Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries
Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Europa Universalis IV 82782 EUIV: Bug Reports 1355 EUIV: Suggestions 19383 EUIV: Technical Support 6899 EUIV: FAQ & Strategy Guides 241 EUIV: AAR's, Let's Plays, and Fan Fiction EU IV: Alternate History Short Story Contest Contr 30
Previous dev diary Next dev diary
Show only dev responses

EU4 - Development Diary - 31st March 2016

dev diary.jpg


Hello and welcome back. Mare Nostrum will be upon us very soon so I will take this last dev diary before release to show some extras and the 15 new achievements which will be part of the 1.16 patch. With Wiz safely banished to the furthest reaches of space to make friends with Blorg, I am free to ensure there are no more Eastern Roman Empire related Achievements.


The 15 new achievements, which some clever cookies may have seen before are:
  • Mare Nostrum: Restore the Roman Empire and own the entire Mediterranean and Black Sea coast lines.

  • Kuban Cigars: As Kuba, own or have a subject own Havana and be the world’s leading producer of Tobacco.

  • Kushite Restoration: As a Nubian culture nation, own the entire Egyptian region as core provinces.

  • The Fezzan Corridors: As Fezzan, control at least 90% of the trade power in Tunis, Katsina, Safi and Timbuktu.

  • Victorian Three: As Basoga, Buganda or Karagwe, reach administrative, diplomatic and military technology level 32.

  • The Animal Kingdom: As Manipur, unite the Bengal region and convert it to Animism.

  • Golden Horn: As a Somali nation, fully own the Horn of Africa region and have a monthly gold income of at least 50 ducats.

  • Kinslayer: As Tver, Yaroslavl, Ryazan or Odoyev, eliminate all other Rurikovich nations without changing your ruling dynasty.

  • Choson One: As Korea, own or have a subject own all Shinto, Confucian and Buddhist provinces in the world.

  • Sailor Mon: As Pegu, have at least 100,000 sailors.
  • The White Company: Hire your army out to both sides in a war and fight in a battle against your former employer.

  • Networking: Have 100 point spy networks in 3 rival nations.

  • Time Bandit: Successfully steal a map from another nation.

  • With a little help..: As Ragusa, lead a Trade League of at least 5 nations and guarantee the Ottomans’ independence

  • Just Resting In My Account: Corrupt the officials in a rival country
eu4_2.jpg


Going hand-in-hand with one of these achievements, we have added one of the longest requested formable nations: The Roman Empire. It is no easy task to perform, requiring Christianity or Paganism and ownership of the regions of Italy, France, Iberia, Balkans, Anatolia, Mashriq as well as certain key provinces, but doing so will allow you to recreate the thousand year empire and grant you the new unique culture of Roman.

rome.jpg


Forming Rome is a free feature, available as part of the 1.16 patch.

Next up is Timeline, a new Mare Nostrum feature

timeline1.jpg


At any point through your campaign you can hit the new timeline button next to the date and observe how the world has evolved throughout the years. Watch as empires rise and fall and re-live how your own nation rose to its great heights (hopefully)

timeline2.jpg


Opening Timeline will bring the map back to how it was at the start of your campaign and then you can choose at what speed to run through the world's history. You can pan all over the map during this timeline, so while the Big Blue Blob takes over Europe you can admire infighting new world natives or see which of the Daimyo's made Japan theirs.

Finally, some ideas, starting with the aforementioned Roman Empire

Roman ideas:

Code: 
Traditions:
        discipline = 0.05
        legitimacy = 1
   
Ambition:
         global_manpower_modifier = 0.33

    pax romana
        global_unrest = -1

    legacy of rome
        diplomatic_reputation = 2
 
    SPQR
        stability_cost_modifier = -0.2

    roman legions
        infantry_power = 0.10
        land_forcelimit_modifier = 0.15
 
    roman architecture
        production_efficiency = 0.2
 
    imperial bureaucracy =
        global_tax_modifier = 0.1
 
    imperium sine fine = {
        core_creation = -0.20

African Great Lakes Ideas:

Code: 
    traditions:
        loot_amount = 0.25
        hostile_attrition = 1.0
ambition:

        merchants = 1

    source_of_the_nile
        global_manpower_modifier = 0.15
 
    heirs_of_kitara
        prestige = 1
 
    no_illegitimate_children
        heir_chance = 0.5
 
    cwezy_religion
        tolerance_own = 2
 
    emitwe
        infantry_cost = -0.1
 
    unity_of_clans
        infantry_power = 0.1
 
    development_of_clientship
        global_tax_modifier = 0.1

And as a representative for the Irish, let's bring in Desmond.

Code: 
Traditions:
        garrison_size = 0.25
        global_manpower_modifier = 0.25

Ambition:
        defensiveness = 0.15

    dms_the_land_of_castles
        build_cost = -0.1
 
    dms_cadet_lines
        stability_cost_modifier = -0.1
 
    dms_gaelic_bastion
        land_morale = 0.1  
 
    dms_the_munster_ambition
        province_warscore_cost = -0.1
        core_creation = -0.1
 
    dms_fierce_independence
        diplomatic_upkeep = 1
 
    dms_promote_the_clture_of_service
        war_exhaustion = -0.02
        prestige_from_land = 0.25
 
    dms_inner_perfection
        adm_tech_cost_modifier = -0.1


Mare Nostrum will set sail on Tuesday April the 5th for €14:99, and by popular request is available for pre-order at https://www.paradoxplaza.com/europa-universalis-iv-mare-nostrum
 
  • 126
  • 41
  • 9
Reactions:
Sort by date Sort by reaction score
You just said there would be no more roman achievements and then the first achievement was a roman one

In the words of the great Jerry Seinfeld "what's the deal with that?"
 
maledwarfwarior said:
The ottomans did, the russians did, becoming heir to rome isn't about which land you control. It's about forming a large culturally and religiously diverse empire over a vast area with dramatically different conditions through expansion and and keeping it with tolerance, assimilation, and a massive extremely disciplined army.
Click to expand...

The Ottomans claimed it when they conquered Constantinople, the capital of the so-called Roman Empire. Before them, the Seljuk Turks had claimed to the title after taking Anatolia because they were "Roman" provinces. Russian chronicles began to speak of Moscow as being a "Third Rome" when Constantinople fell only because of a continuation of the Palaeologue dynasty through marriage and the preservation of free Orthodox Christianity in Russia.

Neither of those usurpations have anything to do with breadth of territory, diversity of citizenry, or the discipline of their armies.
 
IceTytanFang said:
There certainly should be some limit (granted, this would most likely be more work then necessary), like I don't think the Irish or the Scandinavians ever claimed to be the heirs of Rome (Sweden kind of was it's own little Rome with the Baltic). Certainly none of the Eastern or Southern Asians, nor the Native Americans or Sub Saharans (at least that I know of) ever claimed to be the heirs of Rome.
Click to expand...
Good points. Some limit to culture groups that were historically inside the Empire would be pretty good.
 
maledwarfwarior said:
Here's my idea on how to make it happen as a process instead of a single button. Hopefully that will make less people upset over the idea.
1. To begin the process, you must first reach empire status or be holy roman emperor. Byzantium thus has a head start, as does the ottomans and france with their large development. To help the Papal States in this, their unique government is now lock at empire status to represent their authority over Catholicism.
Click to expand...

The Papal State was historically a King title. The Pope is King of the Vatican.
 
Atlantians said:
The Papal State was historically a King title. The Pope is King of the Vatican.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification. I'll edit the post with a solution.
 
Atlantians said:
The Papal State was historically a King title. The Pope is King of the Vatican.
Click to expand...
I always believed, for game play purposes, that the Papacy should be an Empire tier, to represent equal footing with the Emperor, head of the Catholic Church (in case any theocracies turned to king-tier titles, maybe lock all theocracies to king-tier, maybe?), and diplomatic reach of said church.
 
IceTytanFang said:
I always believed, for game play purposes, that the Papacy should be an Empire tier, to represent equal footing with the Emperor, head of the Catholic Church (in case any theocracies turned to king-tier titles, maybe lock all theocracies to king-tier, maybe?), and diplomatic reach of said church.
Click to expand...

Being the head of the Church was the position of parity.

The land he controlled as a King of the Vatican was in addition to that prominence as head of the Church. The Papal States are that Kingdom.

Also, theocracies were not Kingdoms, they were equivalent to duchies.
 
I'm not angry at the fact that you can now reform the Roman Empire, I'm angry at how Paradox made it. The terms should have been different. Less provinces, more political requirements. Or at least political consequences (concerning the Papacy, the HRE, Byzantium if it still exists, Russia, etc). To me, this "Reform Roman Empire" thing is not part of the game, it is more like a poorly thought mod. And I am annoyed because I know a lot of my friends will be like "ooow Roman Empire, me must reform it". Anyway they will not reform it, because it will take too much time and it won't be any fun, and even if they reform the Roman Empire, I'm sure they will stop their game just after that.

Like it or not, a lot of people like EU4 because it puts you in a very realistic world, a world that did not actually exist but remains believable. The new Roman Empire can be believable and interesting, but not the way it has been put in the game. I understand the "Mare Nostrum" point, but if reforming the Roman Empire boils down to having a ginormous blob all around the Mediterranean sea, that's really disappointing. The Roman Empire was a little more than that. If I reform the Roman Empire, I want this decision to have huge consequences, to change the world around me. I do not want things to stay the same as if nothing happened.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
John Locke said:
Like it or not, a lot of people like EU4 because it puts you in a very realistic world,
Click to expand...
They're not looking very hard at its realism or lack thereof, then.
 
John Locke said:
I'm not angry at the fact that you can now reform the Roman Empire, I'm angry at how Paradox made it.
Click to expand...
I don't particularly care about Rome, but if you're going to put it in the game, don't do it nonsensically. Requiring you to own those important centres of Roman civilization like Baghdad, Basra, Tikrit...

Well, "silly" is the politest term I can use.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
grommile said:
They're not looking very hard at its realism or lack thereof, then.
Click to expand...

Are you saying we should consider this game like it's a Narnia or LOTR strategy game ? Because if your point is "forget realism", then ok, I want to be able to create the Mordor culture and rule the Earth as Sauron the Great, and why not having armies of flamingoes ?

This game is trying to recreate history in a serious, complex, compelling way. I don't know how to say it otherwise. I call this "realism". It is of course an "uchronia" more than a historical simulation because, well, a game is meant to be, you know, played. If you want to see a perfectly realistic world, you can go walk your dog.

The Roman Empire is fascinating and a lot of European powers would have wanted to reform it. I think a lot of people agree that it is not a bad idea to include this decision to reform the Roman Empire in the game. The thing is, as many said (not just me), even if you don't care at all about realism (in this case you might be quite frustrated with a lot of EU4 mechanics which are trying to stick to a certain historical realism), the Roman Empire is the Roman Empire, not just 100 provinces around a sea and a bunch of new ideas. The fall of this Empire gave way to the European Middle Ages. So, if this Empire comes back (or strikes back, as you like), it must have repercussions. It should not simply be "a new nation with a cool name appears from the wilderness" because you were great at blobbing.
 
Last edited:
Atlantians said:
The Papal State was historically a King title. The Pope is King of the Vatican.
Click to expand...

How so? The secular power of the popes was based on the (fabricated) donation of Constantine, so at least until Valla discovered the fraud the Pope was on par with the Holy Roman Emperor and above romano-barbarian kings (being the HRE the successor of Charlemagne, himself made Emperor by the autorithy of the Pope, who wielded the rights to that title). After that, they just pulled a feat of circular logic and began stating that their lands in Italy were granted by Charlemagne's authority.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
Bluehawk said:
The Ottomans claimed it when they conquered Constantinople, the capital of the so-called Roman Empire. Before them, the Seljuk Turks had claimed to the title after taking Anatolia because they were "Roman" provinces. Russian chronicles began to speak of Moscow as being a "Third Rome" when Constantinople fell only because of a continuation of the Palaeologue dynasty through marriage and the preservation of free Orthodox Christianity in Russia.

Neither of those usurpations have anything to do with breadth of territory, diversity of citizenry, or the discipline of their armies.
Click to expand...

You forget Napoleon and Mussolini, both of whom have used roman imagery and titles pretty extensively. As the times in Europe went on, the Roman Empire became less a matter of legitimacy and more one of power and prestige. Translatio imperii is an iffy thing, and it is plausible that a powerful enough kingdom in Europe would claim the roman mantle without the need to state sound historical reasons, like any invader of China would want to claim the Mandate of Heaven.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
TheAtreides84 said:
How so? The secular power of the popes was based on the (fabricated) donation of Constantine, so at least until Valla discovered the fraud the Pope was on par with the Holy Roman Emperor and above romano-barbarian kings (being the HRE the successor of Charlemagne, himself made Emperor by the autorithy of the Pope, who wielded the rights to that title). After that, they just pulled a feat of circular logic and began stating that their lands in Italy were granted by Charlemagne's authority.
Click to expand...

I didn't state that their claims were legitimate. I stated that the Papacy also holds the title 'King of Vatican City', which is a Kingdom and a non-hereditary absolute-monarchy.

The fact that the title is based on a forgery is beyond the purview of my comment.

The Papacy held de facto control over those lands, regardless.
 
TheAtreides84 said:
You forget Napoleon and Mussolini, both of whom have used roman imagery and titles pretty extensively. As the times in Europe went on, the Roman Empire became less a matter of legitimacy and more one of power and prestige. Translatio imperii is an iffy thing, and it is plausible that a powerful enough kingdom in Europe would claim the roman mantle without the need to state sound historical reasons, like any invader of China would want to claim the Mandate of Heaven.
Click to expand...

Which is precisely why I think the current requirements are silly.

Trajan's borders shouldn't be the standard. Justinian's borders, maybe.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Atlantians said:
Which is precisely why I think the current requirements are silly.

Trajan's borders shouldn't be the standard. Justinian's borders, maybe.
Click to expand...
Well, I'd have a modicum of respect for the decision if they actually used Trajan's borders. They don't.

They use Trajan's maximum borders only in the most bizarre area: Mesopotamia. Southern Mesopotamia was "Roman" for ...maybe... a year, was quickly recognized as indefensible, and was abandoned. They didn't even try to install a client King as they did in Northern Mesopotamia.

Paradox's decision to restore the Roman Empire doesn't include Trajan's durable conquests in places like Dacia (future Romania) that actually stayed Roman for hundreds of years and inherited a Romance language.

Paradox's decision to restore the Roman Empire doesn't include areas that were Roman pre-Trajan and post-Trajan in Egypt, Africa, Mauretania, Briton, Germania...

Even a casual student of Roman history should be appalled that you don't need Alexandria to "restore" the Roman Empire, but you do need Baghdad.

The decision is marginal. But, if you're going to include it, do it right! It's currently a farce. Get rid of it or fix it.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
RobRoy3 said:
Well, I'd have a modicum of respect for the decision if they actually used Trajan's borders. They don't.

They use Trajan's maximum borders only in the most bizarre area: Mesopotamia. Southern Mesopotamia was "Roman" for ...maybe... a year, was quickly recognized as indefensible, and was abandoned. They didn't even try to install a client King as they did in Northern Mesopotamia.

Paradox's decision to restore the Roman Empire doesn't include areas that were Roman pre-Trajan and post-Trajan in Egypt, Africa, Mauretania, Briton, Germania...

Even a casual student of Roman history should be appalled that you don't need Alexandria to "restore" the Roman Empire, but you do need Baghdad.

The decision is marginal. But, if you're going to include it, do it right! It's currently a farce. Get rid of it or fix it.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Great points. That is why I suggested several various ways and combinations of restoring the Roman Empire, depending on your starting Country and Culture.


RobRoy3 said:
Paradox's decision to restore the Roman Empire doesn't include Trajan's durable conquests in places like Dacia (future Romania) that actually stayed Roman for hundreds of years and inherited a Romance language.
Click to expand...

And they even call themselves 'Romans' to this day. Go figure.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back