• 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 - 27th of August 2019

And now for something completely different.

Introducing 1.29: Manchu!

manchu loading screen.png


Think always of your ancestors,
and cultivate virtue.
Always strive to accord with the Mandate,
and seek for yourself many blessings.
Before Yin lost their multitudes,
They were in accord with the High Di.
Look to Yin as you would a mirror,
The great Mandate is not easy to keep.
- The Book of Odes

The 1.29 Manchu update will include not only the long-awaited 64 bit upgrade, but also a hefty chunk of free content for North-East Asia. Over the next few weeks I’ll be laying out what you can expect from the Manchu update; our focus is of course on Manchuria itself, but the update also has a huge impact on Mongolia, China, Japan, Korea, and parts of Central Asia.

Before we get to that, I’ll say a word about how Manchu came to be. Early in the year we set our programmers to work on tech debt (explained here by our own @MatRopert ), while @Groogy and @DDRJake were busy laying out the design for next years’ European update and expansion. With the design for the future at such an early stage it didn’t make sense for Team Content Design (at the time consisting of myself, @Ofaloaf, and @Caligula Caesar) to begin working on Europe just yet. And so we decided to use this time to create a free content update. We had originally planned to release Manchu somewhat earlier in the year, but various factors beyond our control prevented this from happening and we’ve finally secured a September release. While Manchu will contain some bug fixes, it won't contain the quality of life features we've been talking about lately - those will come with the Europe update next year. So to reiterate: the time we spent working on Manchu did not take any time away from our work on the European update.

With that out of the way, let’s talk about China!

Many players, including myself, haven’t been happy with the balance of Mandate of Heaven’s Emperor of China mechanics and the way they affect the experience of playing in East Asia. What we typically see in 1.28 is a perpetually stagnant Ming and by extension a stagnant East Asia. Players are averse to taking the Mandate of Heaven even as Qing because it is seen (somewhat justifiably) as more trouble than it’s worth. Players starting as Ming are offered very little challenge in their campaign.

We decided to use the Manchu update as an opportunity to revisit these mechanics. We want the Mandate to be desirable while still presenting a unique challenge and gameplay experience for both Ming and those who would usurp the Mandate. What follows is a list of the changes we’ve made to Mandate of Heaven’s Empire of China system:
  • Neighboring non-tributary nations no longer cause Mandate loss.
    • This prevents Mandate loss from bordering large nations such as Russia.
    • It also means that nations that take the Mandate from Ming no longer experience crippling Mandate loss from non-tributaries.
    • The Empire will still gain Mandate from having tributaries, so it is still rewarding to surround the Empire with Tributary states.
  • For each 5 loans the Empire loses -0.03 Mandate per month. Bankruptcy causes a -0.05 Mandate loss per month.
    • The Emperor is expected to bring prosperity to China, not poverty and ruin.
    • Opponents of the Empire now have the option of target the Chinese economy in all manner of creative ways in order to reduce its Mandate.
  • Passive Meritocracy decay has been increased to -2 per year
    • In 1.28, simply having low skill advisors is enough to maintain maximum Meritocracy at all times, so there is no need to ever worry about low Meritocracy.
    • This makes Meritocracy a more scarce resource that will take more time to accumulate.
  • For each 5 Corruption, the Empire loses 0.05 Mandate per month
    • Speaks for itself. A corrupt Empire is not a healthy Empire.
  • -100% Mercenary Availability at 0 Mandate changed to -200%
    • At 0 Mandate Ming shouldn’t be able to hire mercenaries. With Ming’s huge forcelimit, any positive modifier to Mercenary Availability (e.g. Administrative Ideas) allows them to hire a large mercenary army.
  • Low Mandate now has a scaling Global Manpower penalty, up to -50% at low Mandate
    • Ming has a gigantic Manpower pool. Wearing it down is difficult, especially when they take Quantity ideas (which again they often do). Their sheer numbers can help them overcome opponents that they historically struggled to defeat.
    • Dynasties in periods of economic or political decline struggled to raise large or disciplined armies. This was another indicator that the Dynasty was at risk of losing the Mandate.
  • High Mandate now reduces monthly War Exhaustion, up to -0.03 per month
    • This rewards a strong Empire with the ability to sustain itself in wars for long periods of time. It broadcasts that attacking the Empire at a time of strength may be unwise.
    • When a dynasty is perceived to clearly and firmly possess the Mandate, the people are assured that the hardships of war will pass and the Emperor will be victorious.
  • Two new Ruler Personalities have been added, exclusive to the Emperor of China. Humane gives a bonus to Mandate while Petty reduces it.
    • Based on the Confucian concept of ‘ren’. A morally virtuous Emperor is the center of a harmonious Empire.
  • Not owning and controlling Beijing, Nanjing, and Canton reduces Mandate by -0.05 per month each.
    • This adds new tactical and strategic elements to both playing and fighting the Empire. You can damage the Empire’s Mandate by sieging key cities, and even further by taking them in a peace deal. The Emperor must take care to defend these key provinces.
  • The Unguarded Nomadic Frontier disaster will now account for the development of the subjects of Horde nations
    • It is no longer necessary for a Horde that wishes to challenge the Empire to directly control massive swathes of land. Vassals and Marches can be used to increase your power for this purpose.
  • Low Meritocracy now causes Corruption, up to 0.1 per year at 0 Meritocracy. High Meritocracy reduces corruption to the same degree.
    • A player-led Qing or Ming will likely be expansionist. This reduces the impact of corruption from territories. And can be a means to reduce Mandate loss from high corruption.
    • Meritocracy represents the efficiency of the Confucian bureaucracy. Corrupt bureaucrats (which in Ming was extremely common) did not administer efficiently.
  • The Empire gains 0.05 Mandate per month while using the Unite China CB, and new Emperors gain +0.05 monthly Mandate for 20 years. Countries that seize the Mandate begin with 60 Mandate and 60 Meritocracy.
    • This helps countries that have recently gained the Mandate an early source of Mandate, a common issue when playing as Qing or Yuan.
  • We’ve rebalanced a number of Chinese historical events. I won’t go into the details now but an important focus was adding Mandate effects to many event options.

In addition, we’ve designed two new highly impactful event chains to shake up the Chinese world.

dd_ming_crisis.jpg

The Mandate is not easy to keep;
May it not end in your persons.


Though the Ming dynasty was ultimately defeated by the Manchu conquest, its collapse had already begun before the invasion. Disaster and mismanagement within the Ming dynasty were the catalyst for a major peasant rebellion in the 1630’s led by Li Zicheng. Li Zicheng was extremely successful; his forces won many battles against the Ming armies and he captured Beijing in 1644, proclaiming himself Emperor of the Shun Dynasty. Only then did the newly-united Manchus invade, initially under the pretext of defeating Li Zicheng’s rebellion. We’ll talk more about the Manchu invasion next week, for now we’re interested in Ming’s internal crisis.

The Crisis of the Ming Dynasty is a new Disaster that will challenge Ming players and very often lead to the collapse of an AI-controlled Ming. The Disaster can begin any time after the Age of Discovery if Ming has low Mandate or has lost the Mandate entirely. When the Disaster hits they’ll immediately receive penalties to Land Morale, Technology Cost, and Global Unrest, as well as taking a flat hit to their Stability, Mandate, and Corruption. Events will periodically spawn Peasant rebels. This is going to be a very difficult time for Ming. Ming must restore their Mandate by any means necessary or face dire consequences. If rebels manage to occupy 10 provinces in a single Chinese region (North China, South China, and Xinan), an event will fire that immediately spawns breakaway nations. In Xinan the Yunnan Protectorate (represented by the nation of Dali) will demand self-rule, which can be accepted at the cost of Mandate or denied at the cost of a bloody war. In the South, local governors will take matters into their own hands, defying the authority of the Empire and raising their own armies to restore order. Wu and Yue will be spawned on the map, and once again the choice to accept their independence or fight against them will be presented. In North China there will be no such choice. Rebels will seize power in the region and declare that Ming has lost the Mandate of Heaven, proclaiming the Shun Dynasty and immediately declaring war on Ming for the Mandate. The southern revolter states can play a role in the rise of the Qing later in the game, representing the Three Feudatories which we’ll talk about more next week. Ming players must now guard their Mandate jealously lest they fall into ruin and despair.

dd_tumu_crisis.jpg

In this playthrough Esen Taishi managed to get himself killed in battle, but Kundelung Kirghiz has taken up his mantle.

Another challenge to Ming rule came much earlier in our time frame. By 1444 the Oirats had consolidated their power under the ambitious warlord Esen Taishi (more about the Oirats next week). In 1449 he led an invasion of China, captured the Emperor in battle, and came close to winning the siege of Beijing. These events are known as the Tumu Crisis, and they’re now an event chain in EU4. As the Oirats begin the game refusing to pay tribute to the Ming Emperor, they often find themselves in an early war. When this happens Ming receives an event informing them that the Emperor has decided to lead his armies personally, converting the Yingzong Emperor into a (very inept) general. If the Oirats defeat a Ming army commanded by the Yingzong Emperor in a battle an event will immediately fire granting the Oirats combat and siege bonuses, while Ming receives an event reduces their Mandate and Stability, as well as forcing them into a temporary Regency Council. From here the goal for the Oirats is to capture Beijing before the Emperor dies and before Ming appoints a new Emperor to the throne. Should the Oirats succeed the rewards are great: they’ll immediately occupy every province in the North China region owned and controlled by Ming, resulting in a huge amount of warscore which they can use to secure an advantageous peace deal. The capture of Beijing will also cause huge Mandate loss for Ming, though their beloved Emperor will be returned safely to the throne. By pursuing the goals presented in this event chain an Oirat player can make a powerful opening move in their campaign, potentially paving the way for a restored Yuan dynasty.

We’ve had a long time to observe the impact of our work in this region and we’re very satisfied with the results. In 1.29 Ming survives “intact” to the end of the game in less than 1⁄3 of hands-off tests, with the remainder of cases having a variety of results such as a powerful Qing dynasty, a perpetually shattered China, the rise of a new Chinese dynasty (Shun and Wu are the most common), and opportunistic European conquests that exploit China’s internal troubles. I’ve even seen Mughal China a couple of times. The result here is a much more dynamic and much less predictable political situation in East Asia. In the hands of a player Ming is still by far the most powerful nation in the game, though it faces new challenges to its dominance.

It’s great to finally have the chance to talk about 1.29 Manchu after so many months. I’ll be back with more over the next few weeks building up to its release in September. Our next development diary will hone in on the 3 M’s: Maps, Manchus, and Mongols!


Manchu will be a free update to EU4 with new content and the 64 bit upgrade. The European Update and DLC will be coming in 2020.
 
Last edited:
What do you mean? They did tell one month in advance :p
I have no memory on it, they told us 1.29 would be a "Manchu" patch in which dev diary? there is even no information on that dev diary at last week indeed !

And why do you dislike the changes so much?
I only see DDRjake's group deliberately please players to make a weaker China once again according to what this dev diary said and even make more evil events to Ming like what Ming acquired during EU2, but not a historical accurate East Asia.

They make more "history" events and more interesting features, while these events and features have no historical logic, why it would happen? just because Ming should be something blamed and caused, this is what "Manchu" patch would tell me? the grand amount of Ming's special events, though laughable and antiquated, with the update of East Asia, more and more events got f**king cancelled and over half of new events are bad ones and still laughable.

when uninhabited Manchuria will get more provinces and more developments, the greatly populated China proper ( over 90 million population in 1444AD, over 105-110 million in 1500AD) have still 1097 developments and greatly percentage of base manpower, each province has about twice area than what in India on average.

The "Ming" patch makes a Mongolia woman as its representative on start ui, and the "Manchu" patch shows her husband or her husband's father, according to the content of "MoH" DLC and the "Ming" patch, this patch should be renamed as "Qing" patch. EU4 group only removed the great limit of Ming, but they did not want to know more about East Asia, especially Ming and China.

-------------------
I feel sorry to force you to receive or even read my blame on EU4 group with my extremely grundy English. Though we Chinese players have not give many suggestions to EU4 group how to understand China and Ming, while I think that EU4 group did not tell people in advance next version is about "Manchu" by one eye-catching way , makes me feel incompetent when this dev diary shows us what the focus of next version of EU4 and I have no any method to influence next version of EU4 for they have finished it before this dev diary posted.
 
I have no memory on it, they told us 1.29 would be a "Manchu" patch in which dev diary? there is even no information on that dev diary at last week indeed !


I only see DDRjake's group deliberately please players to make a weaker China once again according to what this dev diary said and even make more evil events to Ming like what Ming acquired during EU2, but not a historical accurate East Asia.

They make more "history" events and more interesting features, while these events and features have no historical logic, why it would happen? just because Ming should be something blamed and caused, this is what "Manchu" patch would tell me? the grand amount of Ming's special events, though laughable and antiquated, with the update of East Asia, more and more events got f**king cancelled and over half of new events are bad ones and still laughable.

when uninhabited Manchuria will get more provinces and more developments, the greatly populated China proper ( over 90 million population in 1444AD, over 105-110 million in 1500AD) have still 1097 developments and greatly percentage of base manpower, each province has about twice area than what in India on average.

The "Ming" patch makes a Mongolia woman as its representative on start ui, and the "Manchu" patch shows her husband or her husband's father, according to the content of "MoH" DLC and the "Ming" patch, this patch should be renamed as "Qing" patch. EU4 group only removed the great limit of Ming, but they did not want to know more about East Asia, especially Ming and China.

-------------------
I feel sorry to force you to receive or even read my blame on EU4 group with my extremely grundy English. Though we Chinese players have not give many suggestions to EU4 group how to understand China and Ming, while I think that EU4 group did not tell people in advance next version is about "Manchu" by one eye-catching way , makes me feel incompetent when this dev diary shows us what the focus of next version of EU4 and I have no any method to influence next version of EU4 for they have finished it before this dev diary posted.

Well Ming used to collapse in like 50% of games for me prior to the Mandate of Heaven patch. After that patch I have not seen Ming collapse once. I admit that I don't know much about the EU4 time period and especially not east Asian history, but I believe paradox is trying to make AI Ming behave more akin to how it did prior to Mandate of Heaven.

Again please note that I am no history expert and am not sure if this Ming collapse is historically accurate.

But if you disaggree, you really should make a suggestion post. Paradox might not incorporate suggestions very quickly, but I do believe suggestions are taken into account.
 
I dislike stuff being added in a makeshift way just for a specific occasion, just for a specific nation. Why not add a way to capture leader rulers outright? And then add a loss in Mandate for the Celestial Emperor if they are captured?
If base general cost for military power is reduced (perhaps 20 mil power) then maybe, but it needs to be a low chance, as it substantially disadvantages smaller tags. Generals at base 50 military power are too expensive to be lost in a battle. This is not CK2 where generals are done much differently.
 
I have no memory on it, they told us 1.29 would be a "Manchu" patch in which dev diary? there is even no information on that dev diary at last week indeed !


I only see DDRjake's group deliberately please players to make a weaker China once again according to what this dev diary said and even make more evil events to Ming like what Ming acquired during EU2, but not a historical accurate East Asia.

They make more "history" events and more interesting features, while these events and features have no historical logic, why it would happen? just because Ming should be something blamed and caused, this is what "Manchu" patch would tell me? the grand amount of Ming's special events, though laughable and antiquated, with the update of East Asia, more and more events got f**king cancelled and over half of new events are bad ones and still laughable.

when uninhabited Manchuria will get more provinces and more developments, the greatly populated China proper ( over 90 million population in 1444AD, over 105-110 million in 1500AD) have still 1097 developments and greatly percentage of base manpower, each province has about twice area than what in India on average.

The "Ming" patch makes a Mongolia woman as its representative on start ui, and the "Manchu" patch shows her husband or her husband's father, according to the content of "MoH" DLC and the "Ming" patch, this patch should be renamed as "Qing" patch. EU4 group only removed the great limit of Ming, but they did not want to know more about East Asia, especially Ming and China.

-------------------
I feel sorry to force you to receive or even read my blame on EU4 group with my extremely grundy English. Though we Chinese players have not give many suggestions to EU4 group how to understand China and Ming, while I think that EU4 group did not tell people in advance next version is about "Manchu" by one eye-catching way , makes me feel incompetent when this dev diary shows us what the focus of next version of EU4 and I have no any method to influence next version of EU4 for they have finished it before this dev diary posted.

I'm not gonna pretend to agree with the content of what you're saying, because I don't.

Who's saying that Manchu is getting more provinces? Why shouldn't Ming bear the mark that was its undoing in history? Yes, there IS a problem with Ming currently, blocking SEA entirely to new to mid tier range players, and that's a conservative estimate, Ming sometimes goes way out of their way.

Do you want more provinces? be careful what you wish for. Ming already saturates its states from day 1, and thanks to that corruption rule that makes it already on the brink of just… sitting there.

You think Manchu/Qing are unrepresented? Please, do show the multitude of games where a Manchu is FORMED (as a revolter state it happens often enough, since hordes in general tend to break to rebels). Then the even more impressive multitude of games where Qing is formed.

However, there's one thing that I agree with, it's that it's odd and worrying that they decided to hide their work as if they were shameful of it or something. I don't even see reasons for that honestly, so far it looks ok, maybe good maybe bad but I don't have a bad opinion of it yet personally (mostly positive imo). Let me quote the 4th of December 2018 dev diary for full context:

DDRJake said:
Now, stepping aside from today's topic of Achievements, I'd like to take a moment to address some of the feedback we've been getting during the dev diaries for Golden Century. There have been plenty of concerns raised, indeed very fair ones, regarding Golden Century and the 1.28 Spain Update not matching up with expectations, not having community input taken into account and development generally not being in line with what the community is wanting. There are many other points that have been raised, but I want to draw light to these.

These are very fair points to bring up, and one comment in particular resonated with me, and that is that our plans and what we are developing are often shared so late in development with the community that feedback and suggestions they want to give can't or won't be able to be integrated. This has lead to a lot of people voicing suggestions for features or changes and getting very understandably frustrated when what is delivered does not take it into account.

So after Golden Century launches, we're going to talk a lot more about future plans and what we have in store for EU4 in 2019, sharing our vision of what we want to do with the game and what we want to bring to you, the player. I'll be talking about this at length in the Development Diary following Golden Century, so on the 18th December. Fittingly, it will be the last Dev Diary of 2018, before we take off for Christmas Break. Our ambition is to get our community a lot more linked in with what we are planning, and can give their feedback and suggestions accordingly and within plenty of time to implement. We have also been asked for how exactly we use suggestions from the forums and how to write a good suggestion thread, which is a great idea, and will be part of said 18th Dec Dev diary.

It looks to me that this line of thinking was cast away as soon as the 'storm' went out. I'm curious for dev commentary on this one.
 
If base general cost for military power is reduced (perhaps 20 mil power) then maybe, but it needs to be a low chance, as it substantially disadvantages smaller tags. Generals at base 50 military power are too expensive to be lost in a battle. This is not CK2 where generals are done much differently.

I think you misunderstood him. He means that ruler generals could be captured, not regular generals. So the make general cost shouldn't be changed.
 
However, there's one thing that I agree with, it's that it's odd and worrying that they decided to hide their work as if they were shameful of it or something. I don't even see reasons for that honestly, so far it looks ok, maybe good maybe bad but I don't have a bad opinion of it yet personally (mostly positive imo). Let me quote the 4th of December 2018 dev diary for full context:

I'll try to address this as best I can. There were reasons why we couldn't talk about this until now despite the content being produced much earlier in the year. I can't really tell you what they are except that they are good reasons and that it was out of our hands, and you'll just have to trust me on that.

That said, I'd like to offer a different perspective on what we mean by listening to community feedback. It was never our intent to run EU4's development as a "fan democracy" in the manner of e.g. OSRS. In the case of the Europe update we announced our intentions early both in terms of content and mechanics. We did this so that we could prompt people to talk about their expectations for such an update and test the waters for some of the ideas we had in the works. This is something I personally found very valuable and it helped me develop my plans for European content.

For Manchu, as I've said, it wasn't possible to do this so directly. But to a certain extent it was a lot less necessary. Mandate of Heaven, the most recent update to the region, was released quite some time ago and we've been able to gauge how the community feels about its features pretty well. This dev diary can almost be read as a response to that feedback, and given its overwhelmingly positive reception so far I think it's safe to say that people generally feel like the concerns they had about the Mandate mechanic are being addressed. I'm very pleased that we were able to understand community sentiment enough to make exactly the kinds of changes they wanted to see - and even more pleased that this sentiment aligned with my own frustrations with these mechanics as a player.

Another thing I'd like to say about community feedback, and I hope you'll forgive me if this sounds a little harsh, is that we're primarily thinking in terms of common sentiment rather than the loud voices of any individual or small group. I know that individual fans pour a lot of effort into making suggestions and I know that it can feel like that entitles people to a response (before I became a dev I posted on the suggestions forum myself!), but that's just not how things work. That said, suggestions from users absolutely do play a role in development - I personally read pretty much everything posted to the suggestions subforum even if I rarely leave a reply. Everyone's ideas are being read and considered and having an impact, but I see that as a different kind of impact on the design process than what we mean by listening to the community.

This ended up being a lot longer than I intended :p
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I'll try to address this as best I can. There were reasons why we couldn't talk about this until now despite the content being produced much earlier in the year. I can't really tell you what they are except that they are good reasons and that it was out of our hands, and you'll just have to trust me on that.

That said, I'd like to offer a different perspective on what we mean by listening to community feedback. It was never our intent to run EU4's development as a "fan democracy" in the manner of e.g. OSRS. In the case of the Europe update we announced our intentions early both in terms of content and mechanics. We did this so that we could prompt people to talk about their expectations for such an update and test the waters for some of the ideas we had in the works. This is something I personally found very valuable and it helped me develop my plans for European content.

For Manchu, as I've said, it wasn't possible to do this so directly. But to a certain extent it was a lot less necessary. Mandate of Heaven, the most recent update to the region, was released quite some time ago and we've been able to gauge how the community feels about its features pretty well. This dev diary can almost be read as a response to that feedback, and given its overwhelmingly positive reception so far I think it's safe to say that people generally feel like the concerns they had about the Mandate mechanic are being addressed. I'm very pleased that we were able to understand community sentiment enough to make exactly the kinds of changes they wanted to see - and even more pleased that this sentiment aligned with my own frustrations with these mechanics as a player.

Another thing I'd like to say about community feedback, and I hope you'll forgive me if this sounds a little harsh, is that we're primarily thinking in terms of common sentiment rather than the loud voices of any individual or small group. I know that individual fans pour a lot of effort into making suggestions and I know that it can feel like that entitles people to a response (before I became a dev I posted on the suggestions forum myself!), but that's just not how things work. That said, suggestions from users absolutely do play a role in development - I personally read pretty much everything posted to the suggestions subforum even if I rarely leave a reply. Everyone's ideas are being read and considered and having an impact, but I see that as a different kind of impact on the design process than what we mean by listening to the community.

This ended up being a lot longer than I intended :p
Replies of this sort can never be long enough ;)
 
I'll try to address this as best I can. There were reasons why we couldn't talk about this until now despite the content being produced much earlier in the year. I can't really tell you what they are except that they are good reasons and that it was out of our hands, and you'll just have to trust me on that.

To be honest it is kind of a nice surprise. I hate reading about interesting changes only to realise I will have to wait another X months for it to be released. (Looking at you mercenary rework :p)
 
I'll try to address this as best I can. There were reasons why we couldn't talk about this until now despite the content being produced much earlier in the year. I can't really tell you what they are except that they are good reasons and that it was out of our hands, and you'll just have to trust me on that.

okay. I appreciate the answer, still.

That said, I'd like to offer a different perspective on what we mean by listening to community feedback. It was never our intent to run EU4's development as a "fan democracy" in the manner of e.g. OSRS. In the case of the Europe update we announced our intentions early both in terms of content and mechanics. We did this so that we could prompt people to talk about their expectations for such an update and test the waters for some of the ideas we had in the works. This is something I personally found very valuable and it helped me develop my plans for European content.

Agreed, I never understood that in this way either. Some ideas are interesting and in line with the game, some are not, and that shouldn't be decided by the number of voiced complains but rather by the validity of the argumentation / correct design.
While I'm not necessarily happy with the outcome, it's implied you'd need to ignore most complaints.
 
I appreciate the additions to Asia, but tbh it kind of leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

For so long Paradox has kept repeating the mantra of not wanting to railroad things and how railroading is a bad gameplay feature, but now we're getting historical events "railroading" the game left and right. It just shows how disgenuous the idea is when you have East Asia basically barren of content while a single European country probably has more events/mechanics/trees than all of China combined.

Smells of bullshit to me.
 
I'll try to address this as best I can. There were reasons why we couldn't talk about this until now despite the content being produced much earlier in the year. I can't really tell you what they are except that they are good reasons and that it was out of our hands, and you'll just have to trust me on that.

That said, I'd like to offer a different perspective on what we mean by listening to community feedback. It was never our intent to run EU4's development as a "fan democracy" in the manner of e.g. OSRS. In the case of the Europe update we announced our intentions early both in terms of content and mechanics. We did this so that we could prompt people to talk about their expectations for such an update and test the waters for some of the ideas we had in the works. This is something I personally found very valuable and it helped me develop my plans for European content.

For Manchu, as I've said, it wasn't possible to do this so directly. But to a certain extent it was a lot less necessary. Mandate of Heaven, the most recent update to the region, was released quite some time ago and we've been able to gauge how the community feels about its features pretty well. This dev diary can almost be read as a response to that feedback, and given its overwhelmingly positive reception so far I think it's safe to say that people generally feel like the concerns they had about the Mandate mechanic are being addressed. I'm very pleased that we were able to understand community sentiment enough to make exactly the kinds of changes they wanted to see - and even more pleased that this sentiment aligned with my own frustrations with these mechanics as a player.

Another thing I'd like to say about community feedback, and I hope you'll forgive me if this sounds a little harsh, is that we're primarily thinking in terms of common sentiment rather than the loud voices of any individual or small group. I know that individual fans pour a lot of effort into making suggestions and I know that it can feel like that entitles people to a response (before I became a dev I posted on the suggestions forum myself!), but that's just not how things work. That said, suggestions from users absolutely do play a role in development - I personally read pretty much everything posted to the suggestions subforum even if I rarely leave a reply. Everyone's ideas are being read and considered and having an impact, but I see that as a different kind of impact on the design process than what we mean by listening to the community.

This ended up being a lot longer than I intended :p

As a Byzantophile I can appreciate this response.

I know the majority of people won't agree with me that the Turkification of Western Anatolia took longer than a generation and consequently the devs probably won't share that opinion and change the culture there.

But I know that the majority of people would like to see Qing form in EU4 sometimes and that certain devs share that desire.

I think it would be good for people to recognize what desired changes are out of the mainstream and are more just their personal pet projects.
 
As a Byzantophile I can appreciate this response.

I know the majority of people won't agree with me that the Turkification of Western Anatolia took longer than a generation and consequently the devs probably won't share that opinion and change the culture there.

But I know that the majority of people would like to see Qing form in EU4 sometimes and that certain devs share that desire.

I think it would be good for people to recognize what desired changes are out of the mainstream and are more just their personal pet projects.

Indeed. It takes every ounce of restraint I can muster not to abandon my post and create the South-East Asia update of my dreams.
 
I appreciate the additions to Asia, but tbh it kind of leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

For so long Paradox has kept repeating the mantra of not wanting to railroad things and how railroading is a bad gameplay feature, but now we're getting historical events "railroading" the game left and right. It just shows how disgenuous the idea is when you have East Asia basically barren of content while a single European country probably has more events/mechanics/trees than all of China combined.

Smells of bullshit to me.

Isn't the point of this patch in part to rectify that lack of missions?
 
Isn't the point of this patch in part to rectify that lack of missions?

Yes they are giving East Asia major events that could potentially change the face of the map now, similar to Europe.

Nothing wrong with that since that's a core part of the EU4 experience.

It's just funny in a hypocritical way when certain devs claim otherwise about how Paradox games should not be so "railroaded" when all it basically amounts to is Europe getting a bunch of events that push it in certain directions while other regions don't.
 
Indeed. It takes every ounce of restraint I can muster not to abandon my post and create the South-East Asia update of my dreams.

I'm sure no-one would mind if 1.31 was a SEA focused update, throw in some unique exploration mechanics for Polynesians while you're at it :)
 
How will these changes work with the base game, or one that doesn't have Mandate of Heaven?
 
Indeed. It takes every ounce of restraint I can muster not to abandon my post and create the South-East Asia update of my dreams.
You should've done it! It will be glorious! :D

But on a more serious note, I appreciate what you are doing with this update, and I can't wait for that Southeast Asia update (hopefully with DLC) one day.

Oh I remember another thing I want to ask. Sometimes ago, Ming no longer wanted tribute from countries that not bordering them. While it is understandable to prevent countries in India or West Asia from becoming Ming tributary, would you make an exception to Southeast Asia (whether using culture or capital region or something else)? Because this tributary dynamic with China is an important part of Southeast Asia history.