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 1353 EUIV: Suggestions 19382 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 - 6th of December 2016

Hi everyone and welcome to another development diary for Europa Universalis IV. We’ve been working on the 1.20 patch and its accompanying unannounced expansion for a while now.

We’ve reworked some internal mechanics so looted and scorched earth are no longer just binary-statuses, but instead they affect something we call devastation.

A provinces’ devastation ranges from 0 to 100%, and it affects local autonomy, supply limits and how much goods are produced in the province. It also reduces the spread of institutions into that province, and increases the development cost of the province.

Each time a province is looted, its devastation is increased by 5%, and a scorched earth increased it by 25%.

Each year devastation is reduced by 1%, and within the zone of control of a fortification, it is reduced by 2% for each fort level each year.

Unrest is also increasing the devastation of a province by the amount of unrest each year.

devastation.png


What does this give you? Well, loot is is no longer just a strong penalty for a short period of time, but continuous conflict zones will grow far worse.


A cool feature for the expansion though is the concept of Prosperity, which is a state-level bonus. Any state that has 0 devastation in all its provinces and the country is at positive stability will have a small counter tick up each month, depending on the abilities of its government. It is a random chance, but when the counter reached 100%, then the state has reached Prosperity.

A state with prosperity gives -10% to development cost, and +25% to goods produced.

prosperity.png


Stay tuned, next week we’ll talk about something that will probably be the biggest feature added to the game since we started EU4.
 
  • 217
  • 42
  • 4
Reactions:
Sort by date Sort by reaction score
Fishman786 said:
The whole of the east midlands is called "Derbyshire", which as you can imagine is a particularly jarring and offensive slight! :p
Click to expand...

I am sure it's a horrible thing to behold but I am sure you realize the need to lump things together lest we end up with a map of tiny, tiny provinces ;)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Trin Tragula said:
I am sure it's a horrible thing to behold but I am sure you realize the need to lump things together lest we end up with a map of tiny, tiny provinces ;)
Click to expand...
You're right of course, as distressing as it is to be lumped in with Derby, it would also be very difficult to click on Nottinghamshire if it was it's own province as it deserves. ;)

Therefore, maybe it could just be called 'midlands' (the real name of the region, 'East Midlands' being too long) or 'Mercia' (historically-used, but Mercia is really a wider area).
 
Both midlands and Mercia (the latter already an area) are too wide names for that little province for my tastes.
By now we are drifting of topic though. If you want to propose province renaming so suggest starting a thread in the suggestions forum :)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Trin Tragula said:
Should be :)
By now it'd probably have been easier to say it directly though ;)
Please provide good references and we will have a look. If it's not inaccurate by design (this is rare but sometimes happen, often to compensate for when the game and reality functions too differently) it will be changed :)
Click to expand...
For future reference. :p

Anyways, I know that the later starts aren't really tended to as much as the 1444 one, but I was just looking around and noticed that the capitals of Vietnam from 1802 (Annam in-game) onward are incorrect. In 1802, the capital was moved to modern-day Huế in the middle of the country. I'm not sure on the exact day of edict, unfortunately, but it might of been on the 1st of June, when Gia Long proclaimed himself Emperor. However, in the game the capital seems to switch between some provinces in the south, specifically Tay Nguyen and Gia Dinh.

Here are some references:

All Vietnam: Hue – The Ancient Capital City
UNESCO: Complex of Hué Monuments
Wikipedia: Hanoi, Huế, and List of historical capitals of Vietnam
 
Trin Tragula said:
Thanks. I'll look into it on Monday :)
Click to expand...
No problem. Thanks for looking into it.

Edit: Honestly, the whole country could use some work. While it's not as vital as China, I'd say there's enough that happened historically to warrant some attention. As far as I'm aware, the Nguyễn dynasty can't even come to power naturally. Little things like that and some events with the Khmer Empire and China could really help bring some flavor to Southeast Asia if you ever get around to an East Asian-oriented DLC.
 
Last edited:
Trin Tragula said:
Depends on the nature of it. If it's "Tag X should not own province Y in 1444" it's likely a bug but most other things are likely suggestions. Generally any more complicated solution would also be a suggestion as would anything where the situation isn't very clear cut so in general suggestions is the safest bet. :)
Click to expand...

Hello. Sorry for being intrusive, i am new on the forum and don't have too many posts behind me to back up my legitimacy, but i addressed a historical inaccuracy about state of Serbia after the patch. It'd be great if any of you guys would take notice/ give your personal opinion on the issue suggested fixing! I would be personally very happy if you would find time to read it :)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
otaats said:
i am new on the forum and don't have too many posts behind me to back up my legitimacy
Click to expand...
On these fora post counts don't matter with regard to arguments. If your argument is well sourced/supported then it will be good; if not then it will be bad no matter your post count. You'll discover that.:)
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Phantomiux said:
Biggest feature so far... Return of the sliders? o_O
Click to expand...

Banish all sliders from the game! Consider: would chess be a better game if its board were an open field without squares? The rook could be a slider?! A player would slide his rook to just exactly the optimal position....

But no, that is not how good games work, is it? A good game constrains its player to choose between a manageable number of interesting, distinctive, suboptimal choices. Sliders are optimal.

In a good game, best play is also fun play. Unconstrained optimality is usually just not fun.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Thucydides7 said:
Banish all sliders from the game. Consider: would chess be a better game if its board were an open field without squares? The rook could be a slider! A player would slide his rook to just exactly the optimal position....

But no, that is not how good games work, is it? A good game constrains its player to choose between a manageable number of interesting, distinctive, suboptimal choices. Sliders are optimal.

In a good game, best play is also fun play. Unconstrained optimality is usually just not fun.
Click to expand...

I really fail to see how sliders, which invariably (except with centralization/decentralization in some iterations) carried positive and negative modifiers, are always "optimal." The good thing about sliders is that they could both allow for a country's characteristics to be fleshed out from the start, while representing their ebb and flow over time. They were and will always remain far superior to Civ-like idea groups in that regard.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
User4035 said:
I suggested tactics a LONG time ago where you could tell your army to be defensive, be aggressive, use guerrilla warfare, etc... And these tactics would affect the time the battle took as well. 2 armies that both have aggressive would be a quick battle with the phases doing lots of dmg. 2 armies both selecting defensive would take longer and the phases do less dmg. Guerrilla warfare could not be used on flat land, and it would take long time. etc... lots of fun stuff that is kinda simple to implement.
Click to expand...

Isn't this already what happens when you choose between, say, Galloglaigh Infantry and Men at Arms?

You could ask for even finer control, of course, but I wouldn't. Coarse control is the opposite of micromanagement. Micromanagement (as I suppose that you would agree) is not fun.
 
Last edited:
shasla6 said:
I really fail to see how sliders, which invariably (except with centralization/decentralization in some iterations) carried positive and negative modifiers, are always "optimal."
Click to expand...
*looks at Burgundy in unmodded Divine Wind*

Um, are you talking about the same game as me?
 
Does "Each time a province is looted" mean "Every time the loot-bar is fully drained" or "Every month while there is a hostile unit present and the loot-bar is not yet empty"?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Devastation is genius and prosperity is a good mechanic to encourage and help those trying to build tall. However I still HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE the last diary, the new ages system is garbage. This is not age of empires, PLEASE SCRAP THE AGE SYSTEM!
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Are those numbers (the percentage of devastation cause) are still correct? Scorched earth in my game only does 5% of devastation in an enemy province which is like way to low imho. I don't have an expansion btw.
 
hera52 said:
Are those numbers (the percentage of devastation cause) are still correct? Scorched earth in my game only does 5% of devastation in an enemy province which is like way to low imho. I don't have an expansion btw.
Click to expand...
This DD is prior to the 1.21 balance patch, and was written six months ago. It has changed since then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back