• 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 of June 2019

Hello again! In previous weeks we’ve shown you revamped maps of Italy and German and the revitalized political setups in these regions. Today will be no different as we delve into the land of cheese, wine, and élan!

dd_france.png


The most striking thing you’ll notice about this new setup is the return of the French “vassal swarm”. The Duchies of Orleans, Bourbonnais, Auvergne, Armagnac, and Foix will be returning to the game alongside their glorious but rarely-seen Hundred Years War unit models. But how will you balance this, I preemptively hear you asking? Won’t France need extra diplomatic relations to cope with this? Won’t France be horrendously overpowered in the early game? Fear not, for we have answers and solutions - which I am not going to reveal today.

So, what's up with balkanized France? The reality is that in 1444, the Kingdom of France was quite decentralized. The Hundred Years War had forced the King to enact new taxes to finance his troops which led to several revolts and conspiracies from its nobility. That conflict continued for most of the second half of the 15th century. Historically the crown prevailed and managed to bring France toward centralization and absolutism, but in EU4 it won't be a given. Hence we decided to make that part of the French gameplay by representing the strongest Dukes and Counts as vassals in 1444.
  • Orléans was the strongest of them and often the leader of the resistance against the Crown. The head of the House of Orléans in 1444 was Charles the First, a cousin of the King who spent 25 years in English captivity. His son Louis would historically become King of France later on following the extinction of the main Valois branch.
  • The Duchy of Bourbon (or Bourbonnais) is held by Jean II, an up and coming noble that illustrated himself in combat the same year our game starts. Historically, he sided with the King's party, but changed side later on after losing a prestigious office.
  • Armagnac is in a tight spot. The result of CK2-style border gore, his possessions are spread across central and southern France. Its leader, Jean IV, recently took part in a failed revolt against the King and is kept on a tight leash.
  • Foix is held by Count Gaston IV, also General Lieutenant of the French Armies of Gascony and Guyenne.

You’ll also notice that France and its subjects (nominal and otherwise) have a handful of additional provinces. I mentioned in a previous dev diary a desire to include Foix, Carcassonne, Toulon, and La Marche. All of these have made it in to this iteration of the map. Toulon felt especially valuable due to its status as a major base of naval operations for France later in the timeframe, and as you’ll see in an upcoming dev diary the establishment of this great arsenal is an important part of more than one new mission tree. We also found room for Forez, which allows us to represent the divide between the crown and Bourbon territories. Blois beefs up the Duchy of Orleans, the most powerful of the French vassal states and often a thorn in the side of the French kings.

To better represent the divide between western (Ducal Burgundy) and eastern (Free HRE Country Burgundy), we added the province of Salins and its large salt mine. This lead us to split Burgundy in two, but instead of following the Imperial divide we elected instead to make two balanced states with one holding land on both sides, making any division an imperfect choice that is sure to spark more conflict in the future.

dd_geneva.png


Another addition to the political setup is the city-state of Geneva, here represented in 1444 as a vassal of Savoy. Geneva was subject to Savoy until 1524, and up to that point had a troubled relationship with its overlord. The House of Savoy repeatedly attempted to increase their control over the city to little avail except to alienate its citizens and foster a desire for independence. Local authorities sought to ally with the Swiss cantons, and the city would eventually join the Swiss Confederacy. In addition, the old province of Savoy has been split between Anessi and Ciamber.

dd_ned.png


Moving further away from France, we’ve also made some changes to the Low Countries. I’ve spoken before regarding our concerns about adding provinces to this region. We want it to retain the feeling of being a highly developed and densely populated region, and adding new provinces would force us to split development to the point that it might lose that feeling. We have however managed to squeeze in two additional provinces: ‘s-Hertogenbosch has been cut off from Breda, and Rysel adds a province to Flanders. We’ve also revised the Utrecht-Frisia border to reflect historical divisions of the Dutch provinces. Speaking of Frisia, we have at long last added Frisian culture to the game. You’ll find Frisians inhabiting the provinces of Friesland, Groningen, and Ostfriesland. We’ve also redrawn the area map, doing away with the “Netherlands” area and adding a distinction between North and South Brabant.

Last week I promised a look at the Balkans alongside France, but we’ve decided instead to dedicate an entire dev diary to this topic. Expect to see that in a couple of weeks, as our next dev diary will cover some of the new mission trees in the French and Dutch region. Until then, let us know what you think of the new map setup as well as which mission trees you want to see next week.
 
Last edited:
  • 3Like
Reactions:
A redone GC would be nice.

If you can't tell, I would love to see some province love given to Portugal, so I STRONGLY second this. Castile and especially Aragon got enough new provinces - we don't want Spain to become the new Italy.
 
Adding provinces to Spain and Portugal? Nah, no way. Irrelevant, poor countries, who even cares.

Adding provinces to areas with a decent amount of Provinces? Count me in ladz.
 
*Paradox makes a change that's historically accurate*
Playerbase: But what about THIS other inaccuracy?!?
 
*Paradox makes a change that's historically accurate*
Playerbase: But what about THIS other inaccuracy?!?
Have you even seen the list of inaccuracies piling up the last few weeks?
 
my best bet for the upcoming DLC is - introduced centralization and decentralization mechanic so it represents the late medieval decentralized states becoming more centralized and where vassals dont take any relation slots but in very decentralized states there must be some minimum number of vassals (depending on country size) where having more then required vassals will lead to decentralization while having less then required will result in some negative modifiers for the state, and if someone desires more centralization he can do it by taking some decisions, events, policies, gov. reforms etc.

I'd also like to see some different mechanic to vassals, not that you need to wait 10 years to start integrating bcs it's stupid, most players are integrating right away starting in 1454 (most ridiculous are moroccans and timurids that can dbl their dev in 1 month), so it think a step by step integration must take place, like the level of vassal or a rank, that after reaching (for example level 3 vassalage) can be integrated into a state
 
Have you even seen the list of inaccuracies piling up the last few weeks?
You realize that's playing exactly to the point I'm making, right? A game this size will always have historical inaccuracies, the fact that they actually put the effort in to make this less so should be applauded, but instead I just see people go "but what about this specific thing?".
 
You realize that's playing exactly to the point I'm making, right? A game this size will always have historical inaccuracies, the fact that they actually put the effort in to make this less so should be applauded, but instead I just see people go "but what about this specific thing?".
I strongly disagree. Lots of mistakes can be avoided very simply by just opening Google Maps. All the feedback threads I and other people made provide lots of info, too.

A funny thing is that a lot of mistakes were mentioned in the suggestions but overlooked in the actual work by the devs.

Just read everything in my signature, for example. Most mistakes are just 'stupid' and lack proper research.
 
You realize that's playing exactly to the point I'm making, right? A game this size will always have historical inaccuracies, the fact that they actually put the effort in to make this less so should be applauded, but instead I just see people go "but what about this specific thing?".

When the specific things done show a blatant bias on the part of the devs towards/against certain countries, the specific thing becomes very important. Just compare the love given to Britain (especially Scotland) in RB compared to the garbage features that are in GC. Britain? Innovative, industrious, rule the waves! Spain and Portugal? Just some minority-hating colonial bois with shit economies.
 
I strongly disagree. Lots of mistakes can be avoided very simply by just opening Google Maps. All the feedback threads I and other people made provide lots of info, too.

A funny thing is that a lot of mistakes were mentioned in the suggestions but overlooked in the actual work by the devs.

Just read everything in my signature, for example. Most mistakes are just 'stupid' and lack proper research.
How long would it take to implement all those "fixes"? Are we just talking about name changes, or are we talking about changing borders and adding/subtracting provinces. Because if it requires ANY of the latter to implement all of those "fixes", then it's likely that they decided there were larger issues in the game than "change the entire borders and names of provinces and have to rebalance everything", like fixing trade companies or having proper HRE mechanics that aren't over a decade old.
 
View attachment 486981


As people mentioned before, I think having Valais split up like shown on this map (all my Paint skills on display ;) ) would be favourable. A new tag "Die Sieben Zenden" aka. "The Seven Tenth" or just "Upper Valais" would be a great extension. It could have a similar position as the "Grey league" in Graubünden, being a strong ally of the SWI or even a vasal of her. Furthermore, this split is crucial as it still represents the border between German- and Frenchspeaking Valais/Wallis of today.

Below the inspiration for the map from Wikipedia (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geschichte_des_Wallis#Neuzeit) (german)
View attachment 486983
This is exactly what I've been saying, now we totally agree! Great stuff. :)
 
When the specific things done show a blatant bias on the part of the devs towards/against certain countries, the specific thing becomes very important. Just compare the love given to Britain (especially Scotland) in RB compared to the garbage features that are in GC. Britain? Innovative, industrious, rule the waves! Spain and Portugal? Just some minority-hating colonial bois with shit economies.
Just because you hate a specific DLC doesn't mean the devs are prejudiced bigots...
 
Just because you hate a specific DLC doesn't mean the devs are prejudiced bigots...
Doesn't mean they're not either. I imagine your reaction would be different if they had treated your favorite region like that, especially if bigotry against that region had been known to exist in northern Europe.

I'm just saying, the fact that they put so much effort into some regions more than others, and focus so much more on accuracy to boot, makes it a valid criticism of the current project to point out the relative errors of others that need addressing.
 
How long would it take to implement all those "fixes"? Are we just talking about name changes, or are we talking about changing borders and adding/subtracting provinces. Because if it requires ANY of the latter to implement all of those "fixes", then it's likely that they decided there were larger issues in the game than "change the entire borders and names of provinces and have to rebalance everything", like fixing trade companies or having proper HRE mechanics that aren't over a decade old.
Just check my threads and you'll know.

Oh, and especially look at the likes of Notec and the Maghreb in the Iberia-thread. The one I made about Italy is also easily-solvable and has some really glaring mistakes.
 
How long would it take to implement all those "fixes"? Are we just talking about name changes, or are we talking about changing borders and adding/subtracting provinces. Because if it requires ANY of the latter to implement all of those "fixes", then it's likely that they decided there were larger issues in the game than "change the entire borders and names of provinces and have to rebalance everything", like fixing trade companies or having proper HRE mechanics that aren't over a decade old.

Many of these mistakes could be fixed just by changing the name of a province and/or the location of its capital. A few others would requiere a small cosmetic border adjustment (with no gameplay changes). Actually there aren't really that many mistakes that require changing gameplay at all. However, those mistakes are still there.
 
  • clear.png
    Respectfully Disagree x 5
Awwwwww, look at that. One even mention's rolling back the game to an earlier version and the haters come flooding out of the sewers to downvote your comment no matter how true your comment was. Not one of them even bothered to answered the question I posed. Little do they know, or care, that this game that they love so dearly hasn't exactly been performing as well as it could be doing. And there's reasons why that is. Take a look:

Month Avg. | Players Gain | % Gain | Peak Players
Last 30 Days | 9,512.2 | -117.4 | -1.22% | 17,479
May 2019 | 9,629.6 | -1,306.3 | -11.94% | 17,479
April 2019 | 10,935.8 | -618.6 | -5.35% | 21,256
March 2019 | 11,554.4 | -447.3 | -3.73% | 21,663
February 2019 | 12,001.7 | -852.0 | -6.63% | 21,939
January 2019 | 12,853.6 | +320.7 | +2.56% | 23,109

Month Avg. loss of player base since Jan 2019: -3341.4 or -25.99582% (let's just say 26%)
Peak Players loss of player base since Jan 2019: 5630 or 24.36280% (let's just say 24%)

The current numbers are the lowest since August 2017 | 9,501.4 | -433.2 | -4.36% | 16,647

Maybe you can attribute the declining number of players to new game titles being released (NO Imperator Rome isn't stealing players from EU IV.). Then again you can attribute the declining number of players to many things. Of course as people we all have our own opinions so no one will ever know an exact reason for the decline in players. There simply are many reasons why people might stop playing a game. I only know my own, and several friends, reasons why I haven't played this game much lately. A big part of that is the simple fact that Paradox chooses to continue to dissect the map with more and more provinces while completely ignoring and disregarding other things the game needs either fixed or implemented. For example, trade is horrid in this game yet it should be a much bigger part of the game. Another example is with each DLC Paradox releases the Dev's disregard the achievements which they placed into the game when the game was originally released. Making things impossible to be accomplished is a blatant disrespect to the players who want to acquire those things - such as achievements. The game is already challenging and certain achievements are already next to impossible (notice I said NEXT to impossible and not impossible!) and/or time consuming. Not everyone has an endless amount of time to spend playing a game. Especially not when one starts a game and saves the game then come to find that the developers broke said game save due to a new patch or DLC having been released. When you feel so routinely that your efforts and time have been wasted in a game you end up moving on to another game or something else entirely. When a gaming developer ignores those people who want to play the game with all the aspects and features the game came with they segregate out of their client base a lot of people who are more than willing to play said game and to continue to purchase DLC's and even other titles released by the developer.

The FACT remains, and regardless of you haters who troll Paradox's forums just to downvote everyone elses posts (which IS a reason why many players don't bother coming to these forums!!! Don't worry, I know you'll downvote this comment too - because you have nothing better to do!!), that one has to consider rolling back to an earlier version if they want to accomplish certain things in the game. The issue, my issue, is that I don't like that headache and I want Paradox and the developers to know that there are people, customers of yours, out here who are unhappy with how things have developed in the game or have been utterly disregarded.
I downvoted you, because I disagree that the world conquest achievement should have any impact on game development. Also, if EUIV development has proved one thing, is that world conquest has been possible in every single patch from 1.0. You don't have any basis to argue that adding more provinces to the game will prevent world conquest in the future. More mechanics are going to come that world conqueror will use to achieve their WC, like always.

Also I disagreed with your second post because steam numbers also should not be relevant to the discussion, as the changes the devs are discussing are not yet implemented (duh), and thus have had no impact in players numbers. Actually, I think the goal for the next DLC is to be ambitious enough so that players come back to the game, as happened with CK2 recently.
 
I'm of the opinion when a game puts so much value into a detailled map (as it's obviously the place where 100% of the game takes place), we could at least expect careful placement of new regions as well as proper research.

Some of the strangest areas and tags are included; things you don't find on Wikipedia or the English web, then why are areas in Europe done so poorly? Most of them have maps of administrative divisions and details about ownership spread out all over the internet.