• 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.

EU4 - Development Diary - 21st of May 2019

Hey folks, it's time for another EU4 dev diary! My name's Mike, and like my good colleague @Caligula Caesar I've been part of the EU4 Content Design team since December. We've been working on a solid chunk of Europe, and it's time to start showcasing some of this work. As @neondt has mentioned before, we've had a lot of suggestions and feedback from the community, and through further earnest exchanges we've refined the map further.

But, before we get to the end, let's talk about the process quickly, because I know that's what you truly crave.


image1_smol.png


This image is what was used to pitch the idea of what would end up becoming the revised province layout in northern Italy. As you'll see in a moment, it differs from what we ended up with in a couple of ways- Como was added later, along with a split in another North Italian province. Province 5 was originally conceived as a separate Aquileia province (since the country still exists as a releasable in Friuli, it was tempting to see what could be done with it) but that idea was eventually discarded in favor of a new Trieste province.


image2_smol.png


Southern Italy developed much closer to what the original draft envisioned. The southern half of the Italian Peninsula has only a few additions, Avellino being the one that probably sticks out the most. The island of Sicily received a bit more attention, with the island's three provinces turning into five instead. Its new divisions were guided a little bit more by game design priorities than historical divisions, as historical divisions like Sicily's real province of Trapani had sizes and shapes that would have really stuck out like a sore thumb in EU4.

Unlike the northern Italian proposal, the southern Italian one was nearly implemented as-is. The biggest difference is that “Agrigento” had its name changed to “Girgenti”, which seemed more accurate for the period. Conversely, several proposed name changes to pre-existing provinces were not implemented, as they just didn't seem necessary upon review.


“Show us the new map already!” I can hear you guys politely demanding. Fine, fine!


italy_whole.png


Three new countries were added to the map as independent states. In the far north is the Prince-Bishopric of Trent, an Austrian country in control of an Italian province. To the west lies Saluzzo, nervously wedged between Savoy and France. In Romagna, Bologna is now an independent republic coveted by its neighbors.

Alongside these three countries are a couple new potential revolters. Padua and Verona now have cores on their respective provinces and can break away from Venice if the stars align, and Spoleto now exists as a core in Spoleto province, in case the Papal State's control of Central Italy ever starts to fall apart.

If we zoom in a little, more details reveal themselves.


northern italy.png


As the conversation linked at the start of this post highlights, Como originally was not considered, but after some discussion it became apparent that the inclusion of it (or at least something north of Milan) was called for. Thus, Como's complete contours now complement the comprehensive composition of that corner.

The creation of a separate Bologna province also prompted a revision of the remnant of old Romagna province; the old province's capital is now Ravenna, and Ravenna was taken by Venice in 1440 or 1441, so Romagna now starts off under Venetian rather than Papal control, although the Papacy does retain its core on the province. I'm sure this is fine and will definitely not be a source of tension between the two countries.


southern italy.png


Southern Italy was implemented essentially as described above. Sardinia received some attention and now includes Arborea as its own province on the west side of the island, but other Sardinian giudicati were not included primarily for the sake of balance- Sassari province in northern Sardinia has only 3/3/2 development as it is, and splitting that in two would create provinces with as little development as an Uzbek province in the Steppes.

Aside from the obvious mapwork, there is one other thing we added to southern Italy:

two_sicilies.png



And there you have it! Next week, we'll be talking about missions.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
But different cultures enrich the game. For example eastern part of Trebizond should just be Laz, document even after Ottoman conquest shows Lazes were majority in respective Lazica/Lazistan region. I wish they reconsider this policy. Majority cultures deserve representation even if it hurts design.

It's a video game, not an anthropology textbook. The base game should be designed for playability not maximum authenticity.
 
Because some of these suggestions are in that tone. Things that would require a lot of work, for not a lot of impact. Unique government forms for a handful of provinces. Internal political strife for a region that is (at least in most games I play) has the AI just eating them entirely before the game is half over even without the handicaps of that political instability, etc (usually between Naples and Austria).

Something like the Holy Roman Empire is a high impact region. It's centrally located in a position to be in contact with several major powers (Danmark, England, France, Spain, Poland, Russia, the Ottomans) at various points in the game. Tweaks there will have a cascading effect on the game in general because a good number of the major players in the game end up interacting with it at least low key on some level. League War, Dutch Indepedance, control of Northern European Trade, slowing down reckless expansion by its interconnected hornet's nest of alliances and protections, etc.

While Italy is far less impactful in the game. Outside of Austria (And the Ottomans with the outlying provinces of Genoa and Venice, and Spain if they secure Naples as part of the Iberian wedding, both of which are corner cases in their way, or a player based France, Ottomans, Russia, etc, who has already cleaved through the Holy Roman Empire and Italy just becomes an easy bonus conquest in its wake of out of control expansion) it just doesn't interact with a lot of major powers. Kind of a sad but true bit when I look at it from the long view. Excessive hours sunk into giving highly special attention to Italy just doesn't seem like good return on investment (and probably why this Developer Diary looks the way it does compared to the Holy Roman Empire ones).

Most regions are low impact compared to the HRE and TC land though. I agree with your general point that demanding hundreds of hours of development go into a relatively inconsequential part of the game is silly but this is probably the only major rework to Italy we're going to get for a while. They've chosen to focus in part on Italy for this patch and the bulk of the feedback/suggestions are map related.
 
As I read it, all that you want changed is that Como can reach the westernmost Three Leagues province, am I right? Making Lombardy and Tirol directly border each other would require some seriously weird map pyrotechnics which simply would not be right.

No, I haven't mentioned anything about the borders of Como specifically, but the general point is that currently the game cannot at all represent the situation in the 17th century during the Thirty Years War. Armies in Habsburg territory in Italy cannot travel back and forth to Austria and vice versa. If you can't represent that in EU4, there's a problem with EU4, not history. The issue is that the layout of provinces in the Alps makes representing history impossible. Habsburg Spain was able to march troops from Milan to Vienna through territory it controlled. France sent François Annibal d'Estrées with thousands of French troops to capture Valtellina from Papal troops.

Lastly, can you be more specific about the issues of "weird map pyrotechnics" and what you mean by that? There is literally a big chunky wasteland exactly where Valtellina is.
 
No, I haven't mentioned anything about the borders of Como specifically, but the general point is that currently the game cannot at all represent the situation in the 17th century during the Thirty Years War. Armies in Habsburg territory in Italy cannot travel back and forth to Austria and vice versa. If you can't represent that in EU4, there's a problem with EU4, not history. The issue is that the layout of provinces in the Alps makes representing history impossible. Habsburg Spain was able to march troops from Milan to Vienna through territory it controlled. France sent François Annibal d'Estrées with thousands of French troops to capture Valtellina from Papal troops.

Lastly, can you be more specific about the issues of "weird map pyrotechnics" and what you mean by that? There is literally a big chunky wasteland exactly where Valtellina is.

I kinda feel that military access covers the situation perfectly - after all, in your map, the relevant land is not owned by either Austria or Milan but the Three Leagues.
 
I kinda feel that military access covers the situation perfectly - after all, in your map, the relevant land is not owned by either Austria or Milan but the Three Leagues.
Please make Como accesible for The Three Leagues. It would be a nice consensus of the whole Valtelinna discussion.
 
I kinda feel that military access covers the situation perfectly - after all, in your map, the relevant land is not owned by either Austria or Milan but the Three Leagues.
Point, but the Three Leagues occupied that province - that had been held by Milan, and that was given to the Grisons exactly in hopes of cutting off the Habsburgs from Milan.
 
With Ravenna as a new venetian province in the map, you should discourage further expansions of Venice within the peninsula, and instead encourage that overseas in the Balkans against the Turks.
I suggest a historical event like the Battle of Agnadello, as a limiter of overextension for Venice in Italy (the event could start in 1508, or after a certain number of conquered provinces inside Italy by Venice, look this map) with the creation of a coalition of States (eg: Cambrai League) against Venice.
If Venice win the Battle of Agnadello, it can continue to expand inside the peninsula without restrinction.
If lose the Battle of Agnadello, it suffer a reduction (as number) of its provinces outside the Veneto region in the peninsula, with a division of its provinces among the power of the winner coalition.
If lose, Venice could have penalty (economic or risk for other coalitions anti-Venice) in case of its future overextension aggressive inside the peninsula.
However, in case Venice lose in Agnadello Battle event, if it decide to participate to another event, the War of the Holy League, it could retake part of its provinces previously lost and reduce the penalty or limits.
 
Last edited:
To understand why Bologna should be a vassal of the Papal State, you just have to take a look at the way the Papal State was governed; there was always strife between the somewhat secular and the more religious leaders. Especially in the Romagna.

A Romagna without any form of Papal influence is just wrong.
 
To understand why Bologna should be a vassal of the Papal State, you just have to take a look at the way the Papal State was governed; there was always strife between the somewhat secular and the more religious leaders. Especially in the Romagna.

A Romagna without any form of Papal influence is just wrong.

I agree. Remember that Bologna still was the seat of a Papal Legate so the nominal papal control of the province could have tight pretty soon if the Bentivoglio do not pull some diplomatic strings. It would make for a more interesting gameplay with maybe some new mechanics, since we were promised.

I sincerely hope that Italy gets some unique mechanics apart from the Catholicism Rework (which is not an Italy-only thing)
 
I agree. Remember that Bologna still was the seat of a Papal Legate so the nominal papal control of the province could have tight pretty soon if the Bentivoglio do not pull some diplomatic strings. It would make for a more interesting gameplay with maybe some new mechanics, since we were promised.

I sincerely hope that Italy gets some unique mechanics apart from the Catholicism Rework (which is not an Italy-only thing)
Exactly. And most of the Papal territories were under limited or nominal control at the beginning of EU4, with local dynasties vying for power. But the most prominent towns still had a legate.

It's the nature of the whole Papal tag, not just the relation between Bologna and Rome.

(that's why I'm for more vassals, like Perugia, to be fair. To get that disloyalty up.)
 
I know that Monaco is in France, but like Corsica, they belong to Italy in that time.
Monaco was genoese province that become independent Principate in 1612.
So, Monaco could be like Avignone, an exclave of Genoa that from aristocratic republic (with different election from Genoa) become a monarchy hereditary after buy the title from the Emperor.
 
I know that Monaco is in France, but like Corsica, they belong to Italy in that time.
Monaco was genoese province that become independent Principate in 1612.
So, Monaco could be like Avignone, an exclave of Genoa that from aristocratic republic (with different election from Genoa) become a monarchy hereditary after buy the title from the Emperor.
We also need of San Marino, the italian Ulm!. :-D
Monaco is too small to be its own province. It's in the same league as San Marino and Andorra. Did they exist? Yes, but they barely expanded in the EU4 timeline and didn't do much. Same goes for San Marino.
 
Monaco is too small to be its own province. It's in the same league as San Marino and Andorra. Did they exist? Yes, but they barely expanded in the EU4 timeline and didn't do much. Same goes for San Marino.


Monaco, San Marino, Andorra and Liechtenstein are still independent today, I think that microStates have a great resilence and should have the same respectability of Luxembourg and much more importance than province of Avignon (Pope Martin V had transfered the curia again in Rome in 1420, so it was a feudal territory without particular strategic importance until French Revolution).
In the case of Monaco, we can resize Albenga and Nice provinces for create it.
San Marino territory is a mountain so it's strategic and difficult to conquer.
Historically it was a balance force in Romagna political mosaic against Rimini expansion by Malatesta Family, it was an ally of Urbino (obviously San Marino could be useful to add if the Romagna and Marche coast change with much more provinces).
San Marino was the first State to have a Constitution written in the 1600, so can give much more bonus points and progress in the age of the absolutism.
Popes recognised San Marino like independent State but in 1503 and 1739 attack them without success.
Napoleon recognised the independence of the Republic and offered more italian territory until the Adriatic Sea, but the Republic refused the offer (in EU4 things can change).
I think San Marino could play a role in coalition or alliance with the other italian republics (Genoa, Venice, Florence) for preserve its independence against the monarchy, duchy and Pope.
Andorra like Navarra could be conquered by France, Spain (Navarra, Aragon and Castiglia) and in 1607 could create a political bridge between France and Spain propedeutic for the War of the Spanish Succession.
Liechtenstein could be add like an independent State in XVIII century, like hereditary monarchy recognised by the HRE.
 
Last edited:
Everyone wanted Bologna. It was a rich city and it was placed in a fertile land and was a cross point between Florence, Milan and the Romagna cities subjects to the Pope.

The fact that Milan and Florence could conquer Bologna does not mean that Bologna was not subject to the Pope. It was, but it was still menaced by bigger neighbors, and the Pope was far away. Both Milan and Florence has more soldiers than the Pope and were closer, so they could effectively conquer Bologna. Only cunning diplomacy would have saved the city.

So essentially, in terms of game mechanics, Bologna to the Papacy is like Brandenburg to the HRE; a vassal in name only, one that has to fend for itself against its neighbors. One that pays lipservice to the Pope, by politely asking for more autonomy to avoid a Papal Inderdicts or excommunication, as Brandenburg might cozy up to the Emperor to avoid Imperial Bans or Unlawful Territory. So being a disloyal vassal would not properly emulate Bologna's historical situation.

Bologna had been independent from the Papacy since 1376 and the Pope, while nominally still ruler, could not restore his authority over the city before the Milanese took it in 1401. It revolted free of the Milanese in 1442, establishing an oligarchic republic. The Pope has a legitimate claim over the city, and historically it enforced this claim in 1506 when it had the French manpower to do it. But Bologna was not a vassal of the Pope in anything but name in 1444, and would do everything in its power to preserve its status, playing politics with neighbors, and appeasing the Pope so he would not have an excuse to issue an Interdict or Excommunicate them, giving him the excuse to reassert his nominal authority over the city via arms. Mechanically, Bologna should be independent, as it better fits its situation; the Milanese didn't declare war on the Papacy to take Bologna, and no amount of improving relations by the Papacy would convince Bologna to give up its independence, as we can see historically.
 
Monaco, San Marino, Andorra and Liechtenstein are still independent today, I think that microStates have a great resilence and should have the same respectability of Luxembourg and much more importance than province of Avignon (Pope Martin V had transfered the curia again in Rome in 1420, so it was a feudal territory without particular strategic importance until French Revolution).
In the case of Monaco, we can resize Albenga and Nice provinces for create it.
San Marino territory is a mountain so it's strategic and difficult to conquer.
Historically it was a balance force in Romagna political mosaic against Rimini expansion by Malatesta Family, it was an ally of Urbino (obviously San Marino could be useful to add if the Romagna and Marche coast change with much more provinces).
San Marino was the first State to have a Constitution written in the 1600, so can give much more bonus points and progress in the age of the absolutism.
Pope recognised San Marino like independent State but in 1503 and 1739 attack them without success.
Napoleon recognised the independence of the Republic and offered more italian territory until the Adriatic Sea, but the Republic refused the offer (in EU4 things can change).
I think San Marino could play a role in coalition or alliance with the other italian republics (Genoa, Venice, Florence) for preserve its independence against the monarchy, duchy and Pope.
Andorra like Navarra could be conquered by France, Spain (Navarra, Aragon and Castiglia) and in 1607 could create a political bridge between France and Spain propedeutic for the War of the Spanish Succession.
Liechtenstein could be add like an independent State in XVIII century, like hereditary monarchy recognised by the HRE.

If EU4 had a map with a province density similar to the one from Imperator Rome, I would say "yes, add Monaco and other microstates". Unfortunately, this game can't have provinces that are so small, specially if these countries don't really play any significant role.