• 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.
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?'.

attachment.php




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!


attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • packshot.jpg
    packshot.jpg
    202,1 KB · Views: 180.686
  • office.JPG
    office.JPG
    423,5 KB · Views: 42.043
Last edited by a moderator:
What I like about this:
- DHE --> More historical flavor, but not railroading sounds excellent
- All of the events from EU3 are retained --> No massive loss of content because you go from a game with a couple of expansion to a bare new vanilla (I'm looking at you, Civ). Also really great news for modders.

What I don't like:
-

What I'm hoping for:
- Completely unrelated, but I'd really like to see multiple flags per tag as in Vicky2, depending on form of government or dynasty etc.
 
That will SUCK. This isn't plausibility; it is determinism. There should be generic civil war events, which could trigger for all countries (maybe add some unique "War of Roses" text for England to satisfy the uber-historical crowd). Now people will just work toward fulfilling the triggers to get those historical events, which is not how history worked. People often didn't know what something would cause in the future. This decision will make EU4 very boring and bland actually.

The presence of a War of the Roses event for England doesn't mean there won't be more generic civil war events for other countries. And hopefully MTTH will be in place meaning that even if the triggers for a DHE are met it won't be guaranteed to occur.
 
That will SUCK. This isn't plausibility; it is determinism. There should be generic civil war events, which could trigger for all countries (maybe add some unique "War of Roses" text for England to satisfy the uber-historical crowd). Now people will just work toward fulfilling the triggers to get those historical events, which is not how history worked. People often didn't know what something would cause in the future. This decision will make EU4 very boring and bland actually.

What makes you think people will do that? Personally in EU I always play to benefit myself the most, and see what result I get (I might lose it all or go far off the historical course). Problem here is, there's an entire game already for the "sandbox crowd", that includes events. You still have those, they are still dynamic - they just aren't history specific. What you are in fact asking for is more of what you already have, whereas DHEs are a new middle-line approach to creating an immersive experience.
 
That will SUCK. This isn't plausibility; it is determinism. There should be generic civil war events, which could trigger for all countries (maybe add some unique "War of Roses" text for England to satisfy the uber-historical crowd). Now people will just work toward fulfilling the triggers to get those historical events, which is not how history worked. People often didn't know what something would cause in the future. This decision will make EU4 very boring and bland actually.

This is how decisions work in EU3 (people working toward fulfilling the requirements) but I wouldn't say that it makes the game boring (a bit repetitive maybe). And I'm not sure if anyone would actually want to experience the War of the Roses more than once - after all it's a civil wor.

But hey, why ponder what-if scenarios? Why not add War of the Roses in 5.2 beta so that we may all form an informed opinion on the issue?
 
Which dislike? I think Poland-Lithauina should be a natural choice for one of the big eight, seeing how they were a quite important during the entire time period, compared to Prussia which only was important during the very end of the game.

I doubt it. This is Johan's comment on why Poland-Lithuania didn't get lucky nation slot back in EU3, as opposed to Prussia - http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?361610-Historical-lucky-nations&p=8612311&viewfull=1#post8612311
 
That will SUCK. This isn't plausibility; it is determinism. There should be generic civil war events, which could trigger for all countries (maybe add some unique "War of Roses" text for England to satisfy the uber-historical crowd). Now people will just work toward fulfilling the triggers to get those historical events, which is not how history worked. People often didn't know what something would cause in the future. This decision will make EU4 very boring and bland actually.

From what I understand, DHE complement general events, they don't replace them. In your example, if X happens to you in any other country, you get a civil war.
However, if X happen to you, and you're playing England and you fulfill some other focusing trigger like it being after 1500 or whatever, you will get the special flavor series of events of "War of Roses". Because then it makes sense.

I think it's a cool idea and it addresses how in the previous games, events were either too restrictive and illogical, or too open and generic. It's a mix of both worlds that will hopefully strike a nice balance.
 
Lucky and full of flavour are not the same. Byzantium has never been one of the lucky nations, yet it gets lots of flavour.

We'll see. If they'll succeed at simulating Commonwealth's political system, with foreign monarchs being elected, scheming magnates, rebellious Cossacks, and general difficulty to centralise power in order to survive - that would be awesome!

Lord Tywin said:
Well there's quite the difference between being a lucky nation and having a lot of flavour. Why do you think that these big 8 will be the lucky nations?


Johan said:
I said 8 countries are important for us... their performance is what drives the eu experience.

I suspect that Johan means big 8 blobs of late 18th century. Whole 'more historical' model seems to be aiming at recreating them. Add to that his comment that PLC was basically destined to be unlucky.
 
Last edited:
We'll see. If they'll succeed at simulating Commonwealth's political system, with foreign monarchs being elected, scheming magnates, rebellious Cossacks, and general difficulty to centralise power in order to survive - that would be awesome!

I suspect that Johan means big 8 blobs of late 18th century.

You're probably right and there certainly is no hope for the Commonwealth getting any flavour on release, but there might possibly be some hope for an odd event here or there in one of the DLC.

By the way: could we get a suggest events thread like the one we had for EU3 5.1?
 
Other than everything it had in EU3 of course.

Two decisions (one of which was just a free capital move) and a bunch of missions, most of which didn't work properly until DW patches or have requirements that make them almost impossible. Boy, what an "everything" that is.
 
What makes you think people will do that? Personally in EU I always play to benefit myself the most, and see what result I get (I might lose it all or go far off the historical course). Problem here is, there's an entire game already for the "sandbox crowd", that includes events. You still have those, they are still dynamic - they just aren't history specific. What you are in fact asking for is more of what you already have, whereas DHEs are a new middle-line approach to creating an immersive experience.

It's not a middle-line. Events that happened in history are just one possibility out of almost infinity that could happen. By only including historical events, like the War of the Roses, you make following the historical path more fun. This turns the game into a more-or-less deterministic game (in Hearts of Iron, you could also not go historical, but then the game turned very bland). I mean, any country could have had a "War of ..." event happening, it just turns out that it was England in our timeline. Paradox is obviously bending toward the tiny deterministic crowd (just because it is over-represented in these threads doesn't mean anything - interest groups always shout louder than anyone else), which will turn into a disappointment for people who want to play a game and actually have fun by trying an alternate history.
 
Two decisions (one of which was just a free capital move) and a bunch of missions, most of which didn't work properly until DW patches or have requirements that make them almost impossible. Boy, what an "everything" that is.

Let's see your critically acclaimed Grand Strategy game?

Europa Universalis III has plenty of historic plausibility, and if hundreds of people, (myself included), have played this game for hundreds of hours, then it is obviously good. Seldom do people give credit where it is due anymore...
 
Let's see your critically acclaimed Grand Strategy game?

Europa Universalis III has plenty of historic plausibility, and if hundreds of people, (myself included), have played this game for hundreds of hours, then it is obviously good. Seldom do people give credit where it is due anymore...

You might have wanted to quote someone else, because I totally agree that EU3 is a great game. Please relieve your anger on someone else.

It's not a middle-line. Events that happened in history are just one possibility out of almost infinity that could happen. By only including historical events, like the War of the Roses, you make following the historical path more fun. This turns the game into a more-or-less deterministic game (in Hearts of Iron, you could also not go historical, but then the game turned very bland). I mean, any country could have had a "War of ..." event happening, it just turns out that it was England in our timeline. Paradox is obviously bending toward the tiny deterministic crowd (just because it is over-represented in these threads doesn't mean anything - interest groups always shout louder than anyone else), which will turn into a disappointment for people who want to play a game and actually have fun by trying an alternate history.

Consider this from a different angle: they included most of EU3's events and only added the nation-specific stuff on top of that. Is EU3's collection of events not enough to create an interesting gameplay experience? If it's enough for EU3 then it will also be for EU4 and I'm sure they'll add a bunch of generic events as well, making the not-big-8 countries even more interesting than they any EU3 nation.
 
English is Johan's second language. If you get a kick out of insulting non-native's English grammar, feel free to post something in Swedish so that we can all pick holes in it.

I'm not insulting some random dude writing some random post at the forum.

Paradox is a company, trying to get our money in exchange of their stuff.
I would like that stuff to be of good quality, while their previous record was... mixed.

I can criticize their stuff on the virtue of being paying customer. To expect me to post something in Swedish? Clear troll behaviour. You can be so proud of youself.
 
It's not a middle-line. Events that happened in history are just one possibility out of almost infinity that could happen. By only including historical events, like the War of the Roses, you make following the historical path more fun. This turns the game into a more-or-less deterministic game (in Hearts of Iron, you could also not go historical, but then the game turned very bland). I mean, any country could have had a "War of ..." event happening, it just turns out that it was England in our timeline. Paradox is obviously bending toward the tiny deterministic crowd (just because it is over-represented in these threads doesn't mean anything - interest groups always shout louder than anyone else), which will turn into a disappointment for people who want to play a game and actually have fun by trying an alternate history.

Yeah, like I wrote before- there's a risk that if you don't play your country historically, you'll miss out loads of content since DHE's triggers won't be met. This would restrict replayability, and well - make game predictable since player would know that some historical event may fire at given period with triggers ABC.

Seems like a step back.