• 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 - 5th of March 2019

Good morning. As was foretold, I am back to talk about our thoughts on overhauling the map of the Balkans for the big end-of-year European update. Once again I’ll begin with a disclaimer that everything here is very much subject to change as we continue to listen to feedback and iterate on our own ideas throughout the year.

balkans_old.jpg


Behold: the Balkans in patch 1.4. And for reference, here are the Balkans as they are now, in patch 1.28:

balkans_new.jpg


The big change here is simply “more provinces”. Albania has been split up substantially, we have more Aegean Islands, and provinces density in Bulgaria is higher.

There is still, in my opinion, plenty of room for new provinces in Greece and Bulgaria. For the mainland we want to achieve a similar level of density as we see in Anatolia. One of the most obvious things we can do is split the Yanya province by adding Arta, one of the last Epirote cities to fall to the Ottomans. The return of the Epirus tag in 1444 heralds another change: the removal of the Corfu tag, at least in 1444. In the game right now, Corfu is a vassal of Venice and ruled by monarchs who were in fact the independent rulers of the Despotate of Epirus. This will change.

Other possibilities include a province that would more accurately reflect the Ottoman-Moldavian border in Silistria/Basarabia, a further split in the Aegean between Scio and Lesbos, and a separate province centered on the city of Tarnovo in Bulgaria.

greece_suggestion.jpg


This suggestion by Mingmung, and others very much like it, show a step in the right direction. Beyond what I’ve already mentioned, I like the idea of splitting Cephalonia from the Corfu province to add a little tactical depth to Epirus, as well as the addition of Corinth in the south. We are however unlikely to add extra provinces on Cyprus or Crete: outside of very large islands like Sardinia and Sicily we prefer to keep such places restrained to single provinces.

Moving north-west, there’s a lot that could be done in Serbia, Bosnia, and the Dalmatian coast. There’s room for a few more provinces of course, though not quite so many as we might need further south.

balkans_suggestion.jpg


This very aesthetically pleasing suggestion by ootats has a lot going for it. Representing Herzegovina/the Duchy of Saint Sava as a Bosnian vassal in 1444 is an interesting possibility. It also puts the province density on a level similar to that of Hungary, which I feel is a good target to aim for in the region. It is however unlikely that we’ll be adding both the Venetian provinces of Scutari and Cataro.

We’ve been reading your comments on the previous dev diary, and they’ve provoked a lot of discussion on Team Content Design. One of the results of these discussions is that we’re more open to a Como province that would split away from the northern part of what is now Milan. When the time comes for implementation it's certainly something we're willing to try out.

And that's all for today! Next week I invite you to join me on a wild ride through the confusing nightmarish mess that was Early Modern Germany. Until then, I look forward to more of your comments and suggestions.
 
While I agree with your post, I think that Slovenian can hardly be compared to the regional Bosnian culture you're describing. Slovenian culture could easily get 3-4 provinces if the HRE is reworked properly.

Yes, to clarify, i am not suggesting that the Slovenian culture is imaginary (to the same or similar extent that Bosnian is in 1444.) but that there is another sort of soft guideline which dictates that the number of provinces a culture should be added to needs to be significant (probably more than 2) and that every culture must have at least one tag. Slovenian culture could fail to make it in on either one of these; there might be 1 or 2 provinces (if more are not added) and there might be a hard cap on how many new tags can be added. All of this is stuff neondt needs to consider and make a call on (and im ok either way and support his efforts because i understand the process behind it).
 
Adding my voice to those who want more impassable terrain— I’d love more in every region of the game, but it makes particular sense in parts of the Balkans. It always makes a region feel much more interesting to me than do new provinces (general desire for better historical accuracy aside).

Also, I know that it’s not relevant to the subject at hand, but I’m going to say again that I’d like improved Portuguese ideas. Just acknowledging that they are a problem would be nice; people have been asking for them since long before Golden Century, and the continued silence about them following that debacle is grating.

Anyway, I’m really glad to see the level of community involvement in the upcoming patch, and enormously appreciate your effort in working with us going forward. Looking forward to the next diary!
Yeah impassible terrain is very nice it makes the place feels dynamic and unique.
New Serbian ideas suggestion:

Traditions:
+10% Infantry Combat Ability
+15% Manpower Recovery Speed
1. Code of Laws
-0.10 Yearly Corruption
2. Bastion of Orthodoxy
+2 Tolerance of the True Faith
3. Serbian Hussars
-10% Cavalry Cost +15% Cavalry Combat Ability
4. Emperor of Serbs and Greeks
-15% Core Creation Cost
5. Gold Mines
+10% Goods Produced, -0.05% Yearly Inflation Reduction
6. Serbian Nationalism
+1 Attrition for Enemies
7. Hadjuks
+15% Morale of Armies
Ambition:
+5% Discipline

If anyone is interested in the reasoning behind any of these ideas, let me know and I'll do my best to answer based on my <limited> knowledge of Serbia. I'm not Serbian, but I am a fan of the country, so please don't accuse me of nationalism...
A bit too powerful for a country which wasn't that powerful in this era. Both inf and cav CA (one of which is in the traditions) 15% morale (many majors just get 10%, granted it is in the last one but still) and reduced Core creation cost (which relatively few tags at all get).
 
Crete & Cyprus should be split to at least two provinces each. These are prominent islands that were vital for Christian powers in the East Mediterranean trade, and Cyprus (and particularly Famagusta) for the Silk Trade. And let us bear in mind that K. of Cyprus had a strong enough navy at one point to plunder Alexandria itself under Peter I. No way in they could even remotely attempt this as things currently are. If you can make an excuse to split up all the Baleric Islands into individual island provinces, you have more than enough justification to can split up these islands.
 
But Ticino wasn't that important on itself and is just a small speck on the map.
It would represent what you wanted Como to represent, a bottleneck province in the Alps providing immense strategic value. And as a bonus: It actually did change hands independently of Milan.

Wars were fought to control the Valtellina - and not between Buttbumland and Wheresthatstan, but between Spain (controlling Milan and having close relations with Austria) and France and Venice (propping up their allies in the Gray League in order to keep Spanish Milan isolated).
Yes, Valtellina was probably more contested, but it also has a much more fancy shape, especially when you consider that the Alps wasteland province has to be somewhere in that area as well. I would love to have it, but I think it would just look too weird for vanilla.

Ticino wouldn't be that small a province - fifty-ish pixels isn't really unclickable. And it still fulfills the same purpose as Como - a mountain province to defend the access to plains Milan.
When I made Ticino for a mod, it had 117 pixels. That's more than enough to be a viable province.
Edit: You can see it on this screenshot:
AF034D7D4A7CCBC071A3D75832D12BC49964E168
 
Yeah impassible terrain is very nice it makes the place feels dynamic and unique.

A bit too powerful for a country which wasn't that powerful in this era. Both inf and cav CA (one of which is in the traditions) 15% morale (many majors just get 10%, granted it is in the last one but still) and reduced Core creation cost (which relatively few tags at all get).

Haha, yes, it's a little too generous :D I like the ideas Danub wrote for Serbia (the official ones), though i would kind of tweak with some of them. But it would be minimalist for the most part, such as switching idea names to actual ideas (like 'Home of the Hussars' for Cav ability, rather than Alemannic Guard, which can logically replace the 'Mercenary Armies' idea), etc.
 
For example the abominate culture split of Russian culture, which was done, i believe, due to balance concerns (it was too easy to accept Russian culture and thus open a huge area of the map to conquest with reduced penalties).
The split itself is justified historically too, as long as we recognize cultures like Pomeranian and such as it is on the same level.
It is Ryazanian culture that makes no sense as it is defined currently, there is a case for it being replaced with a similar "Severian" culture. I wrote about it here and here, and argued that the traces of that culture do exist, although it died out as a separate thing by XVIII century and merged into neighbor ones, becoming sub-ethnical culture at the area of it's former spread.

And so in this day and age when cultures are split more regionally than based on actual cultural merits, it must be said that Bosnian culture, being exactly something that is regional, isnt necessarily something so terrible that it would be worthy of a full forum revolt. The only real argument against it would be the number of provinces, which in 1444. would be basically 1. But if Paradox starts adding cultures like Slovenian, well... I dont know.
Eh, when cultures in EU4 were not regional?
This said, I agree with this opinion. And it is Balkans, the more cultures and religions the merrier it is! :D
 
I hope Balkans will also get more of a gameplay update than extra provinces. Would really like to see Albania and even Serbia get more flavor maybe even extra mechanics. Cause currently the game represents Skanderbegs near perfect score in battles poorly considering the Ottos can easily wipe out Albania without troubles when not even the Sultan himself managed to take the fort of Kruje. Only thing Albania has in game is Venice protecting it. Wich just leads to the player never getting to fight the Ottomans unless they themselves declare or if their allies abondom them when Ottos declare. If you ask me a Albania campaign needs a war in the early game so you can enjoy having Skanderbeg. In the older patches it was not too great since it was a race beetwen Ottos/Venice attacking you and you trying to get allies to help you win the war since you have no manpower to do it yourself.
 
Good morning. As was foretold, I am back to talk about our thoughts on overhauling the map of the Balkans for the big end-of-year European update. Once again I’ll begin with a disclaimer that everything here is very much subject to change as we continue to listen to feedback and iterate on our own ideas throughout the year.

View attachment 458200

Behold: the Balkans in patch 1.4. And for reference, here are the Balkans as they are now, in patch 1.28:

View attachment 458201

The big change here is simply “more provinces”. Albania has been split up substantially, we have more Aegean Islands, and provinces density in Bulgaria is higher.

There is still, in my opinion, plenty of room for new provinces in Greece and Bulgaria. For the mainland we want to achieve a similar level of density as we see in Anatolia. One of the most obvious things we can do is split the Yanya province by adding Arta, one of the last Epirote cities to fall to the Ottomans. The return of the Epirus tag in 1444 heralds another change: the removal of the Corfu tag, at least in 1444. In the game right now, Corfu is a vassal of Venice and ruled by monarchs who were in fact the independent rulers of the Despotate of Epirus. This will change.

Other possibilities include a province that would more accurately reflect the Ottoman-Moldavian border in Silistria/Basarabia, a further split in the Aegean between Scio and Lesbos, and a separate province centered on the city of Tarnovo in Bulgaria.

View attachment 458203

This suggestion by Mingmung, and others very much like it, show a step in the right direction. Beyond what I’ve already mentioned, I like the idea of splitting Cephalonia from the Corfu province to add a little tactical depth to Epirus, as well as the addition of Corinth in the south. We are however unlikely to add extra provinces on Cyprus or Crete: outside of very large islands like Sardinia and Sicily we prefer to keep such places restrained to single provinces.

Moving north-west, there’s a lot that could be done in Serbia, Bosnia, and the Dalmatian coast. There’s room for a few more provinces of course, though not quite so many as we might need further south.

View attachment 458202

This very aesthetically pleasing suggestion by ootats has a lot going for it. Representing Herzegovina/the Duchy of Saint Sava as a Bosnian vassal in 1444 is an interesting possibility. It also puts the province density on a level similar to that of Hungary, which I feel is a good target to aim for in the region. It is however unlikely that we’ll be adding both the Venetian provinces of Scutari and Cataro.

We’ve been reading your comments on the previous dev diary, and they’ve provoked a lot of discussion on Team Content Design. One of the results of these discussions is that we’re more open to a Como province that would split away from the northern part of what is now Milan. When the time comes for implementation it's certainly something we're willing to try out.

And that's all for today! Next week I invite you to join me on a wild ride through the confusing nightmarish mess that was Early Modern Germany. Until then, I look forward to more of your comments and suggestions.
Now that you're looking at the region again (and the second suggestion pic does reflect what I'm going to ask), I'd like if something was done with Vidin. You can't really make a Bulgaria that looks anything like Bulgaria with how far out Vidin stretches. It ends on a river bend that goes too far northwest from where the real Vidin is, and thus Bulgaria ends up cutting a long way into Serbia. Don't know what would be done about it though.
 
Now that you're looking at the region again (and the second suggestion pic does reflect what I'm going to ask), I'd like if something was done with Vidin. You can't really make a Bulgaria that looks anything like Bulgaria with how far out Vidin stretches. It ends on a river bend that goes too far northwest from where the real Vidin is, and thus Bulgaria ends up cutting a long way into Serbia. Don't know what would be done about it though.
Modern Bulgaria, yes, but I've seen maps where the Ottomans does control the land up to that other part of the Danube. I can't tell if they're right or not, but a map like that may have been the inspiration for the province.
 
Modern Bulgaria, yes, but I've seen maps where the Ottomans does control the land up to that other part of the Danube. I can't tell if they're right or not, but a map like that may have been the inspiration for the province.

Yes and then the question is do you draw Balkan provinces to reflect actual borders between Balkan countries, or to reflect administrative organization of empires that occupied it.

Note that the actual borders of Balkan countries are not the same as modern one; the Serbia-Bulgaria border is much more straight line like, but its not that Vidin either (its enlarged too much and cuts too much to the west).
 
It represents the Duchy of Saint Sava (Kosača's Herzegovinian duchy that existed between 1430s and 1480s), surviving both Serbian Despotate and Bosnian Kingdom. It was originally subordinate of Bosnian King, but acted independently, not recognizing Roman Catholic Tomaš as King of Bosnia. In 1448 it became Aragonese vassal and the Serbian ally, waging war against Bosnia for Višegrad and Srebrenica.

For the same reason i suggested the province name to become Hercegovina, since the first traces of this name appeared in 1440s, when Kosača moved his capital to Herceg Novi.

I see now, good job and nice idea.
 
Also, i would like to ask about your thought regarding addition of Croatia as a junior partner in the personal union with Hungary which would be historically accurate.
Considering the administration at the time, Croatia would be confined to one province only (namely, Lika). While I'm all for historical accuracy, are we sure we need an OPM as a junior partner in a union with Hungary? To be clear, this isn't meant to belittle you or anything like that, I'm genuinely asking for input.

Magyar culture group could consist of Hungarians and Transylvanian Szeklers if Paradox ever decides to add them, even though they would be 1 province culture. I think even that is better than Carpathian culture group which is a total nonsense.
The main issue with Hungary culture-wise is that Hungarian as a culture was most dominant in rural areas (i.e. villages and oppidums). Almost all settlements that would qualify as cities by Western European standards were populated by Germans. While I don't know much about Croatia, Upper Hungary also had such a division with Slovaks being primarily rural and Germans being urban.
Then you have Transylvania which is a whole other beast in and of its own. You have Hungarian and Romanian peasants mixed EVERYWHERE (and take that literally: almost all villages had mixed ethnicity), Hungarian nobility, Saxons in the cities and székely people in the province now reperesented as Maros. I think the Transylvanian culture we have now is a better solution to represent that beehive.
As for the culture group... well, if PDX were to keep Transylvanian as a culture, I'd be in favour of keeping the Carpathian group simply because of gameplay reasons but if they decide to add a separate székely, Transylvanian Vlach and Transylvanian Saxon, then keeping the Carpathian group is a necessitiy.
 
Yes and then the question is do you draw Balkan provinces to reflect actual borders between Balkan countries, or to reflect administrative organization of empires that occupied it.
If you mean modern borders, I usually consider those a non-factor when drawing provinces, so you're left with the Serbian-Ottoman border in 1444, and the Serbian-Ottoman border at the game's end as options for border if I recall correctly (external borders >> internal borders). The Serbian state at the end of the game did control that part of the Danube, and it also gives a less awkwardly shaped province. I usually give 1444 more priority, but the end date border would match up with the one in Victoria II, which has a fantastic map, so I could choose either. If I had unlimited provinces, I might have split that part of Serbia off to a new province to not have to deal with all that.
 
Everything looks perfect, just two things.
Crete should definetely be split in 2 provinces, I don't know about Cyprus and shouldn't Skanderberg be renamed to Gjergj Kastrioti, since that was his Albanian name?
 
If you mean modern borders, I usually consider those a non-factor when drawing provinces, so you're left with the Serbian-Ottoman border in 1444, and the Serbian-Ottoman border at the game's end as options for border if I recall correctly (external borders >> internal borders). The Serbian state at the end of the game did control that part of the Danube, and it also gives a less awkwardly shaped province. I usually give 1444 more priority, but the end date border would match up with the one in Victoria II, which has a fantastic map, so I could choose either. If I had unlimited provinces, I might have split that part of Serbia off to a new province to not have to deal with all that.

You can also use borders before Ottoman conquest.

This is around 1350s
819px-Serbian_Empire_in_14th_century-sr.svg.png


You can see the historical borders super imposed over modern ones; and how ridiculously enlarged Vidin is in game.

So - modern borders - no; but non conquest actual borders before conquest - imo yes.

I would take this:

balkans_suggestion.jpg


And simply adjust the eastern border to be like the one above (enlarged matching Vidin) and voila.

Ottomans still border Hungary - check.
No terrible Vidin jarring into Serbia - check.
 
Last edited:
You can also use borders before Ottoman conquest.
That's true, but those would be a bit less important in my opinion, as those days had already passed. Also, the borders of the Serbian Empire shows the same part of the Danube missing from Serbian control: Map from wiki
 
That's true, but those would be a bit less important in my opinion, as those days had already passed. Also, the borders of the Serbian Empire shows the same part of the Danube missing from Serbian control: Map from wiki

Yeah, check out the edited posted above, i added some maps; you are very correct, the borders i propose are quite similar (functionally - connection wise) nothing changes.

edit:

9V3RN2d.png


blue represents connections (remaining the same).
Red represents actual border change (Bulgaria gets more land which it owned until like ww1 at least in Morava).
And white is the border that can be ignored.
 
Last edited: