• 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:
Any fix planned for Independence Wars? Rebellious vassals/junior partners almost never declare independence. This means Timurids never break up, Wu and Yue never rebels from Ming if released, and worst of all, no independent Sweden.
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
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.
I presume 'Shy' refers to the country tag of Uzbek. This would seem to hint central Asia is about to have an update.
 
  • 5Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
As others have mentioned, there is a general problem with AI evaluation of independence wars at the moment. But in the specific case of Wu and Yue this is compounded by their newfound hatred of each other from the Chinese Kingdom reform causing them to not ally each other. Even if the first issue is fixed, the main problem for each of these will still be that the other one will be called in to defend Ming, moreso than Ming itself.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I can't say i am not disappointed. While there isn't anything obviously wrong with what @Pavía said i somehow expected a lenghty post with different parts about what each team did in the last 2 months where there was complete radio silence. Instead it is an ultra-short diary consisting of "we did fixes", which is great and of "pitch us ideas and feedback about the combat system although half the forum in the last month consisted of little else". Of course there are times in development where there is not much new content to show but there is always an interesting dev diary to write. Show us the work process of a content designer from research to implementation for example. Get a programmer to write a small but in depth article about an annoying bug and how it was found out and fixed. Get a senior dev in talking about how new hires are worked in. Pull the most frequented suggestions from the suggestions forum and write down some thought experiments about implementation. There is always something to talk about.

But this is just stepping on stage after the audience was waiting for 2 months and shouting "keep waiting".

P.S. please flag the QA team in the bug report subforum as developers, so that we can actually use the "show developers response" button

This post is unfortunately the correct answer to this. We did try other types of Dev Diaries in the past when we didn't have actual new features to talk about - but the response was very negative. I assumed that people that weren't interested in that content would just ignore it, but sadly that is/was seldom the case. Instead we started receiving a lot of not so pleasant comments and the overall sentiment declined :/


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.

Just to clarify. We receive a lot of constructive feedback which we are extremely grateful about. Just because we don't reply to every individual post, or implement the suggested change it doesn't mean it's not read and considered. We do however receive quite a bit of "X is broken - fix!" comments as well and we would love for these messages to be more informative. If you feel that the correct solution to a problem has already been posted by someone else - please use the agree function on the forum to give it support.

And as always - thank you all for your passion! Your dedication to help us make EU4 better still after all these years is humbling!
 
This post is unfortunately the correct answer to this. We did try other types of Dev Diaries in the past when we didn't have actual new features to talk about - but the response was very negative. I assumed that people that weren't interested in that content would just ignore it, but sadly that is/was seldom the case. Instead we started receiving a lot of not so pleasant comments and the overall sentiment declined :/
It may be possible to fix this issue by simply relabeling non-traditional DDs under a new category such as "Developer Trivia" and treating it as a separate thing.

Internet mass psychology is notoriously fickle about labels, and tends to react very negatively more to the upsetting of expectations (i.e. "clickbait") than anything innately offensive within the content or lack of content in a DD.
 
  • 4Love
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Just to clarify. We receive a lot of constructive feedback which we are extremely grateful about. Just because we don't reply to every individual post, or implement the suggested change it doesn't mean it's not read and considered.
I was disappointed when in reply to my first post Gnivom thought it was about natives attacking colonial nations and not the bug with the stealing land by federations without war like it was later explained here https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...iary-12th-of-april-2022.1519964/post-28207885
This was mentioned in many threads and by this reaction I think you may not be aware of the bug. I understand that not every change will be liked by everybody - it's just impossible but the community is reporting bugs and it seems you didn't notice this one.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
It may be possible to fix this issue by simply relabeling non-traditional DDs under a new category such as "Developer Trivia" and treating it as a separate thing.

Internet mass psychology is notoriously fickle about labels, and tends to react very negatively more to the upsetting of expectations (i.e. "clickbait") than anything innately offensive within the content or lack of content in a DD.
I think this would only work as a short time bandage. After a few "Developer Trivia" some forumites would again ask for a proper dev. diary.
And to be honest developers diary is already a good term. After all the work day of a developer not only consists of creating content, fixing bugs or other things that can fill a "satisfying dev diary".
 
1. Bharat/Hindustan are religion and geography based tags. So forming them should make all the cultures of the Indian subcontinent acceptable instead of just 1 group (eg eastern aryans only)

2. Allow Hindu rulers (specially eastern Indian Hindu rulers) ability to gain Buddha as a personal deity as historically Magadha (great Ashoka) propagated buddhism to most nations like sri lanka and central asia. Pala kings of Bengal were Buddhists yet nearly all subjects were Hindus and no malice or conversion took place. Best mordern day example is Hayagriva temple in Hajo,Assam where a huge mandir (temple) is there which is both dedicated to lord buddha and lord vishnu. Hence buddha as a personal deity being fixed to 2 S E Asians countries is not historically accurate

3. Buddhist provinces should not have any religious disunity when under a Hindu ruler with Buddha as personal deity (like it happened historically)

4. Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, Buddhism are basically heresies instead of separate religions. But in game Buddhism is considered a separate faith than Hinduism/Sikhism

5. If a Christian nation unites all of the Indian subcontinent, add formable tag India with High tolerance of Heathens (like the Indian Sultanates) inplace of Bharat or Hindustan

6. Hinduism (apart from Animism) lacks flavor and events . It would playing a minor hindu nation with generic ideas more fun

7. Indian sultanates (eg Bengal) if switched to Hinduism (which is very practical as all the provinces are Hindu) the mission tree gets broken. So an alternate path will be fun for roleplaying.

Hope the dev team reads and gives an update on my suggestion as it would make the region more fun and accurate
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
I think one of the two possible regions will be updated.

1. Scandinavia with possibility of Eastern Europe. Perhaps countries like Poland, Lithuania, PLC, Teutons, Livonians and Russia. If this happens i'll probably do some Swedish campaign.

2. Middle East and perhaps Far East. If this happens i do think that i'll go with Ardabil > Persia and replay Qing.

Boy i can't wait to see in 2 weeks DD to return.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
EU4 to me is one of the most complex games on the market, which is why i put several thousand hours into the game. That said, i feel with the latest changes the game is becoming too simple in regards to combat. Someone on another forum put it this way "You are still a noob until you reach the 500 hour mark", and this is what makes this game great. Anyway, my two cents:

1. Morale damage to reserve: Since this was changed combat has been made a lot simpler and the skill-set acquired to reinforce at the most efficient time has thus been made useless, which is a shame for such a complex game.

2. Manpower is king: With the latest changes every fight drags on forever, making the progression slower and morale means almost nothing unless you max it out. The tactical advantage of boosting morale early and mid game is gone, which again makes the game simpler. Just get more manpower.
 
  • 6
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I already compiled my feedback in the Open Beta threads, so I won't post them again here. I think I did "my part of the job" nicely and it took me a bunch of time. You should read these topics again 'cause there is a lot of good suggestions from the community down there.

That said, I'm concerned by the state of the game right now. Performances are really bad on 1.33 where there was a little step forward with 1.32. To say it plainly: I can't play anymore, despite my willing to do so. The fact that you won't adress performance issues before you jump into 1.34 make me fear the worst. How are you gonna fix older issues and others introduced by the 1.33 patch, if they are drowned into new content with its own early problems?
It also goes without saying that I won't be able to buy new DLC, and help with feedback through the public beta phase, if I can't play under good conditions. Namely, smooth gaming experience...

I think you really need a clean 1.33.4 so it will be easier to quickly identify potential new issues, especially regarding performances.
 
  • 3
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
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.
Yes but the dice feel a bit gamey, i would rather have randomized tactics like how ck2 has. Of course there retinues eventually allowed you to game that system but before it was a much more intresting form of random.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
As no one has mentioned it, has there been further consideration around Arty retreating in battle? If there is a desire to keep this, then the player really needs a better indication on the battle screen that arty are about to retreat. Currently, a player has to hover over an individual unit to see the morale of that unit, which given the size of the unit in the battle screen is a pain to do.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
If you feel that the correct solution to a problem has already been posted by someone else - please use the agree function on the forum to give it support.
You guys understand that most players dont use the forums, let alone post here, right? Furthermore I hope youre not implying that you weigh solutions based on their upvotes in a very small forum.

For example:

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.

This post has a lot of upvotes, despite the fact that it contains something that isnt true. Are you going to seriously consider changing mechanics based on misinformation again?

You asking for feedback regarding high level stuff like "how do we feel about forts" or "should battles be faster or quicker" is fine but when both the community and the developers do not know combat mechanics on a technical level, relying on feedback (like the one quoted above) for technical solutions is a recipe for disaster.

I know there are some among us who live in the realm of pedantic technical details, so if you want to start sharing part of the code like the morale damage calculations that might help? But it doesnt seem helpful to put the onus for good development on the community when our only tools for testing are educated guesses and trial and error (like setting dice rolls to 0 and conducting identical battles across patches).

I did state several times that it was important for artillery to continue to take full morale damage in the backrow for the purposes of an army's average morale trending to zero in a reasonable amount of time (although them retreating is a bad idea for reasons I do not wish to rehash; read my post history) and although it seems like the changes to pips affecting morale is responsible for the early game slow down in battle durations, its impossible for the community to provide any insight without having the relevant code/formulas.

Edit: The combat changes all started because of a @Tempscire post and the mood from that thread was that timing reinforcements for optimal results is not intuitive or fun:

Larger armies are basically unbeatable. In OP's example of 40k vs 20k, if half of the larger army arrives one or two weeks later, victory is pretty much guaranteed. But if they all arrive at the same time, the same battle is a coin toss.

The difference is night and day. Does that really make sense? For a player who knows this and wants to play well, it's just extra micro steps. It's not exactly a super engaging strategic choice.

2 of the 3 main bullet points of the combat changes (changes to the deployment algo and removing daily morale damage for deployed units) were suggested to try and balance the relative strength of quality (although ultimately the side with more armies to reinforce with will still always win if they can deploy them in time/correctly).

To that end, instead of trying to reinvent the combat system (by changing pips/retreating cannons etc) I would suggest you finally follow through on the numerous suggestions to rebalance quantity ideas and reduce the available development cost reduction modifiers. It is incredibly easy to reach several million manpower and several thousand force limit even with just 100 provinces or so (a regional power can do this by 1700, easily).

There are many popular mods that rebalance the game for performance and most of them invariably nerf dev cost reduction and manpower/forcelimit availability.
Remove DCR from prosperity
Reduce the Eco ideas finisher from 20 percent to 10
Remove DCR from Eco - Quantity policy (this would make other ideas more viable as openers instead of the defacto most "efficient" two starting ideas)
Reduce the percentage bonuses of manpower and forcelimit in Quantity ideas
etc

Youd diminish the ability of an opponent (AI or not) to always have more men to throw into the grinder just in time to clinch a victory and would help on performance/lag late game
 
Last edited:
  • 5
  • 3Love
  • 3
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
There are many popular mods that rebalance the game for performance and most of them invariably nerf dev cost reduction and manpower/forcelimit availability.
Remove DCR from prosperity
Reduce the Eco ideas finisher from 20 percent to 10
Remove DCR from Eco - Quantity policy (this would make other ideas more viable as openers instead of the defacto most "efficient" two starting ideas)
Reduce the percentage bonuses of manpower and forcelimit in Quantity ideas
etc

Youd diminish the ability of an opponent (AI or not) to always have more men to throw into the grinder just in time to clinch a victory and would help on performance/lag late game
Nerfing dev cost would hurt tall players badly. I don't want to be forced to colour the map in my colour just to compete with other great powers.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
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?
Completely agree. I was Florence in a recent game and Aragon had asked me to support their independence, along with France. Castiles only ally was Portugal, and the independence war would be incredibly easy, but they never declared, so i eventually tag switched and did it for them (non-ironman game)