, which doesn't actually care about where the wastelands are.

 

[Freudia]

And this is exactly what the new map expansion does as well. It takes places that played differently because that actual unique threat vectors and turned them into yet another giant blob of provinces and statelets. We likely will get a kludge of a new religion that is somehow supposed to make this interesting and maybe a few new combinations of static modifiers - so pretty much welcome to NA/Mexico/the Andes/West Africa 5.0.

'Played differently' doesn't necessarily mean 'played well'. Look at Kongo in the current version for something that plays differently while also plays horribly.

 

[Evie HJ]

That's your philosophy of what the map should be like (one that focus on EU-as-a-wargame). Liike I told Jomini, that's your prerogative. I understand the view ; I do not agree with it.

There are a wide variety of philosophies on what the map should be like (ranging from even more narrow than yours or Jomini's, to the no-wasteland-ever one). When actually making the map, I can only ever use one of them, and some people are going to be unhappy either way.

I chose one of those to use. You're free to disagree, but I stand by my choice, and by the designs I made based on those choices.

 

[grommile]

That's your philosophy of what the map should be like (one that focus on EU-as-a-wargame). Liike I told Jomini, that's your prerogative. I understand the view ; I do not agree with it.

EU4's trade system allows trade routes to cross wastelands. EU4's military system doesn't allow armies to cross wastelands. If an area was passable to some forms of trade, but impassable to armies, it is silly to have a province in that area when trade node and route definitions are entirely sufficient to represent the flow of wealth.

 

[Evie HJ]

Yes, I understood that the last time you said it. That's your view of what the map design principles should be. I disagree with those. I stated mine.

Ultimately, what the map design philosophy should be is not a matter for factual debate - it's a matter of personal opinion based on our preferences in playing the game, and what the game would be like if we designed it. There's no one "True" opinion with the others being wrong (whatever you might like to think) ; there are a lot of different ways of looking at map design.

When I'm designing a map, for a mod or for the devs, I'm going to use my way of looking at map design (to the extent it fits within the devs' vision of the game, if working for them). The reasons for that should be obvious.

 

[Jomini]

Yes, I understood that the last time you said it. That's your view of what the map design principles should be. I disagree with those. I stated mine.

Ultimately, what the map design philosophy should be is not a matter for factual debate - it's a matter of personal opinion based on our preferences in playing the game, and what the game would be like if we designed it. There's no one "True" opinion with the others being wrong (whatever you might like to think) ; there are a lot of different ways of looking at map design.

When I'm designing a map, for a mod or for the devs, I'm going to use my way of looking at map design (to the extent it fits within the devs' vision of the game, if working for them). The reasons for that should be obvious.

The problem with your "philosophy" is that you are either just ad hoc justifying things or it is inconsistent. If "making the region interesting for locals" is your yardstick, then your changes are terrible.

Play a game as the Salish, what is interesting about it? You can colonize inland, then go fight some plains natives and proceed to unify NA. If you miss out on the first province in the pass, who cares the top pass is three wide and there is a bottom one just so the PacNorthwest is a boring subpar replay of other North American regions. The Salish historically had to fight for dominance of the coast where canoe based warfare dominated, then juggle incursions from the Spanish, Russians, British, and Americans as they did not have the option of presenting a united military front with the plains natives. It would have been interesting to have mechanics that reflected this that made you face some real "do or die" battles and that encouraged the Europeans to do anything other than spam colonies via the East ... and you made it so these tribes are little more than afterthought punching bags for the AI and bog standard boring "colonize to great strength" tribes.

Similarly the new Africa provinces look exactly like more of the same - obliterating all the historical strategy and local history so we can have ... exactly the same experience of a parcel of statelets elsewhere on the map.

Interesting gameplay is when you have choices and constraints, preferably ones faced by the locals in questions that force you to engage with the challenges the locals face. These map changes pretty much ensure that place will just be another punching bag that delays Europeans from engaging Asia making both Africa and Asia far less interesting for the locals.

Any hopes for an interesting game for the locals pretty much goes down the tubes when you obliterate their strategic imperatives and force them into a Eurocentric model of interaction that is wildly inappropriate for their history.

 

[mcmanusaur]

A somewhat Eurocentric model of interaction is much better than no model of interaction whatsoever.

 

[grommile]

A somewhat Eurocentric model of interaction is much better than no model of interaction whatsoever.

It's not clear to me that "we can't do this justice, but we're throwing a half-baked version of it into the game anyway" is better than "we can't do this justice, so we'll leave it alone for now".

And I'll shut up now, because I'm not buying 1.16's accompanying DLC so Paradox don't need to listen to me.

 

[Jomini]

A somewhat Eurocentric model of interaction is much better than no model of interaction whatsoever.

Somewhat? Seriously, man up and call it what it is - a fully European conception of the state that encompasses all manner of assumptions that are invalid for the regions depicted in Africa.

It is far more insulting to steamroll local history just so we can have ahistorical tags than to leave it and invest the resources into making something that actually does the region justice. The game could use a lot of "tribal" mechanisms for interactions with "wastelands"; there were always people who lived there (albeit at extremely low densities) and the game would benefit greatly from being able to have something that allowed you to invest into interior trade or deal with irregular states of some areas as a wasteland mechanic.

Of course the fact that this will further degrade Europe - Asia interaction wholly offsets even any partial gains in Africa. This will make the many, many tags in Asia that should be very interesting due to their interactions with Europe have far fewer such interactions and make places like Malacca or Mysore far more poorly modeled and far less interesting.

Instead we now have a bunch more tags and provinces which add more burden to the CPU and constrain the possibilities of ever actually doing justice to all the places where everyone wishes were "represented". With ever more kludges running per AI, the chances of getting a non-offensive representation of these areas just got more remote.

Far, far better to wait until you can do it properly than to kludge your way through something half-assed.

 

[Vivi_]

Couldn't access be limited based on tech group? That way a local can have an interesting map, but an interloper finds the are impenetrable?

A good solution could be to represent how harsh it was for europeans to invade Africa.

Diseases could be repesented, somethin g that literraly wipes a good chunk of manpower as exemple, making you vulnerable to any invasion in Europe if you keep pushing in Africa.

 

[mcmanusaur]

Somewhat? Seriously, man up and call it what it is - a fully European conception of the state that encompasses all manner of assumptions that are invalid for the regions depicted in Africa.

It is far more insulting to steamroll local history just so we can have ahistorical tags than to leave it and invest the resources into making something that actually does the region justice.

Ok, and "wasteland" isn't a loaded concept encompassing a multitude of dubious assumptions? We're simply trading one set of assumptions for another, and I think most people would disagree with the notion that "wasteland" is somehow a more respectful designation than "state".

Really though, you could say the same for many parts of the world- there are in fact very few cases that perfectly fit how EU4 chooses to define a state (or wasteland for that matter). EU4 is, after all, necessarily a game of heavy abstraction, and if you don't like that (I'm admittedly not too fond of how they handle such abstractions myself) then that's too bad.

I would certainly love to see an EU game that was less reliant on such abstraction, but realistically that's simply not going to happen in the context of EU4. That's because solving this issue would require a fundamental re-evaluation of the game's underlying model. It's a general problem that no amount of tacked-on novelty mechanics is going to fix.

That said, Paradox may very well be able to come up with an adequate mechanical solution for realistically limiting troop movement through these areas (attrition?). We will see.

 

[Jomini]

Ok, and "wasteland" isn't a loaded concept encompassing a multitude of dubious assumptions? We're simply trading one set of assumptions for another, and I think most people would disagree with the notion that "wasteland" is somehow a more respectful designation than "state".

Really though, you could say the same for many parts of the world- there are in fact very few cases that perfectly fit how EU4 chooses to define a state (or wasteland for that matter). EU4 is, after all, necessarily a game of heavy abstraction, and if you don't like that (I'm admittedly not too fond of how they handle such abstractions myself) then that's too bad.

I would certainly love to see an EU game that was less reliant on such abstraction, but realistically that's simply not going to happen in the context of EU4. That's because solving this issue would require a fundamental re-evaluation of the game's underlying model. It's a general problem that no amount of tacked-on novelty mechanics is going to fix.

That said, Paradox may very well be able to come up with an adequate mechanical solution for realistically limiting troop movement through these areas (attrition?). We will see.

Wasteland was a terrible choice from the beginning. I wish they had just left the old "permanent terra icognita" descriptor in place. Much of the world in 1820 was not accessible to armies, but had variable amounts of trade, this areas often housed decent to large populations (e.g. we did have a few thousand people out on the ice flows), but there was no manner, ever of moving manpower through them.


And even with heavy abstraction we could still do a far better job with something as simple as using special estates for "wastelands" you control - give control over it to: monopoly trading companies (e.g. HBC), promote local elites (e.g. Luba), or declare it free for all. Each would have some benefits and costs and having fringe area land that you cannot fully control would be much better than tag spam and would take up far less CPU time.

Is near as I can tell, map reworks are a low man-hour way to make the game look shiny, particularly when core components like diplomacy, AI pathing, and the like are all actively suffering. There are huge deficiencies in how the AI conducts itself and silly eye candy like these ahistorical maps give the illusion of progress.

It is pretty sad to see really. Pdox games used to have unheard of longevity with an incredibly strong push toward balance and function. Now there seems to be ever present map & feature creep that drowns the game in kludges and boring uniformity. It looks like they are moving much more product and I guess it is a better business model to just layer on stuff like this. That is regrettable.

 

[ChildeR]

Wasteland was a terrible choice from the beginning. I wish they had just left the old "permanent terra icognita" descriptor in place.

What's the difference between those two?