• 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:
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.

Man, you're being downvoted because World Conquest is achievable in any version and will continue to be in the next version.

In a bit more complete analysis: As time passes we see 4 effects changing the difficulty of WC:
1-More development/provinces (meaning more difficult WC)
2-Mechanics anti-blobbing - example: corruption from territories (meaning more difficult WC)
3-Mechanics pro-blobbing - example: more sources of admin efficiency or ability to upgrade advisors (meaning easier WC)
4-Players learn more efficient strategies (meaning easier WC)

In almost every update so far the effects 3 and 4 (that facilitate WC) have been stronger than the effects 1 and 2 (that make it more difficult). Almost every version makes it easier than the previous one. Regarding the next version we've only seen map changes, which corresponds to the above effect 1, and not mechanics changes. I'd bet these mechanics will give us more possibilities / bonuses that make WC easier. Even if that isn't the case, I'm sure WC will be nearly as viable as it is now.

Anyway, if you think players are dropping because the difficulty of WC is changing you don't really understand EU4 player base.

Claerly you didn't read my posts as I literally stated:

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.

So, would you like to try again only this time without injecting things into what others have stated? Seriously, this is laughable.

As for the rest of your comment: do you have proof or is that just you stating your opinion? I ask because I haven't found that to being the case. Not even playing as the Ottoman's, England, France, or Castille/Spain. Hence why, in part, I don't play as often as i used to.

Btw, my concerns don't solely lay with the WC achievement. My concerns lay with ALL of the achievements. That's among other things which I have stated some in prior comments (you might want to read the entire comment and my prior comments before posting again to me. That's for your benefit.).
 
@neondt and devs, for next week mission tree I would enjoy to see dutch missions reflecting their historical struggle for trade power with the Hansa. Like the english mission tree has. Perhaps also a staple market in Amsterdam.

History from Hanseatic wikipedia page:

"A major economic advantage for the Hansa was its control of the shipbuilding market, mainly in Lübeck and in Danzig. The Hansa sold ships everywhere in Europe, including Italy. They drove out the Dutch, because Holland wanted to favour Bruges as a huge staple market at the end of a trade route. When the Dutch started to become competitors of the Hansa in shipbuilding, the Hansa tried to stop the flow of shipbuilding technology from Hanseatic towns to Holland. Danzig, a trading partner of Amsterdam, attempted to forestall the decision. Dutch ships sailed to Danzig to take grain from the city directly, to the dismay of Lübeck. Hollanders also circumvented the Hanseatic towns by trading directly with north German princes in non-Hanseatic towns. Dutch freight costs were much lower than those of the Hansa, and the Hansa were excluded as middlemen.

When Bruges, Antwerp and Holland all became part of the Duchy of Burgundy they actively tried to take over the monopoly of trade from the Hansa, and the staples market from Bruges was transferred to Amsterdam. The Dutch merchants aggressively challenged the Hansa and met with much success. Hanseatic cities in Prussia, Livonia, supported the Dutch against the core cities of the Hansa in northern Germany. After several naval wars between Burgundy and the Hanseatic fleets, Amsterdam gained the position of leading port for Polish and Baltic grain from the late 15th century onwards. The Dutch regarded Amsterdam's grain trade as the mother of all trades (Moedernegotie)."
 
@neondt and devs, for next week mission tree I would enjoy to see dutch missions reflecting their historical struggle for trade power with the Hansa. Like the english mission tree has. Perhaps also a staple market in Amsterdam.

History from Hanseatic wikipedia page:

"A major economic advantage for the Hansa was its control of the shipbuilding market, mainly in Lübeck and in Danzig. The Hansa sold ships everywhere in Europe, including Italy. They drove out the Dutch, because Holland wanted to favour Bruges as a huge staple market at the end of a trade route. When the Dutch started to become competitors of the Hansa in shipbuilding, the Hansa tried to stop the flow of shipbuilding technology from Hanseatic towns to Holland. Danzig, a trading partner of Amsterdam, attempted to forestall the decision. Dutch ships sailed to Danzig to take grain from the city directly, to the dismay of Lübeck. Hollanders also circumvented the Hanseatic towns by trading directly with north German princes in non-Hanseatic towns. Dutch freight costs were much lower than those of the Hansa, and the Hansa were excluded as middlemen.

When Bruges, Antwerp and Holland all became part of the Duchy of Burgundy they actively tried to take over the monopoly of trade from the Hansa, and the staples market from Bruges was transferred to Amsterdam. The Dutch merchants aggressively challenged the Hansa and met with much success. Hanseatic cities in Prussia, Livonia, supported the Dutch against the core cities of the Hansa in northern Germany. After several naval wars between Burgundy and the Hanseatic fleets, Amsterdam gained the position of leading port for Polish and Baltic grain from the late 15th century onwards. The Dutch regarded Amsterdam's grain trade as the mother of all trades (Moedernegotie)."
The Fluytschip intensifies.
 
Maybe this shouldn't be posted on the dev diary. but I'll do it anyway. Because whenever someone brings up the Brabant Revolution or that Belgium should be added to the game supported by historical arguments. They get refuted by people who bring out a meme-argument in which they'll claim that Belgium does not exist thus should not be added. I'm afraid that the next DD's will never mention it either. hence why

belgianmeme.png
 
Why Anessi and not Annecy ? o_O
I would assume that Anessi and Ciamber are dynamic province names for Piemontese - since Savoy's state culture is Piemontese.
 
Maybe this shouldn't be posted on the dev diary. but I'll do it anyway. Because whenever someone brings up the Brabant Revolution or that Belgium should be added to the game supported by historical arguments. They get refuted by people who bring out a meme-argument in which they'll claim that Belgium does not exist thus should not be added. I'm afraid that the next DD's will never mention it either. hence why
And to this I'll reply what I've replied to this already quite a few times. "Belgium" was an independent country and in fact a very major power in the EU4 timeframe. It revolted against Spain in 1568 and had its independence definitely confirmed in 1648. Its territorial ambitions were sometimes represented in a stylized way by the Leo Belgicus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Belgicus). Its language was referred to by humanists as "Lingua Belgica". Its colony on the East Coast of America, centered in Nieuw Amsterdam, was called "Nova Belgica" in Latin. Diplomats called it "Belgica foederata" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminology_of_the_Low_Countries#Belgae)
What did not exist was a concept of "Belgium" being something different from the "Netherlands".
The short-lived entity established by the Brabant Revolution of 1790 called itself "États-Belgiques-Unis" in the French version of its constitutive document, the Treaty of Union, and "Staeten der vereenigde Nederlanden" in the Dutch version. The only realistic goal of this revolt was to eventually join the independent "Belgian" state which already existed, the United Provinces.
It does not make sense to have an independent Belgium in the EU4 timespan because "Belgium" was just a synonym for "Netherlands".
 
And to this I'll reply what I've replied to this already quite a few times. "Belgium" was an independent country and in fact a very major power in the EU4 timeframe. It revolted against Spain in 1568 and had its independence definitely confirmed in 1648. Its territorial ambitions were sometimes represented in a stylized way by the Leo Belgicus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Belgicus). Its language was referred to by humanists as "Lingua Belgica". Its colony on the East Coast of America, centered in Nieuw Amsterdam, was called "Nova Belgica" in Latin. Diplomats called it "Belgica foederata" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminology_of_the_Low_Countries#Belgae)
What did not exist was a concept of "Belgium" being something different from the "Netherlands".
The short-lived entity established by the Brabant Revolution of 1790 called itself "États-Belgiques-Unis" in the French version of its constitutive document, the Treaty of Union, and "Staeten der vereenigde Nederlanden" in the Dutch version. The only realistic goal of this revolt was to eventually join the independent "Belgian" state which already existed, the United Provinces.
It does not make sense to have an independent Belgium in the EU4 timespan because "Belgium" was just a synonym for "Netherlands".
Words and their connotations and their meaning change over time. Yes Belgica and all its different forms were used in the early modern era to refer to either the Dutch Republic or the Low Countries in general, but that does not mean that the Belgian nation, that formed in 1830, is not Belgium. The new state claimed the word and the meaning of Belgium basically and as a result "Belgium" and its meaning "transferred" from the North to the South. Just because "Belgium" or "Belgica" had a different meaning back then, does not make a possible Belgium tag invalid, nor does "Belgium" or "Belgica" in itself have an exclusive connotation with the Dutch Republic, or to claim that the Netherlands and Belgium is the same thing is denying this fact of changing meanings of word through time.
 
  • 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

I didn't downvote your initial comment but after reading your second one I made sure to fix that mistake.
Have a nice day! :)
 
Okay I can't be the only one who thinks that the Dutch cultures (Dutch/Hollandic, Frisian, Flemish, maybe more to be added idk) should be a culture group of its own and not just part of the German culture group. It makes way more sense, first of all cuz now there is the stupid German localization which makes weird colony names and other things that don't make any sense playing as a Dutch nation. And besides if u put Dutch within the Germanic culture group you could as well put Danish or English in there, it just doesn't make any sense that Dutch is within the Germanic culture group.

The Dutch languages are literally Low Franconian and Low Saxon.
 
And to this I'll reply what I've replied to this already quite a few times. "Belgium" was an independent country and in fact a very major power in the EU4 timeframe. It revolted against Spain in 1568 and had its independence definitely confirmed in 1648. Its territorial ambitions were sometimes represented in a stylized way by the Leo Belgicus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Belgicus). Its language was referred to by humanists as "Lingua Belgica". Its colony on the East Coast of America, centered in Nieuw Amsterdam, was called "Nova Belgica" in Latin. Diplomats called it "Belgica foederata" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminology_of_the_Low_Countries#Belgae)
What did not exist was a concept of "Belgium" being something different from the "Netherlands".
The short-lived entity established by the Brabant Revolution of 1790 called itself "États-Belgiques-Unis" in the French version of its constitutive document, the Treaty of Union, and "Staeten der vereenigde Nederlanden" in the Dutch version. The only realistic goal of this revolt was to eventually join the independent "Belgian" state which already existed, the United Provinces.
It does not make sense to have an independent Belgium in the EU4 timespan because "Belgium" was just a synonym for "Netherlands".
Except that argument falls flat when looking at the fact that the country itself may have styled itself after the same tribe, the Belgica, in the 18th century the idea that the Dutch were decended from the Batavii was already spreading and thus there was room for a Belgian nation, hence its known as Belgium and in a similar period the dutch republic became the batavian republic.

Now since there are plenty of other nationalistic nations that are post-eu4 timeframe, Italy, Germany, (SCANDINAVIA, like seriously??) there is obviously place for a nation which existed much earlier than these, except that Italy and Germany have roots back to earlier periods. But since these nations are really based on the 19th century nations then it isnt fair to give the Flemish/Walloon people not its own formable.

And to get back to scandinavia. Like seriously? If that formable can exist, so should Belgium.
 
I tried looking up Anessi on Wikipedia but there were no entry with that name . However, a page listing Italian exonyms (place names) did have Anessi with a link back to an article about Annecy. Is this the one?

In the same page listing the Italian exonyms, Ciamberi is also known as Chambéry (where did I heard that name before...? ;)).

In any event, I was looking up to see where the modern borders of Italy and France lays relative to these new map changes. I know Savoy as an area was ceded to France in mid-19th century in exchange for their participation with Kingdom of Sardinia-Piedmont in a war to secure some territories from Austria (I forget which one... Veneto?). Just seem ironic that S-P's reigning House of Savoy would agree to cession of the area containing the very name of their royal house. :p

Anyway, I digress but Annecy and Chambéry are now in France today. Which is not surprising considering that both of them in the upcoming patch were created out of the old province of Savoy as outlined in this development diary.

Anyway, learning something new from these previews! The more you know... :p
 
The only realistic goal of this revolt was to eventually join the independent "Belgian" state which already existed, the United Provinces.
That was certainly not their goal. The revolt was mainly aimed against Joseph II's religious policies which were regarded as too enlightened. The Catholics feared their position would become endangered and thus revolted. Joining the Protestant North was not an option, because that was just replacing one religious antifigure by another.
 
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.
Idk if people are actually aware of the sarcastic nature of this post...
 
Well, Iberia did get buffed in terms of provinces by the simple removal of the Barbary Tradition of +50% Hostile Core Creation. It's very striking because before, with that tradition in place, I saw the AI barely ever take up any land in North Africa. You'd see Portugal basically holding Cueta, if even that (as it was like a 40% chance that Morocco went and kicked Portugal's teeth in), and Spain ignoring it entirely.

Since then I've seen them completely take North Africa every game all the way out to Fezzan, splitting it between Portugal and Spain, obliterating barbary cultures, massively increasing the trade flowing into Seville as well as their development compared to before. Which is probably, I'm wagering, the real reason that I see France getting absolutely curb stomped as Iberian power was increased heavily by that change.
 
Why? Frisian is closer to Low Saxon than it is to dutch. And the provinces which are dutch in the game right now are all germanic speaking and in the HRE.

Finnish isn't even in the same language family as the Scandinavian languages (which are Germanic but still have their own seperate group) and yet it's grouped with them for gameplay purposes. It makes more sense for Netherlands to be the culture union for low countries cultures than Germany.