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!

 

[DrLulz]

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?

Isn't it a bit early to say that? - I'm sure they'll get some flavour if nothing else then because the PLC-fanboys are almost as loud as the byzantine ones - also I didn't see Johan (or any other dev) say "Only 8 nations will get any form of love in EUIV all other nations will get no flavour whatsoever".

 

[DrLulz]

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.

Except EUIV is not like visiting a museum on a school-trip, where I absolutely HAVE to experience all the content. I would never play poorly to experience e.g. a civil war. I didn't lose on puprose in EU3 just to experience a revolution either, and I doubt many players will play with that attitude.

Of course you may have a point with positive events, which it would be logical to try to "have", but is that really so bad? Replayability is a particularly strong point in most paradox-games anyway, I'd gladly trade a little replayability for a lot of flavour.

 

[Tornadoli]

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.

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.

 

[Me_]

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.

People seem to make an awfull lot of assumptions about how strictly defined the DHE are. They seem to imply that:
a) only actual historical events will be included - I see no reason why there couldn't be alternate-history DAHE;
b) the events will be likely enough that a single playthrough will be enough to reliably experience all of them for a given nation;
c) pursuing the events will always be better than not pursuing them (War of the Roses was a civil war - some people don't like those);
d) there will be no future, the game will end forever on release date (no DLC).
I say let us test some of it in 5.2 so that we may make opinions based on experience rather than guessing.

Isn't it a bit early to say that? - I'm sure they'll get some flavour if nothing else then because the PLC-fanboys are almost as loud as the byzantine ones - also I didn't see Johan (or any other dev) say "Only 8 nations will get any form of love in EUIV all other nations will get no flavour whatsoever".

And yet it's Byzantines that get all the love. But on the whole I believe that it's better to have no hope and discover that there was room for hope after all than to have high hopes and see them crushed by reality. So no Commonwealth specific stuff is the safe bet.

 

[SerialCereal]

It was plausible. The mechanics and results were logical and fine.

Please dont call me a liar again.

I am merely voicing my entitled opinion. You only stated it in the way that you did to appease all parties, you can't honestly think that the game resembled any such state of a plausible world by the time you released the final version. Or at the very least, it certainly didn't resemble a sensible world, which in turn means it wasn't plausible.

 

[Melange_Thief]

To Johan: Thank you very much for this birthday present! My questions are: Will there be a few DHEs that apply to more than one tag, like a DHE for minor German or Italian countries? And will Japan be working the same as in DW?

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.

That's still not grounds for criticizing his English, let alone being rude about it. If they wanted this post to have perfect grammar, they could have hired some PR person who doesn't work on the game to deliver it. Wouldn't you rather have the developers themselves speaking directly to us and interacting with us, regardless of the slight imperfections of their English? And make no mistake, they speak English very well. You might have something of a point if the person posting this Dev Diary had such minimal English skills that it was actually difficult to comprehend them, but as far as I've seen that doesn't apply to any of the developers at Paradox. Besides, have you ever tried to learn a second language? It's bloody hard to become perfect even when you have a talent for learning languages AND you're learning a closely related, structurally similar language.

 

[Tornadoli]

a) only actuall historical events will be included - I see no reason why there couldn't be alternate-history DAHE;
b) the events will be likely enough that a single playthrough will be enough to reliably experience all of them for a given nation;
c) pursuing the events will always be better than not pursuing them (War of the Roses was a civil war - some people don't like those);
d) there will be no future, the game will end forever on release date (no DLC).

a) Johan said only England would get such an event, which implies that they are mostly historical.
b) I doubt that. They won't be able to add that many events, since we only have one history.
c) No! Pursuing stuff is BORING. I don't want to have a list of triggers to fulfill just so I can read some text and be so excited that I see what happened in real history (which I can check on wikipedia). I want to play a nation, and be surprised! I want to see the consequences of my actions, whether bad or good! I want to lead a nation however I want to! Knowing that if I do this, this and this, then that will happen is boring!
d) Oh, great. Why give any suggestions at all. Let them release a crappy game, as everything can be fixed with DLCs!


Fundamentally, I think many people seem to like the idea of an event driven game, where you go from one event to the other by fulfilling the triggers. Does really noone else want a game where MECHANICS, and not events, rule the game? The more events there are, the more it is like an interactive book. If I want to read a book, I read a book, and not play a game.

 

[Sotof]

Fundamentally, I think many people seem to like the idea of an event driven game, where you go from one event to the other by fulfilling the triggers. Does really noone else want a game where MECHANICS, and not events, rule the game? The more events there are, the more it is like an interactive book. If I want to read a book, I read a book, and not play a game.

Mechanics are a far better way to tell the story anyway, with a few events thrown in for context at times.

 

[unmerged(63836)]

People seem to make an awfull lot of assumptions about how strictly defined the DHE are. They seem to imply that:
a) only actual historical events will be included - I see no reason why there couldn't be alternate-history DAHE;
b) the events will be likely enough that a single playthrough will be enough to reliably experience all of them for a given nation;
c) pursuing the events will always be better than not pursuing them (War of the Roses was a civil war - some people don't like those);
d) there will be no future, the game will end forever on release date (no DLC).
I say let us test some of it in 5.2 so that we may make opinions based on experience rather than guessing.

Well, yeah - I don't exclude possibility that DHE system would work fine actually. I'm not pessimist. But from what we gathered so far DHE are historical not alt-historical, and dev diary says that game is not more complex than EU3. Thus, at this stage we can assume that there might be disparity between playing via historical path (and triggering rich amounts of interesting DHE's), and not playing via that path (similar gameplay to EU3, not more complex).

 

[Me_]

a) Johan said only England would get such an event, which implies that they are mostly historical..

No. If Johan said that England would only get this particular event then that would imply it's historical. As it stands right now there may very well be "War of the Lilies" event chain about a Roses-like conflict for France.

b) I doubt that. They won't be able to add that many events, since we only have one history.

So? Has creativity been turn off when I wasn't looking? Is history so devoid of interesting stuff that are rarely brought to light? What about the fact that if they made all the event fire 1 time in 1000 years on average then simple mathematic would lead us to conclude that the events will be unlikely enough that a single playthrough will not be enough to reliably experience all of them for a given nation.

c) No! Pursuing stuff is BORING. I don't want to have a list of triggers to fulfill just so I can read some text and be so excited that I see what happened in real history (which I can check on wikipedia). I want to play a nation, and be surprised! I want to see the consequences of my actions, whether bad or good! I want to lead a nation however I want to! Knowing that if I do this, this and this, then that will happen is boring!

Yet you assume that's how people will play the game.

d) Oh, great. Why give any suggestions at all. Let them release a crappy game, as everything can be fixed with DLCs!

That's not what I'm saying, only what you believe.

Fundamentally, I think many people seem to like the idea of an event driven game, where you go from one event to the other by fulfilling the triggers. Does really noone else want a game where MECHANICS, and not events, rule the game? The more events there are, the more it is like an interactive book. If I want to read a book, I read a book, and not play a game.

Mechanics increase the complexity of the game and Johan says they try to avoid that. Sure I'd prefer a full scale dynasty mechanics to a War of the Roses event chain but I know that the former is not going to hapen so I conclude that the latter is still better than nothing.

Well, yeah - I don't exclude possibility that DHE system would work fine actually. I'm not pessimist. But from what we gathered so far DHE are historical not alt-historical, and dev diary says that game is not more complex than EU3. Thus, at this stage we can assume that there might be disparity between playing via historical path (and triggering rich amounts of interesting DHE's), and not playing via that path (similar gameplay to EU3, not more complex).

We only have ONE example at this point. That is NOT enough to make any sensible assumptions, only speculation.

 

[Barnacle Bill]

I wonder how Poland(-Lithuania) would be modelled? Hopefully it wouldn't disappear early on replaced by event driven Prussia or something, but given general dislike that devs have - who knows?

While Poland(-Lithuania) historically didn't disappear "early", I think you could agree that it dropped out of the first rank of powers from the time of "the deluge" (a tad over half-way through the EU3 period with all the expansions). You stated in one of your other posts a lot of the factors behind that, and its ultimate inability to recover. As these things go, I think this is a case where generic modelling of the factors (in game terms low centralization in a multi-ethnic, multi-religious state) could probably produce a more or less historic result in most games with an AI-controlled Commonwealth. However, it is also a case where a player-controlled Commonwealth should be a very strong contender, and thus (IMO) worthy of a lot of attention by the Devs.

Of course, a lot actually depends on player demand (as percieved by the Dev's). What you call Byzantine & Prussian "fan boys" are to Paradox "customers". If Ulm had an an enthusiastic & vocal contingent of such fan boys on the forum, I imagine Paradox would me motivated to meet the demand. The squeaky wheel gets the grease - so keep squeaking

 

[Avindian]

Absolutely fantastic news, and I'm delighted we're starting this early!

 

[Me_]

While Poland(-Lithuania) historically didn't disappear "early", I think you could agree that it dropped out of the first rank of powers from the time of "the deluge" (a tad over half-way through the EU3 period with all the expansions). You stated in one of your other posts a lot of the factors behind that, and its ultimate inability to recover. As these things go, I think this is a case where generic modelling of the factors (in game terms low centralization in a multi-ethnic, multi-religious state) could probably produce a more or less historic result in most games with an AI-controlled Commonwealth. However, it is also a case where a player-controlled Commonwealth should be a very strong contender, and thus (IMO) worthy of a lot of attention by the Devs.

Of course, a lot actually depends on player demand (as percieved by the Dev's). What you call Byzantine & Prussian "fan boys" are to Paradox "customers". If Ulm had an an enthusiastic & vocal contingent of such fan boys on the forum, I imagine Paradox would me motivated to meet the demand. The squeaky wheel gets the grease - so keep squeaking

I guess the problem is that Paradox does not sell their products directly in Poland, only through third parties, so they don't care much for that market.

 

[Gedierond]

a) Johan said only England would get such an event, which implies that they are mostly historical.
b) I doubt that. They won't be able to add that many events, since we only have one history.
c) No! Pursuing stuff is BORING. I don't want to have a list of triggers to fulfill just so I can read some text and be so excited that I see what happened in real history (which I can check on wikipedia). I want to play a nation, and be surprised! I want to see the consequences of my actions, whether bad or good! I want to lead a nation however I want to! Knowing that if I do this, this and this, then that will happen is boring!
d) Oh, great. Why give any suggestions at all. Let them release a crappy game, as everything can be fixed with DLCs!


Fundamentally, I think many people seem to like the idea of an event driven game, where you go from one event to the other by fulfilling the triggers. Does really noone else want a game where MECHANICS, and not events, rule the game? The more events there are, the more it is like an interactive book. If I want to read a book, I read a book, and not play a game.

The way I see it, it´ll be just like EU3, but with some country-specific events. People who want to have those events will do everything in their power to set the triggers right. People who want to play the game the way they want, can still do it and enjoy the game the way they enjoy EU3 (assuming they do, obviously). It´s up to the player to determine how they play the game with the features ir contains.

 

[Fungi]

I have butterflies feeling and no i am not in love okay maybe just a bit with Johan
Maybe i am too optimistic but i think this will be even better then the fantastic CK2.

 

[Dragassa]

Events are great.
Country specific one with choices are even better.
They add to replayabilty.
He (Johann) also said that the events are not limited to the main eight nations in the game.
Hey, definitely much better than all the countries have the same decisions, choices and events
all the time with nothing to distinguish them from each other.
Those who talk about having to take a certain path, the choice on the decisions is yours.

 

[Barnacle Bill]

That will SUCK. This isn't plausibility; it is determinism.

I think you should experience a game that is truly deterministic so you can see the difference, e.g. AEGOD's "Great Invasions" which covers Europe/ME 375 AD - 1066 AD and literally launches every Roman civil war exactly on historical schedule.

 

[unmerged(63836)]

While Poland(-Lithuania) historically didn't disappear "early", I think you could agree that it dropped out of the first rank of powers from the time of "the deluge" (a tad over half-way through the EU3 period with all the expansions). You stated in one of your other posts a lot of the factors behind that, and its ultimate inability to recover. As these things go, I think this is a case where generic modelling of the factors (in game terms low centralization in a multi-ethnic, multi-religious state) could probably produce a more or less historic result in most games with an AI-controlled Commonwealth. However, it is also a case where a player-controlled Commonwealth should be a very strong contender, and thus (IMO) worthy of a lot of attention by the Devs.

I think that significant decline started earlier, with Khmielnitsky Uprising. I hope that perhaps Noble Republic would be revamped - with ability to elect foreign monarch leading to personal union while he lives, or huge difficulty for a player to reverse, or even just stop, decentralisation that led to partitions.

Of course, a lot actually depends on player demand (as percieved by the Dev's). What you call Byzantine & Prussian "fan boys" are to Paradox "customers". If Ulm had an an enthusiastic & vocal contingent of such fan boys on the forum, I imagine Paradox would me motivated to meet the demand. The squeaky wheel gets the grease - so keep squeaking

I meant exactly that, fanboy is maybe not greatest of terms. I'm sorry if any Byzantium/Prussia fans felt insulted.

 

[flame7926]

Oh no, they add a bunch of new content, while keeping in all the old, lets whine about it. For no reason since they aren't removing any of the old. Don't assume the events will just happen with a human. The AI could trigger them too, that what I really look forward to, seeing England in a War of the Roses while playing Brandenburg.

b) I doubt that. They won't be able to add that many events, since we only have one history.
c) No! Pursuing stuff is BORING. I don't want to have a list of triggers to fulfill just so I can read some text and be so excited that I see what happened in real history (which I can check on wikipedia). I want to play a nation, and be surprised! I want to see the consequences of my actions, whether bad or good! I want to lead a nation however I want to! Knowing that if I do this, this and this, then that will happen is boring!

b) How can you believe this to be anywhere close to true?? It seems extremely unlikely that you would experience all the DHE a country has to offer in one play through.
c) The forums has lead me to believe that many people feel differently. The most interesting games are forming Russia or Germany or Italy. Where you have a set goal with in game effects. I have never heard of people trying to trigger events for themselves by fulfilling the trigger, only trying to get decisions to fire, or complete missions. I do think the game keeps you interested enough in your own country with generic stuff and rare flavor, but to make the ai actually seem like I am seeing England, France, Muscovy, etc, they have to act in plausible ways. There has to be a clear reason for what they are doing, or what is happening to them. That is what I really look forward to with these events.

 

[birdboy2000]

On the one hand, the unique events for each nation were the one thing I really miss about EU2. That and the relative ease of raising armies - not in terms of high manpower, but in terms of "just raise 8000 in this province instead of clicking on a bunch of them."

On the other hand, they got ridiculous at times and were way too deterministic. I hope EU4 can find a good balance, and still leave many generic events for countries which aren't popular or European enough to get that much development.