• 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 - 26th of February 2019

Good morning everyone. As you know, we’re hard at work planning the grand European update with a tentative release date of Q4 2019. Today I’ll be airing some of my early thoughts on the upcoming map updates for France and Italy. I’d like to stress that these thoughts are exactly that - early ideas that will be iterated on substantially before implementation and release. Part of my reason for writing this is to help consolidate my ideas, seek community feedback, and to set some expectations for the future.

First, let’s take a nostalgic look into the distant past of patch 1.4, the oldest patch still available on Steam, and marvel at how far we’ve come since those primitive times.

old france.jpg


And for reference, here is France in the current version (1.28) of the game:

current france.jpg


Province density has increased somewhat; lonely Provence is now paired with Forcalquier, Languedoc is no longer unreasonably massive, and the Normandy region is much prettier these days. The 1.25 ‘England’ patch was the most recent iteration to the French map, and we’re very happy with the changes it made to northern France. Province shapes, densities, ownerships, etc are in a very good place for the northern part of the region. Southern France however could use some love. I’ve been keeping an eye on this thread which has some interesting ideas on how it could be improved:

France Map Changes.png


As I’ve said in the thread, I’m particularly eager to add the major French naval dockyard of Toulon, splitting it from the Provence province which would likely have to be renamed. Foix and Carcassonne would also be worthy additions, and La Marche nicely splits up the relatively large Limousin province. Albret I find much less convincing; while Gascony potentially has room for a new province I’m not sure that there’s a good candidate with any real significance that also fits the space between Aquitaine and Labourd. I rather like this suggestion overall. It definitely hits the mark for the province density we’re aiming for in the region.

Another notable difference between Ye Olde France and our current iteration is the presence of the French vassals. Ultimately removed for balance reasons, we’d like to return them to their former glory. The story of France in our period is one of consolidation, and to that end we feel that the return of the vassals would make playing as France feel more like you are slowly building a centralized nation out of a fragmented feudal realm. We also think it’s a shame that we so rarely see many of the wonderful models for the French minors that are part of the Hundred Years’ War Unit Pack.

Let’s set our sights on Italy next:

italy.jpg


And for reference, Italy as it is right now:

newitaly.jpg


In stark contrast to France, Italy has more tags in 1444 rather than less. Montferrat and Lucca have made a triumphant appearance while Tuscany has been replaced by Florence. The Florentine replacement brings back fond memories for me - I’d advocated for Florence on the forums long before starting at Paradox, and created a mod compatible with the pre-release demo version of the game that did exactly this. I think we can expect to see Florence getting some love in the form of a fancy new mission tree at the very least.

We can also see a move towards a higher province density, to the point where it’s going to be a challenge to find room for yet more provinces when we start on the next iteration of the map. Something else we need to be concerned about when we add more provinces is that we generally want to preserve the overall balance of the region (though this isn’t always the case, sometimes we deliberately use province changes to alter the balance) and keep the same feel for how wealthy its provinces are. Italy is a region that should and does have a lot of very high development provinces - adding a great deal more would force us to split this development up and make the region feel more generic.

madness.jpg


Here we see a suggestion by reddit user u/ItalianMapper. While it’s certainly a thing of beauty in its own way, we will definitely not be implementing anything close to this for the European update. Space is at a premium and tiny provinces as seen here simply aren’t workable. That said, I quite like the idea of splitting Sicily into significantly more provinces. We’ve toyed with the idea of adding 1 more province to fill out the Sicily area (currently at 4 provinces including Malta) but haven’t found a satisfying way to do this. As such we’re considering whether a 6 province (7 including Malta) Sicily is something we want to experiment with. I’m also interested in adding a Bologna tag, splitting the Novara province (a good suggestion for which I’ve seen in this thread), and doing something with Venetian terra firma that’s remained largely unchanged since the release of the game.

That’s all from me this week. I ask you once again to bear in mind that we are still very early in the development process for the European update, and nothing said here should be considered our final stance on a matter. We’d like to continue gathering community suggestions and expectations for France and Italy, so please continue to share your ideas in our suggestions subforum or in the comments below. Next week I’ll be back to talk about our ideas for updating the Balkans, so stay tuned for more map talk.
 
Last edited:
Is PDX slowing down development on EU 4? Because only 1 DLC in a year is quite a few. Is this a response to the negative reviews you received because of the many DLCs released? Because if it is, then I have to say thank you to the moaners because they managed to get EU4 in a dead spot. Ironic thank you.

God forbid a company work on improving the quality of the content they make instead of continuing to release poorly received content every 2 months.
 
God forbid a company work on improving the quality of the content they make instead of continuing to release poorly received content every 2 months.
We will speak in 9-10 months time, when another set of people if not ironically the same will start complaining about something.
 
We will speak in 9-10 months time, when another set of people if not ironically the same will start complaining about something.

That's the real problem with this new approach. With no doubt scope of the next update will likely be the greatest we've seen in EU4. After, there definitely will be people who complain, and i doubt much could be done, since they would probably plan on revamping China or Africa or whatever next. If that means 1 more entire year for a single large DLC, that might be a problem. I think 2 DLCs in a year could be a good formula. Or that one big DLC along with some Impacks for regions that they don't plan on thoroughly revamping. There might be something wrong with me, but i'd like for EU not to last too long with all DLCs. I'd like to see and play out a complete picture, and start playing other games such as Imperator, HOI or Stellaris. I just can't dedicate myself to these games as i do with EU now, especially financially. At least not until one of these stops producing paid content :D
 
We're considering some new formables. Two Sicilies and Lotharingia are possibilities.

Nice! If Lotharingia is considered, so should be the same for Franconia and Swabia since these three political entities were cohabiting in the old Kingdom of the Germans. Furthermore, Swabia and Franconia were a way much stable than Lotharingia, always subect to power struggles and quickly divided into two duchies, themselves loosing Friesland and Alsace.

The remains in 1444 for EU4 are Lorraine (former duchy of Upper Lotharingia), Cologne and Aachen (political centers of power of Lower Lotharingia), and lets say... Friesland / East Friesland. A good oportunity to extend some mission trees in the HRE!

I'm happy to see France, Italy, Germany and Balkan getting some love. This Dev Diary is a good approach of how suggestions should be considered. :)
 
I don't mind seeing France get more provinces, especially if this means some/all minors from early game version (those who have 100 years war unit models) reappear at start date again, but the focus on France/Italy of course also means that provinces also have to be added to other regions in Europe like Spain, Bohemia, Hungary, Balkans.

Edit: I second the idea of above mentioning a formable Swabia, and perhaps Lotharingia might become a 3-step formable nation? Form either Lower or Upper Lotharingia first, then by marriage/conquest/inheritance unitig Upper & Lower Lotharingia into the 'only' Lotharingia? Might allow special access to this decision to Burgundy seeing how close they were historically to reunite the region.
 
We will speak in 9-10 months time, when another set of people if not ironically the same will start complaining about something.
And I'm sure the unironic complaints about the complainers will still be here to remind us that self-awareness is a rare virtue in the world today.


I'd much rather have 1 content patch that actually addresses issues that have been creeping into the game for the last 2.5 years and that fixes some of the sloppy mistakes of the last few patches. They rushed out 3 "full" iteration patches in the last 4 months of last year and it very much shows. The AI cannot deal with the new conversion system and have no idea how to deal with money pools introduced in Dharma. The AI is still terrible at using the mission system from RB. Streltsy have made Moscovy incapable of using artillery since Third Rome. Rushing out patch after patch means that nothing can be reevaluated and fixed in a reasonable fashion. This leads to giant, terribly tested changes (see missionary changes) that can't be evaluated before the next big patch. They've already admitted that the game has a lot of tech debt and bugs that have built up over the last few years that need to be fixed. They can't fix all of these issues without slowing down progression of new features. They've also proven (and more or less admitted) that they can't balance old features while designing and balancing new ones.

I'd have liked for them to have not had to stop on one of the worst patches in the game's history, but sadly it took them this long to realize that things needed to be fixed before they could keep building onto the game.
 
Given what JSparks101 is saying, maybe it would make sense for France to be unable to integrate its vassals unless the French dynasty is on the throne?

A unique French vassal system could be as follows;

1. France starts with a ticking disaster countdown to "Vassals Rebel" that gives +50% (for example) Liberty Desire to all vassals if it fires.
2. If France replaces a ruling dynasty of one of its vassals, ALL vassals gain Liberty Desire (the usual +25% for the target, but +10% for all other vassals too - they suspect what's coming).
3. French vassals with the French dynasty on the throne do not use a diplomatic slot, whereas ones without the French dynasty do.
4. France is thus compelled to put their dynasty on the throne to integrate vassals, but would do so at the risk of causing disloyalty in all its vassals.

Such a mechanic would force the player (and AI) to consider very carefully which vassals to integrate and when. It would be a race against the clock to put the French dynasty on the throne and integrate the vassals before the disaster fired (and free up diplo slots), but at the same time going too fast is going to make the vassals disloyal and likely to rebel one at a time. However, it would obviously be better to have one vassal rebel at a time than all vassals rebel at once. Obviously disloyal vassals won't contribute troops, reducing vassal swarm.

Additionally, a French annexation of a vassal could prompt an event where the other vassals ask for help from Burgundy and/or England (or other nearby powers). The vassal would choose a recipient (Burgundy, for example) and the recipient would receive a CB against France should France start integrating said vassal.

On a separate but related note; if England win the HYW, then the War of the Roses shouldn't fire. England losing the HYW is considered a major cause of the WotR. If English nobles don't lose their French possessions, then the landowners don't complain and the events leading to the WotR are curtailed.

On an unrelated note: could we please get either dynamic colonial regions or at least some big overhaul of "5 provinces = autonomous colony?" By "dynamic colonial regions" I mean instead of the exact same colonial regions every time - there's always a colonial region that matches historical Canada, whatever the alternate history, for example - colonial regions are triggered when a coloniser lands in the Americas and are different for each game.
 
@neondt Not sure if these will be covered in the Balkans dev diary, but since they are covered in the Italian map you quoted (which honestly leaves much to be desired), I would like to know what your current stance is on Istria, Trieste, Ragusa, and Dalmatia. Do you support a split of these provinces? And if so, how would you go about doing so?
 
Agreed. We definitely want to take another look at the Alpine passes. More on that later.
I don't know if you are still watching this post, but a solution could be to add in place of the current impassable terrain one or two provinces representing the various passes between france and piedmont (passo del moncenisio, passo del monginevro, colle della maddalena). They could be mountain provinces with very low development. In this way, the balance of the region is not affected. They would have little economic value,but a great strategic importance,just like it was in reality. I know you already said regarding adding como that you feel it's redundand to add it because there is already milan (and savoie/piedmont) guarding the pass, but the problem is that in this way the path to italy is guarded by region both rich and strategically important. If you manage to conquer them,you are gaining a huge economic as well as strategic advantage,making it a no-brain choice. Adding a few undedeveloped passes would add a layer of strategy to everyone who wish to be involved in messing in the italian peninsula.

(Oh, and I know we are just talking about geography here, but please give poor savoy/sardinia piedmont a unique 3d model, please!)
 
Is PDX slowing down development on EU 4? Because only 1 DLC in a year is quite a few. Is this a response to the negative reviews you received because of the many DLCs released? Because if it is, then I have to say thank you to the moaners because they managed to get EU4 in a dead spot. Ironic thank you.

They are taking 6 months to a year to work on technical debt. They are upgrading the engine to 64 bit and doing low level fixes.

That's why there is only one DLC this year. Normal service will resume next year.
 
As you are early in the process of developing g your next dlc, I kindly ask that you give modelers the possibility to add effects to scripted functions. Thx!
 
Again and again, more provinces are added in regional reworks. But what is being done to make playing with so many provinces enjoyable in late-game?

Currently, it is just tedious to conquer and manage so many provinces as you get large, and getting large is a clear and definite outcome of playing more than, say, 200 years, unless you play absolutely passively and reject all provinces as war spoils. And this is true not just for players but also AI, so it is not about the player's motivations only that makes nations expand.

Unfortunately I don't think we'll be seeing any core mechanic changes to EUIV.
 
My first thought after reading this is that maybe the vassel system could be improved from the binary loyal disloyal to something more like HOIVs puppet autonomy levels. It might not be possible of course.