• 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 - 30th of April 2019

Good day and welcome to this week's EU4 Dev Diary. Last week we briefly covered Custom Nation desires. Let's go through some of the feedback on it here:

Some nations' national ideas have two ideas in one slot, what's your opinion on adding that to nation designer?

I'm a tad unsatisfied with NI sets with repeating bonuses, and it's generally something you see on older NIs. I'd rather do away with them, but for Custom Nations, we already give the player the ability to turn up ideas to a high degree at extra cost. I'm not convinced that we want to add repeating ideas, even at additional cost.

Please more colours for flags and country on the map! Also let CN import a mission three from a tag, at a cost in ponts.

Another idea: how about giving custom nations access to custom national mission trees? I guess letting you actually design a mission tree sounds like a work for a medium-sized expansion itself.

Expanding the CN feature to allow for custom or imported mission trees would likely balloon in work required quickly. I feel you on the colours issue though.

In-game options when devs?

I will keep asking this as part of my duty to get it through to devs that us players desperately want this so we can customize our playthroughs.

If you mean Game Options akin to CK2, then I'm going to have to disappoint you, as that is not in our plans.

It baffles me how France has such a high playrate. Dosen't it get boring starting so strong?

Also Ming, which literally defeats the purpose of playing.

Relatability is a hell of a drug.

English monarchy and steppe horde are broken with custom nations in random nations settings. The reason is in the government reform file the reform is set to appear if the country already has the reform when it should be set to appear if it has ever had the reform.

Interesting, thanks for the heads up, I'll look into these issues.

Please, for the love of all that is holy, add the converter religions into the nation designer. I am perfectly happy for them to ONLY be available to custom nations if you don't feel like they are fleshed out enough to add them as actual religions via the existing heretic rebels

We'll look into this, I think it'd be a cool touch.

Custom portraits for rulers would add immersion

I just want Ruler/General/Admiral/Explorer/Conquistador portraits and more personalities for these characters. Please. Pretty please.

EU4 is a nation focused game, rather than a character focused one, so we're not big on such things. Advisors, as instruments of state, are about the only people given faces. While you'll see rulers (and all sorts of other characters) in portraits in CK2 and Imperator, they are not going to make an appearance in EU4.


I'd really like to see the culture mapmode on the start screen to help make the custom nations.

Culture map-painting is the patrician level of expansion, so I agree.

More custom nation achievements please. I wouldn't hate the addition of some random world achievements either. Ideas guy is one of the best achievements out there because there are so many different paths you can choose for doing it.

Spot on. Ideas Guy is one of the most inspiring Achievements and more are desired.

Serbian Flavour pack? Missions related to the reconquest of lands held by Tsar Stefan Dusan and expansion in the balkans, Serbia was an important regional power in the area and theyre a bit underrepresented *crie

The focus of the Expansion is from Brest to Byzantium, which encapsulates Serbia. Their time in the flavour limelight is now.

Hey EU IV devs do you planing any changes in ruler/Royal Families/PU system in upcoming European expansion?

In a concise but disappointing response, we do not have this planned for the upcoming expansion/


So what do we have today? A bit of a smorgasbord as it happens. First of all, back in January we talked a bit about 4K support / scalable UI for EU4. It's currently not the prettiest of games when played on a 4K screen, and we've been investigating it lately.

Here is the EU4 experience on a 4K monitor at 100% UI scale:

100%.jpg



and up to 150%:

150%.jpg


and now for 175%:

175%.jpg


We have some kinks to iron out, but we're onto a winner here for making EU4 more timeless for the every growing % of players who have upgraded beyond the traditional batting grounds of 1080p

I want to talk about a couple other aspirations we have for the upcoming European expansion. In the giant end of year dev diary, there were a couple things that we said we wanted to address, namely:

  • The HRE system, which is largely unchanged from EU3 needs to evolve
  • Make Catholicism and the Pope feel like a force to be reckoned with, rather than just another colour of Christianity and country
Let's take the HRE first. The Holy Roman Empire has not really been needing change, leading to it's relative state of persistence for so long. It functions well as an entity for keeping such a historically fractured region jumbled and offers an interesting challenge on expansion with varied approaches on dealing with it, so for all intents and purposes it has a job and it does it without huge complaint.

The caveat here however is that this has been a satisfactory situation for a while, but as we have enriched much of the world around it, the HRE has become less interesting in comparison. When we wrote up pillars for what we want to do in the upcoming expansion and update, we came up with the following:

Revitalize the play in the HRE that hasn’t changed much. Make the empire feel alive filled with bickering princes.

Does it feel this way right now? Not to the point that we are currently satisfied with. As a member state, becoming Emperor is a cool aspiration, but as Emperor, aside from some cool strengths you get, it doesn't feel like you have much in the way of interesting choices to make to run the Empire as you envision. Granted in such a decentralized mass, not all should be so keen to follow your law, but we want to open up the Holy Roman experience to allow for more meaningful and dynamic situations. The Emperor should have some sway in the Burgundian Situation. A powerful Pope should lead to meaningful conflict between Empire and Italy beyond the Shadow Kingdom event. The formation and consolidation of the powerful Prussian state should be a matter of concern for the Emperor and Princes. What if Switzerland wish to abandon the HRE?

These are the occurrences that we aspire to model as dynamically as we can within the HRE, and are dabbling with good ways to simulate this in the game.

Another evident issue with HRE play, one that can be seen by playing as Emperor or talking to anyone who has, is that the final reform feels like a trap. An army of HRE subjects to unleash on your foes and carve up the map as you see fit? Now that's an enjoyable reward for reigning in the Empire, however smashing that final reform, absorbing the entire empire and losing all the effects you've built up, considerably less so. While we don't have the exact details, we see this as something that should be split: where there is a clear path for reform in the HRE, either towards decentralized power or all land under one ruler, so that players don't feel the need to purposefully hold back on completing the HRE reform path.


Regarding Catholicism, both the religion and the head of the faith are in need of attention, and the attention is two-fold, both gameplay and flavour.

In terms of gameplay, Catholicism is widely considered a poor choice of religion. If you are not the Curia Controller, it is a very weak religion, and if you are the Curia Controller, then it's a strange state where you actually want there to be as few other Catholics as possible so that you can hoard this power for yourself. Add to this the fact that the Pope himself is, by and large, just treated as another country, and not the mighty head of a faith that he deserves to be (as I have been masterfully lectured by @Duplo )

When it comes to flavour, Catholicism has far been left in the lurch in terms of interesting content when compared to pretty much all other forms of Christianity.

Catholicism is one of the main focuses, fittingly for this European expansion and update. In a nutshell we want to empower Catholicism against the already tantalizing Protestantism, such that union between the Catholic faith adds to its strength, where the Pope and/or Curia Controller himself can take action in favour of the entire faith (or potentially lining their own filthy pockets) and take action in response to the growing threat posed by the reformation. Currently, Reform Desire does little outside of igniting the reformation, we would like to make the mechanic more engaging for Pope and Catholics alike, such that they are incentivized to combat or grant concessions against the rift.

These are our aspirations at least, with regards to HRE and Catholicism. How do you feel about them in the game currently and what would you most like to see?


Now, we've been talking about design, quality of life and content aspirations for a few months now, which has been very much our goal and quite fun from our end, but I think we all are keen to get to some content. This will be our last week of such aspiration dev diaries: from next week onwards, we'll start showing off map work, content work and features/fixes/QoL for our upcoming European Update and Expansion.

Let's tease as I so often like to do, with a cheeky preview screenshot for next week:

teaser.png
 
Last edited:
Any chance the Lost Balkans RNW scenario could have Lost Serbia and Lost Bosnia have the Slavic religion, instead of Animist?

Yeah I know it's random but this has been bugging me since the RNW revamp.

They would have to overhaul the RNW first, so it is actually possible to get those scenarios, before adding changes like that. As it is right now, it is just luck based and you need to reload the game each time you roll for RNW.
 
During your HRE rework, I hope you don't only look at it from the perspective of being the emperor/wanting to become the emperor.

I like playing in and around northern Germany quite a bit, and I never, ever try to become the emperor. I like the smaller scale struggles you get in the HRE and I don't wanna have to either become the emperor every game, or actively fight to keep the emperor depowered in every game.
 
Are you nerfing the second to last reform for the HRE?

It sounds like you are nerfing it.

Make the HRE worth it please. Not make it even less worth it.

The whole point of the reform tree is to unite the HRE into one state, not have an almost inexhaustible supply of vassal troops.
 
Are you saying that the devs consciously changed conversion mechanics because they thought the AI was converting things at too rapid a pace, compared to history?!

Wow. On what basis are you saying that? I suppose one could make a case that there were versions in which the AI attempted to convert things a bit too aggressively, but as a "problem", it pales in comparison to the lack of AI conversions, currently. There is just no equivalency.

I certainly didn't see too rapid AI conversion as a big problem. I never saw any posts by other players indicating too rapid AI conversion was perceived as a problem. I never saw any posts by devs indicating too rapid AI conversion was perceived as a problem. I never saw any posts by devs indicating the changes were designed combat AI converting too rapidly. In fact there have never been any posts by the devs, at all, responding to this particular change - why it was done, whether the impact on the AI was intentional, whether it's an unintended consequence, whether it will be fixed, whether it is here to stay. What little the developers said about the change implied it was intended to slow down PLAYER conversions; unfortunately, it doesn't really do that.

Given their radio silence, it's surprising that you seem to have gleaned some insight into their motivations that I missed. I'm impressed.

And, as far as a fix, rolling back to the previous mechanics might not be perfect, but it's a damn sight better than the current situation.

Of course, they could continue to duck the whole issue, and many more, if they would make some of these changes optional, as CK2 somehow manages to do. So for example, if you prefer to play with a "more historical" or "less historical" religious progression, you could revert the conversion changes or keep the new ones, as it pleases you.

Wow, you sure got hostile out of nowhere. All I said was that the previous system was just as ahistorical as the current one, which you’ll notice was the argument. I personally don’t care if the devs revert back (although I will say I prefer the more dynamic costs involved rather than a flat 2 ducat rate). If you take that as me having some secret connection to the devs, you’re either reaching or deliberately trying to start something.
 
Are you saying that the devs consciously changed conversion mechanics because they thought the AI was converting things at too rapid a pace, compared to history?!

It's indeed the case. Look up the dev diaries back then. Jake mentioned the supposedly "arcade feeling" of conversion. Now we're here. Feels bad, man.
 
Very interesting! I've especially been thinking that the Papal State should have more influence over the Catholic world (and potentially other countries over the papacy), with a more interesting Caholic political scene. One aspect that I think should be reworked is the counter-reformation. Right now it's just a decision that grants some bonuses and a bit of extra tech cost. In reality the counter-reformation was hardly anti-scientific. The name is counterintuitive, beceause the counter-reformation was in reality a parallel reformation of its own, during which culture flourished. Baroque architecture was very much a symbol of the counter-reformation, which was then adopted by protestants as well, since it became the new trendy thing. Basically both the reformation and counter-reformation changed the status quo and brought about more art and literature.
 
Very interesting! I've especially been thinking that the Papal State should have more influence over the Catholic world (and potentially other countries over the papacy), with a more interesting Caholic political scene. One aspect that I think should be reworked is the counter-reformation. Right now it's just a decision that grants some bonuses and a bit of extra tech cost. In reality the counter-reformation was hardly anti-scientific. The name is counterintuitive, beceause the counter-reformation was in reality a parallel reformation of its own, during which culture flourished. Baroque architecture was very much a symbol of the counter-reformation, which was then adopted by protestants as well, since it became the new trendy thing. Basically both the reformation and counter-reformation changed the status quo and brought about more art and literature.
considering they seem to think "reforming Catholicism" and "compromise with the Protestants" is a viable historical path in this dev diary i think expecting them to understand religion in early modern europe is too much
 
Thanks for the 4K support!

About HRE and Catholics:
Can you stop Russia and the Ottomans from joining the Relgious Wars in the HRE? Only Catholics-Protestant-Reformed european countries should be able to join the war.
 
Are you nerfing the second to last reform for the HRE?

It sounds like you are nerfing it.

Make the HRE worth it please. Not make it even less worth it.
it sounds like they want to split up the path, not nerf it. It gives us a choice to centralize the empire into one state or keep multiple vassal states, but not do both. At least as far as i understood it.
 
Thanks for the 4K support!

About HRE and Catholics:
Can you stop Russia and the Ottomans from joining the Relgious Wars in the HRE? Only Catholics-Protestant-Reformed european countries should be able to join the war.
that would be historically incorrect, as the two nations you mentioned actually supported the protestant league militarily. While, for example, the Zaporozhian Cossacks, which were also mainly orthodox, supported the Catholic Habsburgs.
 
Also I would like to make a suggestion, and probably most people here will disagree (and I understand):

Can you change the trade nodes in Italy? By making Venice flow to Genoa, making Genoa the only end node in Italy.

Why? Because having 2 end nodes next to each other feels wrong. For example, any nation in Italy like Naples, Papal States or unified Italy has to put a merchant collecting outside of their Home Trade Node, with all the malus that means. It would make a lot more sense if Italian nations could steer trade from Venice to Genoa and just collecting in Genoa. This would leave 2 end nodes: 1 in the North (English Channel) and 1 in the South (Genoa). It is really weird having Italy splitted in 2 end nodes and being imposible to steer trade from one to another...

Or even making Genoa flow to Venice.
 
Also I would like to make a suggestion, and probably most people here will disagree (and I understand):

Can you change the trade nodes in Italy? By making Venice flow to Genoa, making Genoa the only end node in Italy.

Why? Because having 2 end nodes next to each other feels wrong. For example, any nation in Italy like Naples, Papal States or unified Italy has to put a merchant collecting. It would a lot more sense if Italian nations could steer trade from Venice to Genoa and just collecting in Genoa. This would leave 2 end nodes: 1 in the North (English Channel) and 1 in the South (Genoa). It is really weird being to have Italy splitted in 2 trade nodes and being imposible to steer trade from one to another...
Also somewhat ahistorical because Venetians and Geonese were bitter rivals, going as far as expelling Geonese from Venetia and attacking a Geonese Quarter in Constantinople. Indeed I would say they should be historical rivals in the game.
 
that would be historically incorrect, as the two nations you mentioned actually supported the protestant league militarily. While, for example, the Zaporozhian Cossacks, which were also mainly orthodox, supported the Catholic Habsburgs.
I know it makes a bit of sense historically, but it turns the war into a massive World War I with Russians and Ottomans 60k stacks sieging Paris and Madrid.

I really hate it. One thing is that Russia and Ottomans give some support, and another thing is get inside the war and send all their armies to invade Europe.
 
I know it makes a bit of sense historically, but it turns the war into a massive World War I with Russians and Ottomans 60k stacks sieging Paris and Madrid.

I really hate it. One thing is that Russia and Ottomans give some support, and another thing is get inside the war and send all their armies to invade Europe.
funny you say 60k because the ottomans actually had about 60 thousand cavalry supporting the league lol
 
Also somewhat ahistorical because Venetians and Geonese were bitter rivals, going as far as expelling Geonese from Venetia and attacking a Geonese Quarter in Constantinople. Indeed I would say they should be historical rivals in the game.
Man, it makes no sense. Let's say you unify Italy. You control Genoa and Venice. Why can't you collect trade like any other normal country? You have 2 provinces next to each other, but because one belong to Genoa's node and the other belongs to Venice's node, you cant steer trade from one adjacent province to another.

Italy trade needs to be fixed the same way Britain-France trade is. France can move trade from Champagne to English Channel. But unified Italy can't move trade from Novara to Milan... you are forced to put a merchant to collect outside of your Home Trade Node, loosing a lot of trade power because potato.
 
Wow, you sure got hostile out of nowhere. All I said was that the previous system was just as ahistorical as the current one, which you’ll notice was the argument. I personally don’t care if the devs revert back (although I will say I prefer the more dynamic costs involved rather than a flat 2 ducat rate). If you take that as me having some secret connection to the devs, you’re either reaching or deliberately trying to start something.
Sorry if it comes across as hostile. But, again, I disagree with your basic assertion and don't think it's helpful to draw some sort of equivalency and throw our hands up in the air. If you're talking about PLAYER ability to convert, sure, it has always been ahistorically easy, and it still is.

But that's not the point. The point is that the AI hardly ever converts anymore. Previous dev teams made it a point to make sure the AI could convert its territories and would try to do so. The current dev team seems not to care? Or perhaps they remain ignorant of an unintended consequence? Who knows? But even a casual glance at any end-game religious map will have scores of wtf moments when one sees how many pagan or other minority religions survive in large, stable, wealthy AI nations. Your own vassals, even if they have huge subsidies, bonuses to conversion, and/or Religious Idea Group, don't ever convert, outside of random events. And seeing Nahuatl Mexico and sunni pockets in the Caribbean is now the norm these days (and this last bit IS, apparently, intentional, in spite of it being absurdly ahistorical).

It's indeed the case. Look up the dev diaries back then. Jake mentioned the supposedly "arcade feeling" of conversion. Now we're here. Feels bad, man.
Pretty sure that was a reference to PLAYER ability to convert. But it would be nice if they ever deigned to confirm that nerfing the AI's ability to convert was intended. Feels more like an unintended consequence, to me, but they seem afraid to admit to mistakes these days.
 
Last edited: