• 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.
 
@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.
it gets into debt for anything, institutions, building manufactories, ships, trade charters, but build a for on my capital? no way thats too expensive
 
As a Texan I would like to know more about this change. What names were changed to what? What does PDX deem as "Texan"?

I've hacked into the PDS Servers on my hoverboard and I've managed to extract the Texan name list from 1.28.3 - here it is:

Alamo
Alamo
Alamo
Alamo
Alamo
Alamo
Alamo
Alamo
Omala
Alamo
Alamo

Now, I must run - I hear the wolves, which means the cyber dire warp wolf ninjas are close. Damnit PDX!
 
you are a player so this is a weak arguement, i cant force you out of a war by clicking 2 buttons
For me it's more a perspective problem. Do you always want the AI to upgrade his fort, while he could spend his money else where better? For me it a definite no. Of course currently the main problem is the balance of everything. With all the extra money sink added since CoC the AI isn't really updated in that regard. This is one of the bigger tech debt that pdx has by added all the extra fluffy stuff while not updating the core of the game.
 
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"

I agree with the more peaceful stuff, but this is hard to implement in his game. I disagree with the "past X territories this bad number goes up". It was the historically the case, to end up with problems having subjects of different culture and religion. Also over extension was a problem. We do have some mechanics simulating this, but it's very easy and cheap converting religion and culture.
And you confirmed my statement about the wishes if many players, they just do want blobbing, blobbing and blobbing without any limits. Therefore my sugesstion for game rules as in CK II.
 
There's still plenty of time to make suggestions.
The biggest suggestion I have is a "quality of life" change for both modders and people who temporarily wish to experiment without too much pain.

TL; DR: this is a proposal for "modding-made-easy" facility.

Background
I start by noting there already are some very basic interactive "modding options" built in to the launcher (eg sound, display, DLCs, external mods), the pre-game options submenu (when the game comes up) as well as the custom nation and random new world options, and the new game settings menus (after single player is selected, eg lucky nations option under general, eg historical options under custom setup).

Initial Proposal
The general idea is to extend player choices at at least one of these stages, selectively, iteratively, and most of all cheaply, into more general modding interface(s). By "cheaply" I mean developed in a manner that optimizes PDS return on investment by way of
  • using whatever method seems appropriate (agile/prototyping/"rock soup"/whatever floats the developers' boats this month)
  • choosing to expand player choices in whatever way will result in minimal "technical debt"
  • responding to player general pain points, as expressed in this thread or elsewhere
    • directly (eg "I want to boost my or every tag's trade efficiency by 10% to see what happens") ; or
    • indirectly (eg @masochist's comment "I'd love it if PDS could increase the chances of everyone but my heir noticing while hunting during comet season, so my heir will be looking in the wrong direction as the comet smashes into him" - ok I'm joking on this one, but feel free to add such bonuses to the default events if it cheers you up...).
  • maybe even just responding robustly to the infinitely varied "Steam-punk" player accusations that "EU4 is broken" by saying "well this feature gives you complete control, turn your game into whatever you want, just change this default setting once at startup", whether the complaint is of the form
    • "Game is broken because Holland cannot break away from Burgundy and conquer France all in the first 12 months"; or, more simply
    • "Game is broken because my research shows that Zanzibar should start with an extra 17% domestic trade power in 1444 and I don't know how to mod"
Observations / speculations
There are several obvious mechanisms/ways in which the dev team likely already has tools to do some of these kinds of things, or could leverage into more extensive but controlled player interactions, for instance:
  • the startup process presumably (?) writes/rewrites the initial savefile according to startup options chosen by the player
  • the existence of the console interface
  • I also would expect there are some similar internal QA and/or dev tools available (see below), although most such things likely are built into the console.
Non-prescriptive example
The console interface module (I use this as example merely because it's a mechanism already familiar to the players) could be forked and the new branch:
  • Made available from an "modding options" button on game startup (at some time at or prior to the "Play" button), instead of a hotkey
  • Initially all but a few command options disabled (for prototyping or mod-irrelevance or incompatibility or technical debt or risk and/or any other purposes)
  • Console typing of command ("mod") options replaced by selection from menu/submenus
  • (perhaps added, as and when desired)
    • description of what each available mod option actually does
    • display of mod option's current and default values
    • suboptions, such as addition to or multiplication of current arithmetic settings rather than a simple reset
    • prevention of mod options (and/or chosen values) that would break other settings (whether or not such other settings are "moddable" within the module)
    • Warnings of general effects of such changes upon the game and/or other settings, especially for mod options considered risky but not prevented as above
    • an inevitable standard menu option to reset all currently modded options to the saved default values
    • ironman disabled of course if any substantive net changes are made.
    • possible extension into software-controlled creation/modding of selectively chosen data artefacts such as new or existing events, decisions, missions, etc
      • On this point I'd expect internal tools and/or hardcoded checks already do some syntactic/semantic validation (whether limited or extensive) of such handcrafted artefacts (even if just suboptimal random chunks of assert() statements to prevent worse crashes from modded savefiles) as a means of software technical QA or crash prevention or proactive bug prevention/mitigation etc. Yes, I'm aware there've been some infamous past semantic bugs in eg (iirc) the Burgundian Inheritance events but of course no ad hoc dev tool can cover every base...
Of course this example is just a bunch of arbitrary ideas, nothing here is set in stone. If this finds no favor with PDS, an alternative approach would be for a pair of modder/developer players simply to create a standalone module for reading, modding, and rewriting savefiles along similar lines. This would not require PDS' help so any software developer with a modding mindset or access to a decent modder could do it. (any compsci grad could do it - I could but lack the time to develop and more crucially maintain such a module or I already would have done it, and just as importantly I lack sufficient knowledge of the savefile internals to do a decent job - that's why I suggest modding talent/experience is required).

If this suggestion (in whatever form) is not adopted by anyone at all, such is life! I hope I at least may have given QA and the devs some ideas about useful internal dev tools.
(if anyone wishes me to clarify anything that's unclear, please note while I try to drop in on the forums regularly I don't necessarily look at this forum every day and I often don't even notice PMs)
 
For me it's more a perspective problem. Do you always want the AI to upgrade his fort, while he could spend his money else where better? For me it a definite no. Of course currently the main problem is the balance of everything. With all the extra money sink added since CoC the AI isn't really updated in that regard. This is one of the bigger tech debt that pdx has by added all the extra fluffy stuff while not updating the core of the game.

You should give it a try - its really worth it in current meta. I don't know what exactly changed over time, maintenance costs maybe, buts its not hard at all to pay upkeep for few key forts. Also you get defensive bonus rolls during battle on forts since few patches back which is huge.

It gets to this.. vs AI put down two forts to block them from carpet siegeing you in x - o - o - x pattern, preferably on mountains. So you go knock down their allies while they waste time siegeing there. Activate defensive edict for extra months and give provinces to nobles.
Then you gather your army and smack them with +2 rolls, yes please. Meanwhile you keep your nice prosperity states and manufactories/workshop cores which gives you ton of money. Works also really well with Defensive idea group which is awesome on its own.

And best thing is - this gets better with time. Its much harder to siege level 4 forts, level 6 and 8 are nightmare for AI. You can siege whole sweden to 100% while they take down your one fort.

Meanwhile.. AI leaves plenty of level 2 forts for you.. which are weakness once you get level 4 - since you get bonus rolls for them being obsolete. And you get warscore. So, yes AI should either upgrade or delete forts, obsolete forts are bad. Since forts are single thing that stops the player.. I'd say deletion is not an option. Now where to build forts, when and what to upgrade - AI is clueless and this needs lots of improvement.
 
millions of patches out but still we dont have an alert for expiring warnings while we have an alert for expiring useless diplomatic insult CBs.
more than that, devs ignoring this insistently, refusing to answer, which draws me into deep sorrow...
 
You should give it a try - its really worth it in current meta. I don't know what exactly changed over time, maintenance costs maybe, buts its not hard at all to pay upkeep for few key forts. Also you get defensive bonus rolls during battle on forts since few patches back which is huge.

It gets to this.. vs AI put down two forts to block them from carpet siegeing you in x - o - o - x pattern, preferably on mountains. So you go knock down their allies while they waste time siegeing there. Activate defensive edict for extra months and give provinces to nobles.
Then you gather your army and smack them with +2 rolls, yes please. Meanwhile you keep your nice prosperity states and manufactories/workshop cores which gives you ton of money. Works also really well with Defensive idea group which is awesome on its own.

And best thing is - this gets better with time. Its much harder to siege level 4 forts, level 6 and 8 are nightmare for AI. You can siege whole sweden to 100% while they take down your one fort.

Meanwhile.. AI leaves plenty of level 2 forts for you.. which are weakness once you get level 4 - since you get bonus rolls for them being obsolete. And you get warscore. So, yes AI should either upgrade or delete forts, obsolete forts are bad. Since forts are single thing that stops the player.. I'd say deletion is not an option. Now where to build forts, when and what to upgrade - AI is clueless and this needs lots of improvement.
The problem isn't that AI isn't upgrading forts. The problem is that AI doesn't know how to defend itself. It would be alright if they had level 2 forts if they focused on defending their mainland with their army. The AI however doesn't seem to care about their nation wether they have good forts or not. It doesn't matter if it is offensive or defensive war for AI, they never protect their country. And so the real war happens very ralely, what actually happens is that countries invade each other and ignore their own land. Because sieging my colony in Africa is more important that protecting your capital I guess.
 
Why? Sure, Colonizing the New World would be very unlikely for the Ottomans to bother with (see OTL), but the Ottomans did have interests in India and Indonesia. Colonies there could make a lot of sense for a trade-focussing Ottomans.

i am talking about AI and AI doesnt know how to colonise india. they dont know how to bring indian goods to istanbul because AI interests to collect trade in ragusa instead trying to get orient goods to its capital. AI doesnt know how to use merchants and ottomans dont have a mission chain for indian trade. ottomans mostly dont pick trade ideas and without them you dont have much merchants and cant bring eastern trade to istanbul. last problem ottomans dont(cant) have a navy in indian ocean so this prevents them from figting in india.

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.

we already have ridiculous huge war for 10dev albanian province in the early game for ottomans. why would need an another one with the conquest of constantinople?
 
Last edited:
I agree with the more peaceful stuff, but this is hard to implement in his game. I disagree with the "past X territories this bad number goes up". It was the historically the case, to end up with problems having subjects of different culture and religion. Also over extension was a problem. We do have some mechanics simulating this, but it's very easy and cheap converting religion and culture.
And you confirmed my statement about the wishes if many players, they just do want blobbing, blobbing and blobbing without any limits. Therefore my sugesstion for game rules as in CK II.
Corruption as an institutional problem was a lot more of a complex matter than just having subjects of the wrong culture and religion and overextension, by the end of Ming's existence it was completely rife with corruption to the extent wherein they couldn't effectively gather taxes despite being a Confucias Han Chinese dynasty ruling over mostly Confucias Han Chinese subjects and having "fully integrated" its territory, this was due to economic and social policies put in place by the original Ming ruler. This is just one example I can think of off the top of my head as an example where in current Eu4 mechanics a country will have no problem with corruption as they did irl.
 
The problem isn't that AI isn't upgrading forts. The problem is that AI doesn't know how to defend itself. It would be alright if they had level 2 forts if they focused on defending their mainland with their army. The AI however doesn't seem to care about their nation wether they have good forts or not. It doesn't matter if it is offensive or defensive war for AI, they never protect their country. And so the real war happens very ralely, what actually happens is that countries invade each other and ignore their own land. Because sieging my colony in Africa is more important that protecting your capital I guess.

Well forts are one issue. Its been ignored so far.

Defending its country - thats another issue that they tried to fix - and partly failed/succeeded - depends on your perspective :). Smaller nations still leave their country sadly. They will try to come back once they lose all their land - which is usually too late. Bigger nations send some stacks out but leave some to defend, which is improvement.
Devs know about this.. will they improve it more ... hopefully yes. Imo distance needs to be key - AI should be taught first to defend their land and then to siege nearby provinces and forts - no skipping, or minimal skipping. Currently they skip 1000s of kms to siege some deep province. So no skipping unless they want to merge with ally - which they should sometimes. Thats third issue.
 
i am talking about AI and AI doesnt know how to colonise india. they dont know how to bring indian goods to istanbul because AI interests to collect trade in ragusa instead trying to get orient goods to its capital. AI doesnt know how to use merchants and ottomans dont have a mission chain for indian trade. ottomans mostly dont pick trade ideas and without them you dont have much merchants and cant bring eastern trade to istanbul. last problem ottomans dont(cant) have a navy in indian ocean so this prevents them from figting in india.

That seems more like AI problems rather than something specifically Ottomans related.
 
For me it's more a perspective problem. Do you always want the AI to upgrade his fort, while he could spend his money else where better? For me it a definite no. Of course currently the main problem is the balance of everything. With all the extra money sink added since CoC the AI isn't really updated in that regard. This is one of the bigger tech debt that pdx has by added all the extra fluffy stuff while not updating the core of the game.

no i said i want France to have a fort on Paris, Ottomans to upgrade constantinaples and austria to upgrade on wien and so on, because losing your capital is a huge hit on warscore and the AI goes for those because it plays for warscore
 
That seems more like AI problems rather than something specifically Ottomans related.
yeah but i think ottomans and mamluks get affected the most. a few years ago i suggested to devs for changing conditions of AI priority about exploration idea group to sth related oceans. without have any port near ocean, AI countries shouldnt pick exploration. red sea shouldnt be counted ocean in this case for mamluks ofc.