• 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:
As long as they give some notable minors some DHEs and more general ones depending on a situation i.e one for the leading German state or a decision to support Klephts for Greek states, it shouldn't be too much of a problem.
 
Is that your office Johan? :)
 
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.

He's Svip, supreme ruler of Ulm, the mightiest state in Europe.

You on the other hand, are pedestrian and quite frankly rather whiny. Now stop trolling, grown ups are talking.
 
Give the colonial revolters a couple of DHEs (for a Gran Colombia) and rename Ming when not ruled by Mings and I'll buy your game
 
Just don't screw it up like HoI III.
 
I think that this is just an another brick in the never-ending determinism vs sand-box issue. It will never be fully resolved, but we should give DHEs a try. On paper the concept sounds quite good, I just hope that it doesn't make nations without many DHEs very boring to play. I'm wondering how one can call EUIII plausible, though, with its tendency for eternal player-based blobs forming 100-150 years after the start date. I hope that it's not sth that the devs will reintroduce in EUIV...
 
I think that this is just an another brick in the never-ending determinism vs sand-box issue. It will never be fully resolved, but we should give DHEs a try. On paper the concept sounds quite good, I just hope that it doesn't make nations without many DHEs very boring to play. I'm wondering how one can call EUIII plausible, though, with its tendency for eternal player-based blobs forming 100-150 years after the start date. I hope that it's not sth that the devs will reintroduce in EUIV...

They even parodied the so called plausibility of EU 3 by including features like the Ryukyu World Conquest achievement with Divine Wind. Now that's plausible.
The issue could be easily resolved by just asking the player if he wishes to turn historical determinism on or off. DHEs may be a good idea but until I see a comprehensive DD about them, I'll just classify them as normal events that, incidentally, contain some flexible name strings in the event title or description.
 
The issue could be easily resolved by just asking the player if he wishes to turn historical determinism on or off.
The problem with that is that it greatly increases the workload of the devs, as they will have to ensure that everything works smoothly with and without determinism and it's a game-changing thing, mind you.
 
I do wonder if the DHE will also concern those that may be a possibility but didn't happen due to the conditions and so forth...

Ignoring the big-huge-giganic Byzantium what if's - what about the other thousands upon thousands of what ifs? The 30 Years War ending in Catholic Habsburg Success, if the Pope triumphed against the Orthodox in creating The Second Latin-Empire to start another round of Crusades, if the Jagiellon's won their little dispute with the Habsburgs and so on.

Byzantium is fun, though I'd like to see how a Catholic ERE/ERE pretender would be treated and how it'd function in the four centuries we have to play as it.
 
Gonna wade into this; gave up on reading the arguing around page 7-8 or so.



This seems to me that there shouldn't be any reason to be at all annoyed. The game will be just as in-depth in this area as EU3, with just as much possible flavor for all the countries. It just so happens that some countries will have more flavor. Kinda like how some countries in EU3 get flavor decisions, some of which are fairly powerful. I don't see too many people complaining that Venice gets to build the naval arsenal in EU3 and Ragusa can't. Or that only the Byzantines can establish the Theme System. Etc. etc.

My opinion would be very different if the number of events from EU3 was dramatically reduced, of course. But as long as this system exists in addition to the current, I'm content. And honestly, this DD #0. We're not gonna get anything really meaty in it anyway.

The problem is that EU3 DOES get somewhat bland, later on - almost everyone will say you that they play 150 years at most, maybe 200 if they feel like finishing something. And this is because you are too strong, and it is because a successful nation is based on three-four successful builds. Once you reached that stage, all nations within that build are pretty much identical. Now, if ON TOP of this you put that some nations will be considerably more fleshed than others (and, according to the 70-2 comment, I think that most minors will get jack), then you get that some nations are fun...if you go historical. If you don't, you are ashore and on your own. And this gets worse the less DHE you get.

What's the catch, though? That before saying that this paragraph is SURELY right, I and we need to see the cited DHE. Some sentences don't exactly fill me with hope, but it is one year and 40-50 DD 'til release. THEN a more precise critique will be done. :D
 
As long as they give some notable minors some DHEs and more general ones depending on a situation i.e one for the leading German state or a decision to support Klephts for Greek states, it shouldn't be too much of a problem.

they've got 12 months to beef up the events/decisions system durig beta testing so lets hope so.
 
I am seriously surprised that people cite the original EU3 DW as "detailed". Its just isnt the case. If you get down to the gist of it there are like 4 events (-stab, +money, slider moves, cores) and 2 missions (expand, random stuff). EU3 also has the serious problem of "income creep", aka the fact that you have "infinite" money come 1500. Its not hard to have a fleet of 1200 ships by 1580, something that probably did not happen for at least another 300 years. Also there are allready huge disparities between nations that are "meant to be played" and those that arent. Compare Brittany to Holland, both Free Trading Naval minors. Yet its quite obvious that Brittany is not meant to be played. Sure, you can suceed with them, but its just not all that fun, especially not in a MP setting where such stuff becomes really obvious. With EU 4 the number of "viable spots" in europe will significantly decrease.
All in all I can say that I am not yet particularly psysched about all of this.
 
Just felt the need to interject here, Pulaski gets a lot of things named after him over here (I even live near a town named Pulaski) because of his role in the American Revolution, not just because there happen to be a bunch of Americans of Polish descent.

True, lots of place names. However, politics has a lot to do with ship naming in general, at least in the USN. As Rickover allegedly said when ask about the switch from naming SSN's after sea creatures to cities, "fish don't vote". So, when it comes to naming ships after heroes, they look for heroes that resonate with distinct voting demographics, including but not limited to Polish-Americans. Which is my point - lots of potential Paradox customers in the US with reason to want Poland to get some luv in EU4.
 
I am seriously surprised that people cite the original EU3 DW as "detailed". Its just isnt the case. If you get down to the gist of it there are like 4 events (-stab, +money, slider moves, cores) and 2 missions (expand, random stuff). EU3 also has the serious problem of "income creep", aka the fact that you have "infinite" money come 1500. Its not hard to have a fleet of 1200 ships by 1580, something that probably did not happen for at least another 300 years. Also there are allready huge disparities between nations that are "meant to be played" and those that arent. Compare Brittany to Holland, both Free Trading Naval minors. Yet its quite obvious that Brittany is not meant to be played. Sure, you can suceed with them, but its just not all that fun, especially not in a MP setting where such stuff becomes really obvious. With EU 4 the number of "viable spots" in europe will significantly decrease.
All in all I can say that I am not yet particularly psysched about all of this.

Indeed. It is quite disappointing that, according to Johan's words, they don't want to make game more complex/difficult. I guess that they want to keep their flagship title accessible to casual player. Vanilla EU3 is terribly easy and boring (compared to CK2 or Vicky2, for example).
 
Indeed. It is quite disappointing that, according to Johan's words, they don't want to make game more complex/difficult. I guess that they want to keep their flagship title accessible to casual player. Vanilla EU3 is terribly easy and boring (compared to CK2 or Vicky2, for example).
I think they want to expand their fanbase, like with CK2. I would like it to get a little more complex, but not enough that it isn't worth it for them to make expansions or sequels because they have lost people buying it.
 
All in all I can say that I am not yet particularly psysched about all of this.

I am not yet sure whether I should get psyched about EUIV or not.

I would love a more complex game than what EUIII was, something closer to Victoria 2 in that regard (or to Magna Mundi as it was planned). However, I realise that I am not the typical gamer, or even the typical strategy gamer. If Paradox were to move closer to Victoria 2 in terms of complexity, it would hurt sales - because for every nerd like me they get, they lose 10 other customers.

I never play the vanilla versions of Paradox games, anyway. I always play the mods. So I hope that the game is very modder-friendly and that there are sufficient mechanics to mod in the level of complexity I enjoy.
 
Regarding complexity, I am interpreting Johan's words to mean that they won't make the game much more complex than EU3 (essentially the same). It seems to me, that most of you are also reading Johan's words this way.

But whether that is accurate, or whether it is a discussion of the complexity of the interface (which they have said they want to improve on a lot, because - let's be frank - the old EU3 interface was getting a bit muggy), I am more and more uncertain.

But I know - for a fact - that we won't get Magna Mundi in EU4, but whether EU4 will find itself more complex or the same as EU3 is becoming more ambiguous to me. Essentially; I feel like waiting for more Developer Diaries.

So before that happens; let me say this; I don't care either way. I disagree that EU3 was boring because it was less complex than V2 or CK2, it was only boring if you only played to 'win'. Then everything is boring. I often - deliberately - made bad decisions, to help further the interesting gameplay. I didn't need a big mod for that.
 
Regarding complexity, I am interpreting Johan's words to mean that they won't make the game much more complex than EU3 (essentially the same). It seems to me, that most of you are also reading Johan's words this way.

But whether that is accurate, or whether it is a discussion of the complexity of the interface (which they have said they want to improve on a lot, because - let's be frank - the old EU3 interface was getting a bit muggy), I am more and more uncertain.

But I know - for a fact - that we won't get Magna Mundi in EU4, but whether EU4 will find itself more complex or the same as EU3 is becoming more ambiguous to me. Essentially; I feel like waiting for more Developer Diaries.

So before that happens; let me say this; I don't care either way. I disagree that EU3 was boring because it was less complex than V2 or CK2, it was only boring if you only played to 'win'. Then everything is boring. I often - deliberately - made bad decisions, to help further the interesting gameplay. I didn't need a big mod for that.

ahh but i think the point is - you shouldnt have to purposely make bad decisions, that is somewhat ridiculous and against human nature when in a scenario of competition.

but i understand what you are saying - what i would like to see is the game forcing the player to face a wider array of problems/circumstances and then the player decides which path he must choose & potentially causing detriment to your nation in the neglected areas.