• 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 - 4th February 2016

Hello everyone, and welcome to another Europa Universalis development diary. We are now working fully towards 1.16 and our next big expansion. While I’ve always been the lead designer for EU4, I’m now the project lead for this expansion, as Wiz has moved to another project.

One of the biggest changes in concept is the introduction of sailors. Sailors represent the trained seamen of a nation. Sailors differ from manpower both in what they are used for, and in how you get them. Only coastal provinces provide sailors, and the amount of sailors depend on total development in that province. Sailors are required when constructing new ships, and when ships are “repaired”. Of course not all ships require the same amount of sailors, with heavy ships needing the most and transports the least.

Docks and Drydocks now provide 50% and 100% more sailors from their provinces instead of increasing forcelimits, while Shipyards and Grand Shipyards have been redesigned to increase naval forcelimits & decrease shipbuilding times in those provinces.

Natural Harbours and Coastal Trade Centers increase the amount of sailors you get from a province, while Merchant marine now gives +50% Sailors & Press Gangs now give +20% Sailor Recovery. Some nations also have ideas giving them more Sailors from their provinces with Netherlands and Norway having the biggest boosts at +25%. There are also policies, parliament issues & norse gods boosting your sailor pool as well.

Qvpb8Sf.jpg


If you have the expansion, you also gain sailors from occupying another nation’s coastal provinces, even if your maximum possible pool is not increased.

One of the most feared things in europe in this time-period was the arrival of slave raiders from the north african coast. Countless villages were razed and millions of europeans were sold in slavery in Algiers, Tunis, Tripoli & Istanbul until the European nations were finally able to stop it at the middle of the 19th century by simply conquering the North African coast.

Now Barbary Nations lose their 10% cheaper ship tradition, and they gained the ability to raid for slaves. Raiding for Slaves is now something fleets can do at sea, where they gain money and sailors from coastal provinces that are not their allies or subjects. To raid a coastal province, you need be able to blockade it with that fleet, and you can only raid a province once every ten years. The efficiency of raiding is reduced by fleets on pirate hunting patrol. Raiding of course hurts your relation with the owner of provinces you raid.

The reason for why you get sailors from raids, is that plenty of them historically ended up chained to an oar at a galley.

wuoomf6.jpg


Next week, we’ll take a deep look at how we have redesigned the espionage system.
 
  • 236
  • 39
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Speaking of Iceland: did it get a province maybe? Same with Greenland. @Johan? @Trin Tragula?
 
I hope that Paradox gives a boost to traditional sea-faring cultures in Asia and the South Pacific, namely Polynesian provinces and Ming.
 
I think if people were not buying it, Paradox would revise their policy. They did for the cosmetic packages (may the Great Platypus be praised), so they would here as well if it was an issue. I am curious also if there is an age correlation here. My feeling is that Paradox average player is older than for most games, and with regular income paying £15 a month on expansion is not the end of the day.

I am sure money is always an issue, but I am speaking from an affluent demographic. For me it is the price to content, the value just isn't there, Cossacks being the straw that broke the camels back (I host MP games so didn't have much choice). I also think the reason we see the existing price structure is that PDOX is lucky(smart) to be operating in a niche where there isn't real competition from other firms. That probably does help extend the shelf life of the game more than the willingness of an older/affluent demographic to part with their cash. On the competition point I think that is one of the reasons it is pure genius to launch Stellaris. Talk about a stale market.

That said I use to notice on release date Pdox DLC would show up in my Top Sellers list on steam. I didn't see that happen for Cossacks and I definitely didn't see it happen for Conclave. So while it is guesswork I wouldn't count on the fact the more frequent DLC/Expensive Price point is actually getting the same level of penetration.

**Checking steam currently Cossacks is buried well into page 7 for top sellers... behind Total War DLC... it also achieved a mixed review status at best, with many of the top complaints being price/value. I think if we take our fanboi hats off the general tone of consumers is certainly shifting towards hostility in regards to PDOX pricing policy.

I think in the end what you will see is a system where PDOX will release their newest DLC at the exorbitant price point they have now, and simultaneously to generate interest put a sale on the previous DLC more frequently to hopefully catch value conscious consumers as well.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I am sure money is always an issue, but I am speaking from an affluent demographic. For me it is the price to content, the value just isn't there, Cossacks being the straw that broke the camels back (I host MP games so didn't have much choice). I also think the reason we see the existing price structure is that PDOX is lucky(smart) to be operating in a niche where there isn't real competition from other firms. That probably does help extend the shelf life of the game more than the willingness of an older/affluent demographic to part with their cash. On the competition point I think that is one of the reasons it is pure genius to launch Stellaris. Talk about a stale market.

That said I use to notice on release date Pdox DLC would show up in my Top Sellers list on steam. I didn't see that happen for Cossacks and I definitely didn't see it happen for Conclave. So while it is guesswork I wouldn't count on the fact the more frequent DLC/Expensive Price point is actually getting the same level of penetration.

**Checking steam currently Cossacks is buried well into page 7 for top sellers... behind Total War DLC... it also achieved a mixed review status at best, with many of the top complaints being price/value. I think if we take our fanboi hats off the general tone of consumers is certainly shifting towards hostility in regards to PDOX pricing policy.

I think in the end what you will see is a system where PDOX will release their newest DLC at the exorbitant price point they have now, and simultaneously to generate interest put a sale on the previous DLC more frequently to hopefully catch value conscious consumers as well.

I found this super interesting read, great post.
 
I am sure money is always an issue, but I am speaking from an affluent demographic. For me it is the price to content, the value just isn't there, Cossacks being the straw that broke the camels back (I host MP games so didn't have much choice). I also think the reason we see the existing price structure is that PDOX is lucky(smart) to be operating in a niche where there isn't real competition from other firms. That probably does help extend the shelf life of the game more than the willingness of an older/affluent demographic to part with their cash. On the competition point I think that is one of the reasons it is pure genius to launch Stellaris. Talk about a stale market.

That said I use to notice on release date Pdox DLC would show up in my Top Sellers list on steam. I didn't see that happen for Cossacks and I definitely didn't see it happen for Conclave. So while it is guesswork I wouldn't count on the fact the more frequent DLC/Expensive Price point is actually getting the same level of penetration.

**Checking steam currently Cossacks is buried well into page 7 for top sellers... behind Total War DLC... it also achieved a mixed review status at best, with many of the top complaints being price/value. I think if we take our fanboi hats off the general tone of consumers is certainly shifting towards hostility in regards to PDOX pricing policy.


I totally agree that it's entirely a value proposition, and that the market's lack of breadth (in terms of options) helps extend the shelf life of these games.

However, I think it's difficult to do what you said there at the end: view the pricing without consideration of our extraordinary fandom. This is mainly because the DLC policy survives so long largely by this fandom -- who else is playing CK2 almost 4 full years after release AND looking for new content besides the most dedicated fans? Even EU4 is now 2.5 years old. The lack of competition is one thing, but the buyers keeping up with the DLC on the day of release at this point are almost by definition huge fans, and it's hard to imagine why the pricing wouldn't reflect that.

I offer another explanation for the sales not topping charts... That we (and I do include myself here) no longer always buy the DLC on the day of release reflects as much the slipping of our fandom (and so the value proposition) probably more than the actual additions in the DLC itself or its cost as compared with any earlier DLC. This is speaking as you from an affluent demographic, of course.

I think in the end what you will see is a system where PDOX will release their newest DLC at the exorbitant price point they have now, and simultaneously to generate interest put a sale on the previous DLC more frequently to hopefully catch value conscious consumers as well.

I think this is what we have seen already for over two years.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
Reactions:
Quick question: does this 'slave raiding' mechanic apply to land-based nomadic nations too? It would be impressive to see the huge Tatar slave raids represented in this manner: they were after all, larger or of the same scale as these naval Barbary raids and led to around a million Poles, Ukrainians, Russians and Lithuanians being captured and sold downstream to the Ottoman slave markets. Would also give nomads with crap land some ability to gain funds at the expense of peaceful relations with their neighbours.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I think in the end what you will see is a system where PDOX will release their newest DLC at the exorbitant price point they have now, and simultaneously to generate interest put a sale on the previous DLC more frequently to hopefully catch value conscious consumers as well.
I don't see the revelation in your findings, especially since PDX has stated in the past [after some pricing/content test - meaning splitting WoN into 2] that all future expansions will cost between 15$ to 20$. Also, what's new about them having a sale? it was also done long before EU4 even came into play** [BTW, old DLCs get a discount only after 6 months].

Checking steam currently Cossacks is buried well into page 7 for top sellers... behind Total War DLC... it also achieved a mixed review status at best, with many of the top complaints being price/value. I think if we take our fanboi hats off the general tone of consumers is certainly shifting towards hostility in regards to PDOX pricing policy.
Most of these complaints steam from subjective view of content. If you weren't using/playing in that area before you wouldn't appreciate the new feature [as the occasional threads "let us disable unwanted features"]. As a software engineer [by education, not trade] I can appreciate the work put into that feature even if I don't use it.

**By a big portion of the companies as well.
 
This is mainly because the DLC policy survives so long largely by this fandom -- who else is playing CK2 almost 4 full years after release AND looking for new content besides the most dedicated fans?

That is a good point, but I still see people on my friends list playing CIV 5 or Skyrim on a regular basis (which had different DLC philosophy) I think the quality of the initial product guarantees a dedicated fan base. But with each poorly valued expansion that fan base has more opportunity/reason to turn hostile as their perceived loyalty is taken advantage of.

I don't see the revelation in your findings, especially since PDX has stated in the past [after some pricing/content test - meaning splitting WoN into 2] that all future expansions will cost between 15$ to 20$. Also, what's new about them having a sale? it was also done long before EU4 even came into play** [BTW, old DLCs get a discount only after 6 months].

Regarding sales I cant remember frequent sales that coincided with DLC launches. I know they go on sale from time to time, but I am specifically saying what you will see is the newest expansion at full price and the 2nd most recent on sale as a marketing tool. I have always been a day 1 buyer so they may have already been doing this and I just had no reason to know. Try re-reading. I am not commenting on what paradox says they will do re pricing etc. I am saying I think that DLC fatigue/value is starting to become evident within the fan base.

On a random related note, I also think that a big portion of the fatigue around pricing may not be related to the frequency/price as much as the suffering quality. When Art of War launched, I remember thinking OK this is a tad high price point wise, but hot damn those are some good features/content. When Cossacks launched that feeling certainly did not resonate. Maybe a less frequent (more inspired) DLC model with significantly better content (as well as testing before launch) at the current price point will work long term but declining quality with increasing price is a recipe for disaster.

These opinions are mainly from the fact until recently I was a stockbroker/investment analyst as well as an owner of small business franchises. One of my coffee shops once changed the muffin recipe from a sourdough base to flour and increased price (value decreased and price increased). Within 6 months instead of being my #1 baked good sale Muffins dwindled to the point they were a distant 3rd. I would often see the exact same phenomena in public companies ahead of market corrections.

Hopefully Johan takes the constructive message to heart when it comes to the new features in this upcoming expansion.
 
Last edited:
Try re-reading. I am not commenting on what paradox says they will do re pricing etc. I am saying I think that DLC fatigue/value is starting to become evident within the fan base.
There's noting to re-read. You claimed they will do something and I pointed out that they are not shy about their plans and are very upfront about them. Just to be clear, what I said isn't new or a future plan, the pricing policy I mentioned has been the official one for the last year and a half.

That is a good point, but I still see people on my friends list playing CIV 5 or Skyrim on a regular basis (which had different DLC philosophy) I think the quality of the initial product guarantees a dedicated fan base. But with each poorly valued expansion that fan base has more opportunity/reason to turn hostile as their perceived loyalty is taken advantage of.
I do agree with you that a large amount of DLC [be them good or bad] has a tendency to turn people off. There were [and are] many new games that I skipped buying simply because I knew there will be DLC's and eventually some kind of a cheap goty edition - since I didn't mind waiting, I did. As for Civ5, they only had 2 expansions which were/are more expensive than an EU4 expansion [didn't seem to add that much content/value to me] and a lot of useless DLCs a-la PDX cosmetic DLCs [but to me the Civ5 felt actually felt like a ripoff].
 
I think Paradox is extremely unlikely to switch models at this point. It's been too successful over the lifetime of the projects.

They're also smart enough to know that it won't last forever for a given project. If DLC fatigue indeed causes EU4 DLC sales to drop too low, we simply won't see any more of them. Then after a year or so, we'll get EU5 and start the process over again.

On a personal level, if the price is getting to you, drop back around 4-6 months. Let the DLC go on sale between 25 and 50% off, depending on your willing price point. If you don't like a given patch without the accompanying DLC, hold back on the patch update for the same amount of time.

If you play EU4 literally 6 months behind the developers, you'll have all the same experiences as if you were keeping up (minus any community aspect, if that's important to you). Just... later (and for like half the price). If waiting 6 months sounds too much like withdrawal, you can actually switch between two different Paradox GSG titles if you want so that you're pretty much always enjoying something new. Though, that'll be the same price as keeping up-to-date on just one of them.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Hopefully this will herald a whole raft of naval improvements. The main issues that need to be sorted out with the naval side of the game atm are:

1) allies not using ships to transport their troops to the front. It gets quite annoying when you're doing all the work and their armies just aren't moving.

2) navies not having enough influence in wars. Hopefully this raiding mechanic will allow us to use our ship crews to siege and take coastal provinces.