• 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.

Europa Universalis IV - Development Diary 12th of April 2022

Hello everyone, and welcome back to EUIV Dev Diaries! It’s been a while since the last one, but now we think it is due time to address a 1.33 Update Retrospective, and talk a bit with you about what we’ve been doing, and the topics concerning the community.

In the past month, since the 1.33 Update full release, the Team has been working mostly on the Post Release Support (PRS) of it. You may have noticed that our process in the Bug Reports subforum has changed a bit, and that the QLOC Team that gives us external QA support is directly addressing tickets, although the person in charge of it is @AldathPDX , our QA Project Coordinator. Devs aren’t going to disappear from the subforum, though; we will still be going to interact directly with the reports when needed, but this way we’re becoming more efficient in what we really want to focus on - improving the state of the game. Speaking of QA, we have opened a position for an Internal QA Tester, as you may know. If you want to join us at Paradox Tinto, and you think you have the requirements for it, you can apply to it here!

Regarding 1.33 PRS, we decided to prioritize the usually tricky and hard-to-catch issues of OOS and CTD for the 1.33.3 patch released last week. We really wanted to focus on these issues, as we shared the concerns about MP games becoming more unstable. And, precisely because of this, we also decided not to introduce gameplay changes in this patch, as we preferred to release the most stable version possible, and fixing and testing other issues may have delayed this patch even further. We know this may be controversial, but we think it’s the most beneficial course of action for the game at this moment.

This doesn’t mean that changes are set in stone, as we want to continue gathering feedback from the community. We have to say that we are pretty happy with the results of the 1.33 Open Beta that was handled in the month prior to the release. We fixed a lot of issues thanks to the direct feedback gathered from you, the players, and we were able to make some further tweaks and changes quickly thanks to this. We think this has been a useful tool, and we’re open to using Open Betas again for future updates.

Going back to the gameplay changes topics, there are a couple that we know have been concerning the community in the past weeks: Combat changes, and allied AI behavior. The last one is more related to the kind of situation that may appear after improving it: now the AI acts on its own interests, which may not be the player’s, and that are different from how it behaved previously. This is something that happened in a few fields when improving AI for 1.33 Update, and that we rollback while developing it; but sometimes, this kind of behavior appears. We will be targeting AI again in the following months, so your game experience is quite valuable about this point. About the former, well, we already said that we wanted to “shake” a bit how Combat works, and our position is that we want extra feedback before committing to new changes. So, please, we want some constructive feedback in this thread regarding both topics, with your opinion on what works/what doesn’t, to further improve the gameplay experience (note: posts of the type “these changes are bad, just revert to previous version” are much less useful for us than those tackling the current situation and suggesting further changes for improvement).

The other big gameplay topic we addressed in 1.33 was rebalancing and adding a some extra content for the Eastern Asian regions, specifically on the Empire of China and Mandate of Heaven mechanics. We’re quite content with the outcome, as we were able to improve those in the Open Beta, and the issues we’ve been fixing regarding it in the PRS are not very concerning. Anyway, again, further suggestions are welcome, although more on the topic of polishing balance changes, than in adding more content, as we have started to move on to new things.

So yes, we’re already working on new content to be added to another new update! We’ve been spending some development time in the last weeks planning that, so because of it we’ve been a bit more ‘shy’ here. And now we have good and bad news. Good news is that we’re also recruiting another Content Designer for the studio! So, if you’re interested, you can apply here. The bad news is that you will have to wait a bit longer to take a look at the new content, as we’re in a very early development phase. In two weeks, after Easter vacation is over, we’ll present you the Roadmap for the new content, and we’ll start communicating again on a weekly basis.

That’s all for now! We hope to receive detailed feedback from you from 1.33, to keep working on it, as we’ll be reading your comments. See you!
 
  • 80Like
  • 20
  • 10
  • 4Love
  • 1Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
We will be targeting AI again in the following months, so your game experience is quite valuable about this point. About the former, well, we already said that we wanted to “shake” a bit how Combat works, and our position is that we want extra feedback before committing to new changes. So, please, we want some constructive feedback in this thread regarding both topics, with your opinion on what works/what doesn’t, to further improve the gameplay experience (note: posts of the type “these changes are bad, just revert to previous version” are much less useful for us than those tackling the current situation and suggesting further changes for improvement).
Are there not two months worth of topics on this forum about the combat changes already? Surely not all of those posts are just "1.33 combat sucks change it back." Hopefully you aren't saying all of those posts go into the circular file and only ones from now on "count."

IMO the biggest problem with the combat changes is that battles simply take way, way too long now. All of the other under-the-hood changes like damage calcualation and whatnot can be ironed out.
 
  • 7
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
On the subject of natives, I also think the post-1.31 overnerf has harmed Australian tags in particular. Before 1.31 the biggest complaint was having to sit around and wait for Feudalism to come to you, and the promise was to be able to avoid that. Maybe 1.31 was a little too easy for that, but now it feels like the only way to do that is become a horde. I'd definitely like to restore methods for natives to self-feudalize, even if that's a difficult path. It may not matter for North America, but Australia is lucky if they're only 50 years behind America to get a chance to reform. Maybe the same way the AI HRE will never centralise the empire, maybe the AI Native doesn't think to take the path.
 
I'm taking this as an invitation for some more radical suggestions for combat than what many have been saying so how about:
  • Battles should take a day. I could accept maybe 3-4 days just to allow some reinforcing and spreading out the calculations, but this would be a compromise.
  • Battles should have no RNG. I don't think the RNG improves the game experience in anyway even if it makes it more historically accurate. At least having less RNG would be an improvement.
  • 1 technology difference shouldn't make a huge impact, but 10 should. 1 unit current tech troops should be able to stack wipe 20 vastly outdated ones. But 20 v 20 of only slightly different techs should be pretty close. Perhaps a debuff for being behind the military curve that rapidly stacks.
And for a truly radical suggestion:
  • There shouldn't be separate unit types. Army composition should be adjusted by ideas, investment, technologies, professionalism, etc. not an individual recruitment basis. If you unlock artillery you can instantly deploy it in your armies, but at an increased maintenance cost. The amount of artillery could then be increased for further cost, the caps being changed by technologies and skills. Similar could be for horses to what percentage of the army they can make up, hordes and strong nobility could lead to higher percentage of horses in battalions. This could even be used to enable other unit types to be in armies (conscripts vs professional soldiers, elephant or camel cavalry, grenadiers)
 
  • 13
  • 1
Reactions:
1.34. If you mean them attacking Colonial Nations all the time.

There's also a strange interaction where non-native countries can take tribal land (instantly settling it).

They also automatically annex provinces of colonial nation when they form federations. No war, they just get provinces.

For reference, here is the bug report I made on this issue back when 1.33 was in beta: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...on-annexes-that-tribal-land-directly.1513409/

Hopefully it will be addressed in 1.34.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Thanks for the Dev Diary! Looking forward to reading about the roadmap after break, I'm eagerly awaiting for the focus of the next region, that being said any chance we could get a obscure 'Hint' ;).

In terms of Combat changes, I know its a really hot topic right now. Personally I enjoy the changes as it did breathe some fresh air into years old Combat system. While I'm still evaluating 'Under the Hood' potential ways to improve combat, I think adjusting some pre-existing modifiers may help also, as lets be honest some of the recent years in years have massive power creep.

In regards to Artillery, I actually would suggest switching a good chunk of Artillery Combat Ability to Artillery Damage from the Backrow. While this is essentially the same modifier, it would punish over stacking of cannons that can still occur. The thinking with this is that if the Infantry line is destroyed, the artillery should lose their pre-existing 'Artillery Combat Ability' bonus.

Also this is a personally tidbit of mine but PLEASE consider nerfing Quantity to 33% National Manpower Modifier and 33% Forcelimit, while also reworking the existing Forcelimit+Devlopment Cost policy between Econ.-Quantity. I've seen mods that remove this bonus as it really is just extremely strong. I know thats idea changes should be a lower priority but I have some further suggestions if interested.
I don't think changing obscure stats to get your intended result is a good idea. If you want to nerf artillery, nerf artillery.

I also don't think quantity is particularly amazing either, I think it's a great idea set but I don't view that as a bad thing, it has its niche, and isn't a foregone conclusion to pick unless your bottleneck is manpower. The only interaction that's exceptionally strong is Econ-Quantity in MP. To this end, I think removing the forcelimit from the policy would be enough to bring it down to scale. The only thing that's wrong with quantity is its place in the current combat system. Changing it back, which appears to be the overwhelmingly popular sentiment, would be a nerf enough.
 
I'm taking this as an invitation for some more radical suggestions for combat than what many have been saying so how about:
  • Battles should take a day. I could accept maybe 3-4 days just to allow some reinforcing and spreading out the calculations, but this would be a compromise.
  • Battles should have no RNG. I don't think the RNG improves the game experience in anyway even if it makes it more historically accurate. At least having less RNG would be an improvement.
  • 1 technology difference shouldn't make a huge impact, but 10 should. 1 unit current tech troops should be able to stack wipe 20 vastly outdated ones. But 20 v 20 of only slightly different techs should be pretty close. Perhaps a debuff for being behind the military curve that rapidly stacks.
And for a truly radical suggestion:
  • There shouldn't be separate unit types. Army composition should be adjusted by ideas, investment, technologies, professionalism, etc. not an individual recruitment basis. If you unlock artillery you can instantly deploy it in your armies, but at an increased maintenance cost. The amount of artillery could then be increased for further cost, the caps being changed by technologies and skills. Similar could be for horses to what percentage of the army they can make up, hordes and strong nobility could lead to higher percentage of horses in battalions. This could even be used to enable other unit types to be in armies (conscripts vs professional soldiers, elephant or camel cavalry, grenadiers)
RNG should certainly play a role, it did in history and should do in EU IV. Eu IV obviously is not a simultaion (or even close to that), but in my opinion a element of RNG is beneficial to the gameplay. I do not necessairly fancy the current weight of RNG, but that is another discussion.
 
  • 10
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Have you thought any more about giving players who choose to play as the Netherlands in the Dutch revolt access to the events that went by the wayside when it became a crisis? Independent Dutch minors getting events to join the Netherlands, etc.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
I like the changes that make the AI act more selfishly now and I think it's definitely made the game more fun as a whole. I have, however, noticed a couple of things that might need a change around. I've seen the AI use favour interactions a lot more and I like them doing that since it lets me help my allies when I want to. I did have a game as France where I allied Aragon early and they fell under my rival Castille and then asked me for money using the interaction. Yeah I can just say no but it doesn't really make sense in my opinion. To my memory, they were loyal. Maybe it would be possible to add a cross mark for the AI when it's obviously not in a player's interest to help them? Another thing is that the AI seem averse to declaring independence wars. I haven't seen any AI declare an independence war even when the odds are clearly in their favour. An example of this is a Sweden supported by England, Muscovy and me as Brandenburg (later Prussia) that wouldn't declare independence against Denmark for decades. Maybe making the AI more bold when it comes to this could be a good change?
 
  • 5Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Hi, I haven't seen this addressed much, but since 1.31 (IIRC) a change to armies caused the splitting mechanic to not work properly. Before, if you had a 16k stack and would repeatedly box-select+split army 16 times you would have 16 1k stacks. Now (and in 1.32) if I try to do the exact same sequence, I end up with a small amount of split armies, and unable to split further without clicking the button manually:
1649797824157.png

Please fix this.

Also going to plug my culture-related discussion thread: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ian-should-be-in-the-byzantine-group.1519290/
I think there's some good stuff in there, quick fixes too.
 
Last edited:
  • 13Like
  • 4
Reactions:
About the sleeping AI allies issue: I was extremely annoyed about this happening to me, but knowing that it's happening because the AI is acting in its own interest actually makes me feel much better about it.
I dont understand how doing nothing while watching their ally loose a war benefits them in any way. i also sometimes stay home and drill when i get a cta from the ai, but only if im certain that they can easily win without me. and if i see their capital being under siege while they run around half a continent away i react and help out. the only times i want an ally to loose wars is when they are close to accept diplovassalization from me, but i doubt thats what the ai is going for.
But in general, AI doesn't treat the player differently on Normal and Hard. There are a few cases, but they are supposed to be very minor.
Out of curiosity: how does the ai treat players differently than other ais on vh? its the first time i hear something like this.
 
So, please, we want some constructive feedback in this thread regarding both topics, with your opinion on what works/what doesn’t, to further improve the gameplay experience (note: posts of the type “these changes are bad, just revert to previous version” are much less useful for us than those tackling the current situation and suggesting further changes for improvement).
There are a lot of posts detailing exactly what we didnt like about the changes and why; youre more than welcome to peruse my post history if you want specifics.

No one posted "change bad, just revert"; that is incredibly disingenuous.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Some good comments about the new combat system here. I would like to reiterate that the key problem is the length of time battles take rather than the lack of stackwipes - they should be rare. They do still happen when you outclass/outnumber opponents and tbh I haven't noticed a problem with that.

But as others have mentioned, it makes planning battles very difficult when your opponent has time to reinforce from very far away. It does make unrealistically big empires even more difficult to beat, but that's probably a whole other conversation about how to balance AI blobbing without making the game miserable for humans.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
1.34. If you mean them attacking Colonial Nations all the time.
Why "fix" that? It's objectively the best decision, from a New World nation's point of view, to attack CNs as soon as they can without drawing their metropolitan masters in. Why let them coast till they get big enough to wreck you? If you were playing a New World nation, you wouldn't let a CN do that, so why should the AI?
 
  • 8
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
1.34. If you mean them attacking Colonial Nations all the time.
I had issues with natives for a long time and got frustrated with it all, but after learning I can simply enforce peace on the attacker and join my colony in a defensive war, it made the whole experience a lot better. Idr if that feature is tied to a DLC but I’m content with it as it stands now. Makes it a bit challenging and fun imo.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Some good comments about the new combat system here. I would like to reiterate that the key problem is the length of time battles take rather than the lack of stackwipes - they should be rare. They do still happen when you outclass/outnumber opponents and tbh I haven't noticed a problem with that.

But as others have mentioned, it makes planning battles very difficult when your opponent has time to reinforce from very far away. It does make unrealistically big empires even more difficult to beat, but that's probably a whole other conversation about how to balance AI blobbing without making the game miserable for humans.
I think on the flip side tho, if the AI doesn’t blow while the human does, it can make the late game just a grind fest. I like to RP my games a bit and it’s more fun to have a challenge. My standard game consists of me making my early game Allies as big and powerful as possible, then rivaling them all late game to give myself a handicap. I think parallel scaling AI / Human is important.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I hope you will pay attention to some aspects of multiplayer games in the new version. Polish players seem too weak after joining Lithuania, while Austrian players usually get a better idea by eliminating Polish players and establishing Poland or Prussia. In the last ten multiplayer games, Polish players have been eliminated by Austria almost every time, and Austrian players are very strong in the early stage because they are the emperor of Shenluo, After the establishment of Prussia or Poland, it is still strong. Unlike Ottoman players, Ottoman players will weaken in the later stage。
Austrian players will always be strong and never decline. At least other countries are not so strong in the early stage, which destroys the balance of multiplayer games.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
This may just be strange RNG for me, but I’ve noticed in almost every single one of my 1.33 games (about 15), Austria loses the imperial throne within the first 50 years of gameplay because a daughter is set to be the next heir. Idk if it’s a bug, but anyone else having this issue? I like a strong Austria to counter the PLC and Ottomans.
 
Thanks for the update!

My experience with the current combat is that morale damage slows to a crawl for reasons I haven't yet grasped, and this means battles last considerably longer and sometimes the casualties can be atrocious as a result, and this is before artillery. Clever maneuvers doesn't account for as much as before when there is more time to reinforce, and the rate of paddleball armies where you have to chase them back and forth has increased. It all feels more sluggish as a whole, and I'm unsure whether that's good or not. Maybe if the mechanics felt more transparent I'd be better able to manage. Also my understanding is the 80% bonus for Professionalism, half morale damage to reserves, is now literally useless, so if these combat tweaks are to remain that probably needs replaced.

On the bright side I'm not sure if this is a result of changes in 1.32 or 1.33, but assaulting forts feels more effective as a strategy, actually less costly in manpower than before, especially with proper micro. Handy in the early days when you're otherwise getting 10 42% ticks in a row..
I fully agree with this post and the recent combat changes. If I could like it again, I would. The 80% professionalism bonus certainly needs to be replaced with something better than literally nothing.

Because battles are generally taking much longer to resolve, stack wipes are much rarer than they used to be. You basically have to get really lucky rolls in the first few phases of combat or no stack wipe is usually possible. I believe stack wipes are possible if enough damage is delivered inside the first 12 days of combat - perhaps devs might consider revising the number of 12 days given the recent changes to combat mechanics?
 
  • 2
  • 1Love
Reactions: