Hello everybody, and welcome to the first development diary for Europa Universalis IV. We've been working on this project for quite a long time, with the first design dicussions starting not long after Divine Wind was released. During last year we spent a lot of time working on the design concepts, and late in 2011, the core team was assembled, and actual development started.

Earlier this month, we announced the game at Gamescom, and showed a minor subset of the features for the game. Today we start a series of weekly development diaries where we'll go into detail about the game. Our goal is to release an entry each friday, with breaks for holidays.

The subject of todays diary is 'Why do Europa Universalis IV and what is our goal with the game?'.

Why are we working on a sequel to Europa Universalis?

Well, first of all, the team we are all major fans of this series, with me personally being the core guy behind the original game, back in the late 90's, and the others being involved for quite a lot of time on it. We are a group who love playing Europa Universalis (EU), both in singleplayer and in multiplayer together, so you could definitely say it is the favorite series for the people working on Europa Universalis IV.

Originally EU1 started development in 1997, EU2 in 2001, EU3 started in 2005, so we were overdue a new take on the genre. During those years we've accumulated quite a lot of ideas, and discarded far more. We've come to understand what Europa Universalis is about for a lot of people, and what it means for ourselves.

One important thing though, is that while we had lots of cool and interesting ideas for EU, we simply couldn't just add them all in, as the game would become an unwieldly mass. EU has a complexity level we do not want to dramatically increase and while improving the interface can reduce it a fair bit, it is a very fine balance when it comes to designing a game.

So we took a step back and looked at what Europa Universalis was and what we wanted to do, and since its a new game, we had quite a large amount of flexibility. We could rewrite entire systems from scratch, and do some paradigm shifts. One such example is the complete removal of the old trade system with centers of trade, which was replaced with a new trade system with dynamic flow of trade. This flexibility has been a great benefit when it comes to designing the game.


So then, what is our goal with Europa Universalis IV?

In all our games we aim to have believable mechanics. When playing a Grand Strategy game it should be about immersion and suspension of disbelief. You should feel like you are playing a country in the time period. This is something all our EU games have managed to achieve, and it is very important that EU4 will have that same feeling.

The game should, as we mentioned earlier, not increase its complexity levels dramatically. We are happy with the level of complexity the Eu-series has, and want to keep it at this level.

One of the most important aspects of EU4 is to make an interface that is both easier to get into, and less hassle for an expert user. This a fine line to balance, and we are rather happy with the interfaces we have done so far for EU4.

We also want to make sure that players feel that this is a new game, that this is worth paying money for, and this comes from new mechanics and better interfaces. With detailed dev-diaries every week until release, we are rather confident that you'll all be excited about it when its finally ready.

So, now we've just talked about history and visions, I'll try to clarify a confusion about sandbox, historical events and plausibility. Europa Universalis have always been about historically plausible outcomes, as I mentioned over six years ago , and EU4 is no different in that regard. No determenism or full sandbox will ever be in the EU series. In EU3 we scrapped historical events and added lots and lots of system and mechanics to create more plausible gameplay. While we are continuing on that concept and keep making more plausible mechanics, we are in EU4 doing something new...

We'e adding in Dynamic Historical Events. We'll have more of those than we had historical in EU2, and together with a fair amount of other planned features, this is creating an even more immersive type of gameplay, where countries feel far more unique than they did in any previous game in the series. A 'dynamic historical event', or DHE for short, is an event that has some rather rigid triggers that they feel plausible to happen with, ie, no Spanish Bankruptcy just because its a certain date, but events that tie into mechanics rather heavily.

The example I want to talk about is War of the Roses for England. At any point of time, before 1500, if England lacks an heir, then the chain for War of the Roses can start, which creates a lot of interesting situations for the player, as well as giving unique historical immersion.

Next week we'll talk more about the map, so enjoy for now!

 

[Evie HJ]

It failed precisely because of the philosophy behind the game, which was a mod's philosophy.

A mod CAN afford to add hundreds of features, and keep adding more, and keep pushing back release to add more. A mod CAN releaes unfinished features.
A game cannot. A game has to limit the features to what can be completed within the relatively short (compared to the years of a mod) feature design phase of the game, before the bewta testing and anything else. A game cannot be repeatedly pushed back.

The design philosophy for a mod is often based on infinite resources in terms of time and money. That for a game has to start from finite resources for both.

And that's what many of the people here asking for detailed generic events seems to have a hard time grasping. The amount of effort needed to even approximate the sort of detailed generic events (and not all of them were generic) that the great EU3 mods gave us, and still make them flavorful, is painfully staggering. It's something a mod with its infinite man/hours of available work, might do, so long as there's a modder somewhere willing to do it. On the opposite end, a game design team, with finite man/hours available, is going to focus on the most efficient way to deliver the most they can.

Here, Paradox apparently felt this was DHE. That, given everything I know about flavor in events, and event coding - and I know a fair bit - seems very accurate to me.

 

[Svip]

Back to DHE's, then I do think there is a point with DHE actually giving you a lack of choices if you play a specific tag. It sounds odd in a way to say that flavour gives you a lack of choices, but it is nonetheless true. I found the example of Russia especially good. EU3 is a 'what-if' kind of game, so what if Novgorod had gathered the Russian states? What if they had left Poland to fight the nomads as the Russians focused around trading in the Baltic? Decisions and other kind of flavour that contradict such a shift in history is detrimental to immersion. Flavour might give a lack in freedom because the flavour added is tuned to world history, and not your history, and if previous games are to be taken as an example then they do take away the generic events from the nation (if only the one they got flavoured).

That's assuming there won't be plausible DAHEs. Which - of course - I do not know if there are. But imagine that the Spanish Bankruptcy is more severe than a regular bankruptcy, would you not - as Spain - try to avoid that then?

 

[Sotof]

That's assuming there won't be plausible DAHEs. Which - of course - I do not know if there are. But imagine that the Spanish Bankruptcy is more severe than a regular bankruptcy, would you not - as Spain - try to avoid that then?

Yes it is assuming exactly that, and of course you try to avoid the negative events, but a positive thing such as forming Russia? No.

 

[Svip]

Yes it is assuming exactly that, and of course you try to avoid the negative events, but a positive thing such as forming Russia? No.

But how else would you do that? Of course you would want to form Russia. Unless you are a silly like me, who prefers to have 'lesser' nation's names written across the globe. But forming Russia is not a DHE, but a decision.

 

[Sotof]

But how else would you do that? Of course you would want to form Russia. Unless you are a silly like me, who prefers to have 'lesser' nation's names written across the globe. But forming Russia is not a DHE, but a decision.

The things are interconnected, good Svip. I see most flavour (DHE, decisions, etc.) as part of the same thing - they are there for the same reason. The decision to form the Russian nation in EU3 tries to force you along a historic path (you get cores all over the Golden Horde), which I honestly do not think you should. You should get cores in russian-cultured provinces.

Some decisions, I think, were also done in a quite awful way in EU3 as they were massively powerful, but also based on culture, thus were not available to other nations - even if it would make sense. I would hope that some generic events/decisions/etc. rectifies this - as I see it - grievous oversight in EU4.

 

[Svip]

The things are interconnected, good Svip. I see most flavour (DHE, decisions, etc.) as part of the same thing - they are there for the same reason. The decision to form the Russian nation in EU3 tries to force you along a historic path (you get cores all over the Golden Horde), which I honestly do not think you should. You should get cores in russian-cultured provinces.

So you do not disagree that there should be a 'form Russia' decision, you just disagree with how it was done in EU3?

Some decisions, I think, were also done in a quite awful way in EU3 as they were massively powerful, but also based on culture, thus were not available to other nations - even if it would make sense. I would hope that some generic events/decisions/etc. rectifies this - as I see it - grievous oversight in EU4.

I think a decision to form a nation should be available to all countries that control enough, but there should be negative consequences if your country is not the same culture. Imagine Denmark controlling enough to form Germany, surely that could be seen as a setback for Denmark, as Germans are not keen on a Danish leader (or Denmark itself adopting another culture's pan-nationalism).

 

[Tornadoli]

Because that would be impossible to do. At least the DHEs adds some flavours, just DEs makes the game as bland as EU3.

How does adding random events that just happened to have happened in reality add to "flavor"? Flavor would be for instance colonies named in your country's language, or some unique system that existed in your country (eg. the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). But just adding some historical events that happened as events with strict modifiers is just railroading.

But how else would you do that? Of course you would want to form Russia. Unless you are a silly like me, who prefers to have 'lesser' nation's names written across the globe. But forming Russia is not a DHE, but a decision.

But what if you don't want to form Russia? Someone gave an example of Novgorod become some kind of Baltic trading empire, and why not? But with the DHEs, you will most likely get railroaded to either lose against Muscovy, or to form Russia.

 

[Svip]

How does adding random events that just happened to have happened in reality add to "flavor"? Flavor would be for instance colonies named in your country's language, or some unique system that existed in your country (eg. the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). But just adding some historical events that happened as events with strict modifiers is just railroading.

Yeah, but that would be impractical. I cannot determine how much it will railway gameplay for each country, with the little information I have right now. Who knows, maybe it is actually hard to get 'The War of the Roses' or 'Spanish Bankruptcy', because it is more than just a civil war or a bankruptcy, and requires the player to have made several decisions, that the player cannot know, because they are DHEs, not decisions.

But what if you don't want to form Russia? Someone gave an example of Novgorod become some kind of Baltic trading empire, and why not? But with the DHEs, you will most likely get railroaded to either lose against Muscovy, or to form Russia.

I don't see why DHEs would necessarily do that, surely you would oppose remove the decision to form Russia entirely. DHEs does not sound like a necessary requirement for an interesting gameplay, and given how little we know about them, I feel it might be too early to jump to conclusions.

I concur there are ways that DHEs could be badly implemented (e.g. if they overshadow DEs), but there are plenty of ways they could be a terrific addition to the game (such as the addition of DAHEs).

But you have to remember, that unlike decisions, you do not know what the triggers are for DHEs unless you check the files. And if you just check the files, then yeah, sure, you are playing to win.

 

[Tornadoli]

(such as the addition of DAHEs).

I suppose this mean Dynamic Alternate History Events. That would indeed be great, but let's face it - Paradox can't code events for every single possible alternate history event. Also, even if they could, a game ruled by events is a bit boring. Which is why I said that mechanics should rule (by far): instead of for instance code separate "Bankruptcy" events for every single nation with lots and lots of flavor, and different effects for every possible reason that bankruptcy could arise, it's far easier to implement a bankruptcy mechanic (I am aware such a mechanic exists, but it's for illustration purposes). That's my point of mechanics > events.

 

[Svip]

I suppose this mean Dynamic Alternate History Events. That would indeed be great, but let's face it - Paradox can't code events for every single possible alternate history event. Also, even if they could, a game ruled by events is a bit boring. Which is why I said that mechanics should rule (by far): instead of for instance code separate "Bankruptcy" events for every single nation with lots and lots of flavor, and different effects for every possible reason that bankruptcy could arise, it's far easier to implement a bankruptcy mechanic (I am aware such a mechanic exists, but it's for illustration purposes). That's my point of mechanics > events.

Yeah, but mechanics was what we had in EU3. What do we get in EU4? Just more mechanics? I have nothing against mechanics (in fact, I prefer them), but DHEs seems like a nice addition to the more bland mechanics, which makes the game seem less like a sandbox and more like history.

 

[Tornadoli]

Yeah, but mechanics was what we had in EU3. What do we get in EU4? Just more mechanics? I have nothing against mechanics (in fact, I prefer them), but DHEs seems like a nice addition to the more bland mechanics, which makes the game seem less like a sandbox and more like history.

Isn't that the problem though? Does the majority really want a game to be more like history? Most people probably play in an alternate history fashion. I think the most preferable option for everyone is a plausible not historical game. Unfortunately, DHEs don't contribute to plausibility (unless you'd add millions of alternate history ones too), but only to make it more railroaded and hence "historical" - which is great for the few who want history to be re-enacted every time they launch EU3, but not so good for those who want to play their countries, and see a different, yet plausible, history develop.

 

[Svip]

Isn't that the problem though? Does the majority really want a game to be more like history? Most people probably play in an alternate history fashion. I think the most preferable option for everyone is a plausible not historical game. Unfortunately, DHEs don't contribute to plausibility (unless you'd add millions of alternate history ones too), but only to make it more railroaded and hence "historical" - which is great for the few who want history to be re-enacted every time they launch EU3, but not so good for those who want to play their countries, and see a different, yet plausible, history develop.

People want a middle ground. They don't want the full determinism as it was in EU2, but neither do they want the full 'everything is possible' EU3 sandbox gameplay.

Since it is unreasonable for them to create as many events and items as it would require to achieve something like Magna Mundi - and as Guillaume HJ correctly noted, this is what killed Magna Mundi in the end - it makes sense for them to do something less significant to man hours and create DHEs.

 

[Tornadoli]

People want a middle ground. They don't want the full determinism as it was in EU2, but neither do they want the full 'everything is possible' EU3 sandbox gameplay.

Indeed, which is what I meant by plausibility - not everything is possible. But, plausibility =/= railroading. There are many different possible paths, all of which are plausible. Paradox, by creating DHEs, favors the historical path by far (since the other ones aren't as "fleshed out"), which creates a kind of railroading.

 

[Svip]

Indeed, which is what I meant by plausibility - not everything is possible. But, plausibility =/= railroading. There are many different possible paths, all of which are plausible. Paradox, by creating DHEs, favors the historical path by far (since the other ones aren't as "fleshed out"), which creates a kind of railroading.

Maybe, if they are that dull. But I am willing to give Paradox the benefit of the doubt that DHEs will be an interesting addition.

And there is already a natural form of railwaying in EU3, because people tend to like to play a country historical (and sometimes not). I have no problem with there being some awards for playing historically, because that alone is hard.

 

[Dafool]

Tornadoli, I've still yet to see most of your accusations about developer laziness and railroading of the game be backed up by anything other than your own opinions. People have even gone as far as to quote the developers saying the opposite of you're suggesting. I really think you're stretching your own opinions over what little information we have without any real reasoning. I suggest you wait and see what further information comes up in future DD's and elsewhere before you pull out your "The End is Nigh" sign and start shouting on the corner.

 

[Tornadoli]

Tornadoli, I've still yet to see most of your accusations about developer laziness and railroading of the game be backed up by anything other than your own opinions. People have even gone as far as to quote the developers saying the opposite of you're suggesting. I really think you're stretching your own opinions over what little information we have without any real reasoning. I suggest you wait and see what further information comes up in future DD's and elsewhere before you pull out your "The End is Nigh" sign and start shouting on the corner.

I am not. I'm only using the information from this DD, and I am against DHEs as presented here, because they DO mean some kind of railroading. Furthermore, it isn't about laziness, but just about the impossibility of the developers coding millions of alternate history events, which in my opinion would be better served with mechanics.

 

[Dafool]

I am not. I'm only using the information from this DD, and I am against DHEs as presented here, because they DO mean some kind of railroading.

Then can you please direct me to part of the DD, or anywhere else for that matter, where PI has explicitly stated that these events are there to railroad the game, because I'm seeing these kinds of things:

"Europa Universalis have always been about historically plausible outcomes"
"No determenism or full sandbox will ever be in the EU series"
"At any point of time, before 1500, if England lacks an heir, then the chain for War of the Roses can start"
"The aim is to make each country feel different without railroading them"
"These historical events will pop up when they're supposed to, but you will be free to make your own hist"
"The game is not going back to the determinism of EU II"
"EU 4 will have the same open outcomes as EU3"

These are all from the DD or what the Devs have already said. I don't see any indication that these events will railroad your nation anymore than any other generic event. This is especially true since we know that events like the War of the Roses are simply a specific version of the civil war event made for England, so anyone could experience that same thing.

Furthermore, it isn't about laziness, but just about the impossibility of the developers coding millions of alternate history events, which in my opinion would be better served with mechanics.

What mechanics do you have in mind that would work better? Because the developers have already mentioned a few new ones and have also mentioned how the events are based off of the game mechanics. If you can't give a better solution other than "I don't like this system, they should do something different", then you're really just complaining for the sake of complaining.

 

[Cybvep]

The discussion about the mechanics is moot, because we don't know much about it. All the devs said is that we shouldn't expect a revolution. That may be good or bad, it's hard to say ATM.

 

[leggbros]

I have read most of this thread and I am not remotely convinced by your points Tornadoli. You are speculating so wildly on how you think this game will turn out (and I'm going to guess you are wrong on most of it) and you are arguing against adding a feature that would be popular among many. You seem to misunderstand the term railroading. If I am doing fantastic as Spain and my economy is great, yet I get the event for bankruptcy, that is railroading. Having a goal there to achieve isn't railroading, you don't have to go for it. In fact the only DHEs that have been mentioned are a bankruptcy and a civil war, two things I will definitely try not to have happen to me. Did you mention what your thoughts were on decisions in EU3? Good, bad?

Exactly my point. (You are agreeing with me, right?) Although not STRICTLY deterministic, the player is still being railroaded to go historical. Imagine a shooting game released, where you can either take the left door or the right door. The left door promises you lots of cool guns, cool missions, etc., while the right door is a huge landscape with nothing to do. Sure, you have the choice, but you're still being kind of railroaded.

What are you saying here? Does the left door represent events? Yes I would take the left door 99% of the time. So are you saying everyone should be forced to take the right door with you being bored together because you don't like what's behind the left door? You need to explain this point to me. Why is it detrimental for anyone if the left door exists?

Hey, who do you think you are that you can just insult people? If you are so braindead that you cannot understand my point that in my opinion (you also seem too ignorant to understand that people can have different opinions), mechanics are more important than events, then perhaps it is time to stop.

Also, reported to mods. I don't come here to be insulted by some insecure poster who thinks he is someone special.

I might have missed it but was I the only one who enjoyed him complaining about being insulted and then immediately proceeds to call the other person "braindead", "ignorant" and "insecure"?

 

[Svip]

I might have missed it but was I the only one who enjoyed him complaining about being insulted and then immediately proceeds to call the other person "braindead", "ignorant" and "insecure"?

Since none of those labels fit me, I did not feel need to be offended.