• 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.

EU4 - Development Diary - 9th of October 2018

Welcome all to today’s dev diary, where I’ll be covering the long-awaited Iberian and North African map update coming in the 1.28 ‘Spain’ update.

iberia_map.png


Nations released for the sake of example


As things currently stand, though as always things are subject to change before release, Iberia consists of 571 development over 63 provinces. This includes the Macaronesia area but now excludes Labourd, which has been returned to the French region.

In Aragon, the distinction between the Kingdom of Aragon, the Kingdom of Valencia, and the Principality of Catalonia has become more pronounced. Tarragona is now rightly in the Catalonia area, and the province of Valencia has been split so that Castello and Xativa have become separate provinces. Valencia itself has the potential to be a very rich city indeed, as the player’s actions can lead to it becoming a major producer of silk. The three major Balearic Islands have become provinces in and of themselves, linked together by a strait and comprising their own Area.

Likewise, Galicia has seen itself grow from 1 province to 4, and now has an Area all to itself.

Portugal and Granada have been gifted one additional province each: Aveiro and Malaga respectively.

Last but not least, many citizens of Navarra are looking a little confused as they wonder where their coastline has gone. Wedged between major powers and with no immediate means of escape over the ocean, Navarra will be a very challenging nation in 1.28.

New releasable nations:

Valencia: The Kingdom of Valencia was a major constituent part of the Crown of Aragon in 1444. In 1.28 the former kingdom of El Cid will be a releasable nation.

Asturias: The Kingdom of Asturias ceased to exist long before our start date, but it nicely fills the absence of releasable nations in the region.

morocco_map.png


I’ve also taken another look at North Africa. Here we can see several new provinces along the coast, including those belonging to new nations that can emerge during the game.

The province of Demnate allows a route through the Atlas mountains; a convenient shortcut and potentially a deadly choke-point.

The Canary Islands have been split between Gran Canaria and Tenerife to represent the somewhat incomplete Castilian conquest and colonization of the islands.

For the masochists among you who play as Granada, they now have a core on the province on Ceuta.

New releasable nations:

Salé and Tétouan: Home to some of the most infamous Barbary Pirates, these nations will be releasable in 1444, and may emerge dynamically in the course of the game in the style of Habsan.

fezzan_map.png


Finally, I’ve made some minor changes to the eastern Maghreb. The province of Kairwan has been added for Tunis, and the addition of Sabha has allowed a more aesthetic redrawing of Fezzan’s borders.

That’s all for today. Next week, @Groogy will reveal some of the new features coming in the as yet unnamed Immersion pack to be released alongside 1.28.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Comparing Gibraltar with Menorca then... even my town should be in the portuguese map... Gibraltar must be present, unless you want lose all Cádiz when you play thru the historical facts... maybe my town could be there Monte Gordo... and the second madeiran island, Porto Santo... and spliting Açores too, etc... XD
 
Please also look into the fact that sometimes Portugal cockblocks Castile by guaranteeing Granada making Castile unable to DOW Granada. I've also seen sometimes Portugal snatches Gibraltar away.
 
Comparing Gibraltar with Menorca then... even my town should be in the portuguese map... Gibraltar must be present, unless you want lose all Cádiz when you play thru the historical facts... maybe my town could be there Monte Gordo... and the second madeiran island, Porto Santo... and spliting Açores too, etc... XD
I am not very fond of doing tiny provinces. What I meant is that if Gibraltar is present, then Minorca should be too.
However I still think they should focus on important cities like Segovia, Santarem or Plasencia instead of irrelevant things like Ibiza.
 
Please also look into the fact that sometimes Portugal cockblocks Castile by guaranteeing Granada making Castile unable to DOW Granada. I've also seen sometimes Portugal snatches Gibraltar away.
This doesn't happen all that often, and EU4 is not supposed to exactly mirror history. Just before the game starts, Portugal had in fact considered attacking Gibraltar, but the expedition was cancelled due to bad weather. After the start of EU4 Portugal instead focussed on consolidating Ceuta in North Africa and increasing their influence in Castile (which would not be happy to see Portugal snatch Gibraltar), but it is plausible that in an alternate history they could have instead attack Gibraltar and Granada. I don't want to see EU4 become so railroaded that this cannot happen.
 
Have the developers confirmed if they are open to modifications (not just renamings)?
They only said that they aren't going to do large additions.

So, quite vague I'd say.

And yeah the silence is deafening...
 
We have another week of waiting ahead of us boys.
 
We have another week of waiting ahead of us boys.
That is only if the devs want to adress it, of course. They may be perfectly happy with the latest setup, for all we know. Or have time-constraints, or certain design-philosophies which go against more additions, or they might think we're annoying as Hell.

No clue.
 
Last edited:
That is only if the devs want to adress it, of course. They may be perfectly happy with the latest setup, for all we know. Or have time-constraints, or certain design-philosophies which go against more additions, or they might think we're annoying as Hell.

No clue.
They are all equally possible ahahah. But if they leave it as is I'm hoping new mechanics/features/events will compensate.
 
They are all equally possible ahahah. But if they leave it as is I'm hoping new mechanics/features/events will compensate.
I disagree, there are still some glaring mistakes that have to be fixed.

We're talking mistakes here, not a conflict in philosophy or design-decisions. Especially in the Maghreb, which we haven't had an update on.

And, yes, some additions would be nice, too. But mistakes should be fixed first.
 
I disagree, there are still some glaring mistakes that have to be fixed.

We're talking mistakes here, not a conflict in philosophy or design-decisions. Especially in the Maghreb, which we haven't had an update on.

And, yes, some additions would be nice, too. But mistakes should be fixed first.
Sorry I didn't really get my point across, not talking about that. I meant only the map additions to Iberia itself and province wise - mistakes have to be addressed of course. City positioning and otherwise, everything you pointed out before (can't speak on the Maghreb not enough expertise on it).
 
That is only if the devs want to adress it, of course. They may be perfectly happy with the latest setup, for all we know. Or have time-constraints, or certain design-philosophies which go against more additions, or they might think we're annoying as Hell.

No clue.
All of them can be possible. But, for the record, we wouldn' have been that annoying if they had given the same love to Iberia they did to the British Isles, India and the Middle East
 
All of them can be possible. But, for the record, we wouldn' have been that annoying if they had given the same love to Iberia they did to the British Isles, India and the Middle East
Can't agree more.

At least those maps had significant research put into them. I don't have that feeling this time, because of the following reasons:

- The Poland-patch already had some glaring mistakes which were very obvious and adressed by me and a few others. Jake replied, saying that they had no time to implement feedback. I understand that. There was even a thread about Poland, which also warned about the Red Ruthenian region and all of its geographic errors. Months before the update itself, even. You'd expect the devs to be more careful next time, wouldn't you?

- The earliest version included/still includes minor towns/villages like Aveiro, Vigo, Albacete and Huelva... While the latter two were villages that quickly became big cities, I still can't shake the feeling that a more modern map has been used, as all the mentioned cities are pretty important nowadays while they were very small in 1444. This wouldn't be a problem if actual important cities were adressed and included, first.

- Lleida. Luckily got adressed quite quickly, but couldn't have been placed more wrong initially.

- There were multiple threads on Iberia which highlighted several hypothetical problems and also discussed different user-propositions. So, a load of good feedback which could've been used as homework for this upcoming patch, as the threads have been there for a while now and were quite popular. How could this have been missed? Whole maps and sources were posted over there.

- Xátiva is maybe the only 'original' province that wasn't mentioned in the mapsuggestion-threads, but got mentioned in another thread about the Valencian tradegood. So, it's not even that original:
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...-good-in-valencia-copied-from-reddit.1110624/

- Communication on the subject has been quite low since last wednesday. Feedback doesn't get adressed or challenged as specifically as I'd like it, either. So, it's starting to become a one-sided discussion. I've put hours of my own free time into making solutions which can be easily transported to the game. I've been tagging the devs endlessly (hopefully not annoyed them too much). At least let me know what you think except for only "we've seen it"s.


So, I can't help but draw the conclusion that only some modern-map looking has been done as well as a very quick read through some suggestions. It wasn't the thorough research I usually expect from the likes of Trin (why'd you go to Imperator...) and this has made me quite sad. I hope the devs learn from this and can still adress this.
 
Last edited:
Can't agree more.

At least those maps had significant research put into them. I don't have that feeling this time, because of the following reasons:

- The Poland-patch already had some glaring mistakes which were very obvious and adressed by me and a few others. Jake replied, saying that they had no time to implement feedback. I understand that. But at least you'd expect the devs to be more careful next time?

- The earliest version included/still includes minor towns/villages like Aveiro, Vigo, Albacete and Huelva... While the latter two were villages that quickly became big cities, I still can't shake the feeling that a more modern map has been used, as all the mentioned cities are pretty important nowadays while they were very small in 1444. This wouldn't be a problem if actual important cities were adressed and included, first.

- Lleida. Luckily got adressed quite quickly, but couldn't have been placed more wrong initially.

- There were multiple threads on Iberia which highlighted several hypothetical problems and also discussed different user-propositions. So, a load of good feedback which could've been used as homework for this upcoming patch, as the threads have been there for a while now and were quite popular. How could this have been missed? Whole maps and sources were posted over there.

- Xátiva is maybe the only 'original' province that wasn't mentioned in the mapsuggestion-threads, but got mentioned in another thread about the Valencian tradegood:
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...-good-in-valencia-copied-from-reddit.1110624/

- Communication on the subject has been quite low since last wednesday. Feedback doesn't get adressed or challenged as specifically as I'd like it, either. So, it's starting to become a one-sided discussion. I've put hours of my own free time into making solutions which can be easily transported to the game. I've been tagging the devs endlessly. At least let me know what you think except for only "we've seen it"s.


So, I can't help but draw the conclusion that only some modern-map looking has been done as well as a very quick read through some suggestions. It wasn't the thorough research I usually expect from the likes of Trin (why'd you go to Imperator...) and this has made me quite sad.
Trin definitely was great at communicating with the community and getting some minor mistakes corrected quickly: for example, I made a thread in the Suggestions forum a while back noting that the terrain in Beira was wrong (I think it used to be plains) and it was quietly corrected in the next patch.
 
Can't agree more.

At least those maps had significant research put into them. I don't have that feeling this time, because of the following reasons:

- The Poland-patch already had some glaring mistakes which were very obvious and adressed by me and a few others. Jake replied, saying that they had no time to implement feedback. I understand that. But at least you'd expect the devs to be more careful next time?

- The earliest version included/still includes minor towns/villages like Aveiro, Vigo, Albacete and Huelva... While the latter two were villages that quickly became big cities, I still can't shake the feeling that a more modern map has been used, as all the mentioned cities are pretty important nowadays while they were very small in 1444. This wouldn't be a problem if actual important cities were adressed and included, first.

- Lleida. Luckily got adressed quite quickly, but couldn't have been placed more wrong initially.

- There were multiple threads on Iberia which highlighted several hypothetical problems and also discussed different user-propositions. So, a load of good feedback which could've been used as homework for this upcoming patch, as the threads have been there for a while now and were quite popular. How could this have been missed? Whole maps and sources were posted over there.

- Xátiva is maybe the only 'original' province that wasn't mentioned in the mapsuggestion-threads, but got mentioned in another thread about the Valencian tradegood:
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...-good-in-valencia-copied-from-reddit.1110624/

- Communication on the subject has been quite low since last wednesday. Feedback doesn't get adressed or challenged as specifically as I'd like it, either. So, it's starting to become a one-sided discussion. I've put hours of my own free time into making solutions which can be easily transported to the game. I've been tagging the devs endlessly. At least let me know what you think except for only "we've seen it"s.


So, I can't help but draw the conclusion that only some modern-map looking has been done as well as a very quick read through some suggestions. It wasn't the thorough research I usually expect from the likes of Trin (why'd you go to Imperator...) and this has made me quite sad.


A simple glance at the MEIOU map alone would be enough to see a more carefully-done job.
 
Trin definitely was great at communicating with the community and getting some minor mistakes corrected quickly: for example, I made a thread in the Suggestions forum a while back noting that the terrain in Beira was wrong (I think it used to be plains) and it was quietly corrected in the next patch.
As well as the flag for Dithmarschen, the Korea update during Mandate of Heaven, the quick update to mistakes in Tibet... (not all of them by Trin, of course)

Probably even more I can't remember.

@Thrudgelmir2333 Could you show us that map? I'm curious. And, yeah, there was enough reference-material out there.
 
As well as the flag for Dithmarschen, the Korea update during Mandate of Heaven, the quick update to mistakes in Tibet... (not all of them by Trin, of course)

Probably even more I can't remember.

@Thrudgelmir2333 Could you show us that map? I'm curious. And, yeah, there was enough reference-material out there.

41fe3uf3b5oz.png


I could only find a diplomacy lense, sorry. IMO, though, this one is 95% ideal (would tweak a couple of border details and names)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.