• 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 - 22nd of January 2019

Good day and welcome to another EUIV Dev Diary. As mentioned last week, we are working towards our 1.28.3 bugfix patch as well as planning out our big European expansion for the year, and as such, won't be having meaty, feature-rich dev diaries for a while. Instead today, I'll dig a bit more into the 1.28.3 Patch, and some thoughts on suggestions towards our upcoming expansion.

While there are some very important issues that we're fixing in 1.28.3, including the Trade Company Stuttering and Save File issues, we are taking the opportunity to pack a lot more fixes into this release than we traditionally would in a hotfix. Since it'll likely be quite some time until the next big release for the game, we wanted to get cracking on outstanding issues while we could, which is why this bugfix patch is taking longer than normal too. At last check, it is over 100 bug-crushing entries long, so hopefully it proves worth the wait. We expect it'll see the light of day in the coming weeks, once we finish up the fixes, test it and have it ready to ship out.

To clarify, 1.28.3 is a purely bugfix patch. It won't have new content, map changes or any of the like. It is the result of the past weeks' efforts, with particular attention to script and content fixes. Some specifics pulled from the changelog include:

- Updated British missions for India map changes
- Texas' leader names and ship names have been made more Texan.
- Streltsy events will no longer attempt to change Streltsy Progress if you have Streltsy units but no longer use the Russian government reforms.
- Fixed AI refusing Royal Marriage because of too many diplomatic relations, despite already having Alliance.
- Spain's Golden Century mission "Claim Hispaniola" now shows the correct number of provinces needed to complete the mission.
- Spain's "Found Havana" mission can also be completed by building a counting house
- Ryukyu's tributary status with Ming ends in 1609.

With a pinch of luck we'll have the full patchnotes next week, and the release of the patch the week after. This is, of course, subject to testing going well and the patch being ready for release.

As I did last week, I'd also like to give a nod and some thoughts on suggestions which have been coming in. Again, these do not come with a promise of things to come, just thoughts on matters.

Balkan Suggestions

Too many Balkan suggestion threads to single one out, so cheers to @Sanguine Caesar who put together this compilation. I saw some conjecture about the target regions of the large European expansion and, in particular, if it would include the Balkans. If I remember my initial words well, I had originally said we'll be focusing on the map from Brest to Istanbul. To put that conjecture to rest (maybe) , I'll clarify that our ambition is to target France, Low Countries, Germany, Italy and the Balkans. This ambition may grow or shrink as the year goes on and we get to work, but this is what we're setting out to do. And by this, we don't exclusively mean map content, there's content planned for these target areas even if the map isn't in need of much work. The Low Countries provinces for example saw a good deal of love in the England update but who doesn't dream of a Dutch Revolt that doesn't just mechanically result in 250,000 angry Dutch rebels standing in Antwerp forevermore?


1440p/2160p support

@zersetzung brings this suggestion, and is far from the first to do so. A personal pet peeve of mine is when I want to fire up an old game, and it is void of graphical options to make it somewhat playable on a modern machine. I can hardly blame the 90's for not seeing over twenty years into the future, but the frustration is still there.

In the far flung future there will certainly be those who maintain that Europa Universalis IV is the best EU experience, superior to EU8 because the haptic battle feedback and conquistador hat supply chain system aren't the true map painting experience. For the enlightened supercitizens of the future, it would at least be nice to leave EUIV in a state where it can handle the ever growing resolutions of monitors with some level of UI scaling. I can't promise this is something we'll manage for this year, as it's far from a trivial undertaking, but consider it an ambition to someday have this in EU4.


Christmas Trees

I had to bring this one up because as I was going through the suggestion pages over the festives, it brought a smile to my face. A cute idea, and shows that not all suggestions have to be enormous and complex. I know some people see the scale of large suggestion threads and get intimidated away from making their own, but often wee suggestions have just as much merit, such as..

plz also change the swiss idea of -15% merc upkeep to increased condottieri. as switzerland was not hiring mercs for themselves but hired swiss soldiers to others

A simple, concise and sensible suggestion, one that is likely to happen too, but given that Switzerland is right in the middle (quite possibly literally in the middle) of the focus region, and that we want to address the mercenary system, I wouldn't be surprised if we give the Swiss some more special treatment in this regard.


As I said, next week we'll be hoping to finalize and share the patchnotes for 1.28.3. Once we have that done and released to the world, it'll be time to set our sights on our end of year expansion. Dev Diaries will likely remain sparse for a while, as the locomotive heats up and sets out on the long journey that is our 2019 Expansion.
 
We absolutely cannot play as a colonial nation (or a pirate nation) from the 1444 start in Ironman. What we can do is magically release a colonial nation and then choose to play it as an independent nation, which is definitely not the same thing as playing a colonial nation. The tag becomes independent right before you switch, so you are never a colonial nation. No colonial power was granted independence peacefully in this time period and I'm not going to play with that nonsense. I don't want to be gifted independence like some sort of Canadian.

IMO When a colonial nation tag forms, that is after five provinces are colonized in a region, the player should be given a one time option to tag switch to that new CN.

Well that makes sense, there literally were no colonial nations in 1444...
You also can play as a pirate in 1444, on November 12th 1444 you can be the pirate nation of Palembang.

If you want an independence war (on ironman), select a later start date (when colonial nations actually existed), pick a colonial nation and have at it. I don't disagree in principle on having that button for more options, but you're definitely wrong about not being able to play as a colonial nation.
 
@DDRJake will there by any “rebalancing” changes in the upcoming patch (IE changing the Council of the Indies modifier) like I outlined in my thread for GC changes, or will this patch purely be on bug and oversight fixes?
 
Last edited:
I'd advocate against trying hard or focusing on making EU4 into "tall" game more. I am not against tall game, but EU4 is, and always was, good blobbing map-painting game that allows you to play reasonably tall. Internal country mechanics are something that EU4 lacks and devs were... before at least... against adding much to that aspect. For example they want intentionally development and stability to be instant clicks and not immersive inner mechanics. For that there are Vicky/CK/ImperatorRome now.
Even if they would add option to change trade flow - you'd change it and what then.. Speed 5 again.

Just because the devs are against it means we should be against it too? No. To hell with that. Nations going tall is every bit as historical as them going wide, and if EU4 wants to even pretend to be a game that can give a plausible history then we have to work towards achieving some balance between the two. I want to see a game that can produce plausible histories on a regular basis, and will continue to think that no matter what the devs think. That means rethinking several core mechanics and enabling fun and interesting tall play. And if they refuse to entertain the notion (based on their actions in each patch) that the game should be have any plausible historical progression then they can also count me out of the game's future (and based on my owned DLC, a fair portion of its recent past).

I always felt obligated to buy all the DLC to “complete” the game, since it's the “correct” way to play and I really enjoy Iberia and wanted to give this a chance .

And therein lies the problem. Make any excuse you like, but if you give them their money out of a sense of obligation then they have no reason to treat you better, nor do they have any reason to realize that the base game ought to be a "complete game" all on its lonesome. The DLC should enhance and spice up the game but they shouldn't be barriers to feeling as though you have a complete game to play.
 
So the Byzantine Empire collapses 9-10 years earlier than historically in most games, therefore I would like to propose two things :
1. Aragon and Venice guarantee the Byzantine or have an alliance between them.
2. A chain of events and missions For Aragon, Venice and Byzantium about the Magna Grecia area, the "Alliance" of Byzantium, Venice and Aragon (Include the "Admiralty Crisis" as in real life) . So that we can have the natural formation of Morea, The Byzantine Refugees working as a way to accept the Reinnassence faster (East Slavic Nations, Ottomans and Mamluks) , and the a "Third Rome/Emperor of Rum" event which wiil make the orthodox Faith work like a syncretic faith for the one who triggers it (Historically the Ottomans, since the Sultan usually appointed Patriarchs and exarchs as Millet leaders).

Also add a "Establish Patriarchate" Option for Orthodox in a region if you control more than eg 5 Metropolises. It will raise all states maintenance but decrease missionary effectiveness and increase manpower and production. (Also will stop the PLC purge of orthodoxy) Another idea is to nerf the ottoman ideas, but give them the power to have tributaries. Most of historical games, if you do not play in Europe they just blob.
For example. If the Become Emperor of Rome, then the orthodox faith is treated as tolerated/ accepted and replace the Heathen Tolerance +3 with Unrest From Intolerance - 2. So that until the Fall of Constanople/Istanbul they will not worry about the Balkans and will focus on the anatolia region with ease.
 
conquistador hat supply chain system CONFIRMED!!!
 
Just because the devs are against it means we should be against it too? No. To hell with that. Nations going tall is every bit as historical as them going wide, and if EU4 wants to even pretend to be a game that can give a plausible history then we have to work towards achieving some balance between the two. I want to see a game that can produce plausible histories on a regular basis, and will continue to think that no matter what the devs think. That means rethinking several core mechanics and enabling fun and interesting tall play. And if they refuse to entertain the notion (based on their actions in each patch) that the game should be have any plausible historical progression then they can also count me out of the game's future (and based on my owned DLC, a fair portion of its recent past).

And therein lies the problem. Make any excuse you like, but if you give them their money out of a sense of obligation then they have no reason to treat you better, nor do they have any reason to realize that the base game ought to be a "complete game" all on its lonesome. The DLC should enhance and spice up the game but they shouldn't be barriers to feeling as though you have a complete game to play.

Yes, I agree. There are already many mechanics which could be applied. Aggressive Expansion, Coalitions, Unrest, Rebels, Penalties for different cultures and religions, corruption etc. But to be fair, any time Paradox did smth. in this direction, there was a huge outcry by players who do like blobbing. The recent corruption mechanic was criticized, even the threshold is so high, it never kicked in for me (playing as Russia). Gosh, they even complain about the 10 years truce. So, for Paradox it's just a business decision and I think they know their customers.
 
Hm, I was hoping for a quick patch this week, addressing the most gamebreaking bugs, and another patch later. I guess HAVING THE GODDAMN MAIN GAME EVENT LOOP BROKEN (see trade company stuttering) is considered small potatoes by current EU4 caretakers. Pity.
 
please reteach the AI to prio upgrading its forts and build forts on key provinces, i dont want to have an expansion where i can bring down france in 1700 by sending a stack on paris and click break walls then assault
From my observation it's more about their spending priorities and upgrading forts are pretty low one. A heavy expanding country does rarely upgrade it, while countries with extended peace time always upgrade it.
 
Yes, I agree. There are already many mechanics which could be applied. Aggressive Expansion, Coalitions, Unrest, Rebels, Penalties for different cultures and religions, corruption etc. But to be fair, any time Paradox did smth. in this direction, there was a huge outcry by players who do like blobbing. The recent corruption mechanic was criticized, even the threshold is so high, it never kicked in for me (playing as Russia). Gosh, they even complain about the 10 years truce. So, for Paradox it's just a business decision and I think they know their customers.
There's a reason why people decried the corruption change, because it limits blobbing whilst adding nothing to replace it. That's the key thing, people want more stuff to do at peace time to make peaceful play more fun and rewarding, they don't necessarily want to limit blobbing, especially not arbitrary limits and definitely not boring "past X territories this bad number goes up"
 
Please, in the future when you have big bugs you can hotfix, just do it quickly like normal instead of waiting to put out a whole bunch of fixes at once. I understand it could be a little easier on the developer side, but it's really annoying for players
 

There desperately needs to be a manpower mechanic with mercenaries. Ideally, one that looks at the manpower of all nearby nations contributing to the manpower pool.
This would reduce every individual contributing nations' manpower.

A nation that hires many mercenaries but loses the war should be penalized in some way.

Likewise, a nation that has high manpower and uses mercenaries instead needs to be penalized in some way.

I am not sure how to balance this, but I would propose that all nations sharing capitals in the same region share a mercenary pool with each other.

The fewer the nations in that region, the more expensive the mercenaries. Additionally, nations should be able to ban their people from serving as mercenaries which would radically increase the cost of hiring any mercenaries for the nation that restricts allowing their people to be mercenaries.

Does any part of this sound functional?
 
From my observation it's more about their spending priorities and upgrading forts are pretty low one. A heavy expanding country does rarely upgrade it, while countries with extended peace time always upgrade it.

@DDRJake @Groogy

AI is really really bad at handling finances - it gets into huge debts without good reason during and after wars and thus don't have money to upgrade forts. And its probably at very low priority. I was looking a bit more at this recently.

Apparently, even super rich country like Ottomans in trivial war - vs Najd and some irrelevant allies - gets into desert with 100k+ army. Eats attrition plenty and start to get into debt. Then they annex land and pay off corruption - judging from my vassals finances they really want to pay off that corruption. I didn't switch to Ottos in this example, was ironman game.

But they are hell-bent on paying corruption so they pick up more loans spiraling in debt and interests increase. And even when in minus they refuse for long time to mothball forts or fire/demote advisors. This is something that needs to be improved, cut expenses to get into positive balance.

So they end up in huge debt which they take lots of time to repay. Once they core land.. pay off corruption and all tons of their loans they start to get some money. Years pass here. Then they might upgrade forts (but its low priority probably). Often they get involved into other wars and agony continues for decades.