Europa Universalis IV - Development Diary 18th of January 2022

[Muelleri]

I wonder will there be Faction system update in 1.33 patch. It is one of the worst system now.

 

[Jihem]

I wonder will there be Faction system update in 1.33 patch. It is one of the worst system now.

I never pay attention to factions, except if my country becomes revolutionary.

 

[Keksburg]

Also another suggestion and this one is about Mongols. What about giving them decision Sinocize our Culture to Mongol cultures and their nation. Yuan dinasty went fort and back acording to one documentary i watched before it colapsed. Player could perhaps have such option to finally bring Mongols within Chinese.

there're difference between Manchu and Mongol. In modern china, almost no Manchu people can speak there own language, and this situation had started since the middle of Qing, that's to say, Manchu are highly integrated into Han nation. But Mongol is still Mongol, still many of them in modern time use there own language. Yuan lasts less that 1 century, they lost mandate before being integrated

 

[Keksburg]

On the subject of religion in China, I'm not so sure even having provinces be able to have Confucian as a religion is historically accurate. Historically speaking, Ming china at the time was a diverse mix of Buddhism, Taoism, and Chinese folk religion. There was also a sizable amount of Muslims living in China, with some estimates of the Muslim population in the 14th century being as high as 4 million.

I dont know if paradox is interested in trying to adding new religions such as Taosim or the Chinese folk Religion, but it could be interesting . I havent played China or Korea in a long time, but if I remember right they both actually start with Mahayana harmonized. Perhaps it would be more accurate if all of China and Koreas Confucian provinces were instead Mahayana Buddhist. Something else that could do interesting is if the religion map mode showed Confucian harmonized religions differently, maybe with a white cross hatch or something.

Paradox may consider Confucianism as a mix of things like Taoism and folks. there has been an argue about whether Confucianism is a religion or not. Taoism exists as a heresy rebel of Confucianism. It's something dealing with the religious and administrative thing that guide the ruler in china

 

[Keksburg]

We have desires, paradox has work. If those in Barcelona can make it to design and implement a impressive frame of CE while overcome the difficulty of balancing, I would take back all the negative words at 1.31 and say: wow, u guys are incredible

 

[Rycestealer]

Moving culture groups is huge for modders. Hope to see it in game as soon as possible!

 

[Rycestealer]

Paradox may consider Confucianism as a mix of things like Taoism and folks. there has been an argue about whether Confucianism is a religion or not. Taoism exists as a heresy rebel of Confucianism. It's something dealing with the religious and administrative thing that guide the ruler in china

Working with a buddy to make a mod that will rework the Eastern Faiths to be more inline with how they were historically. Confucianism as a whole is more of an institution rather than a religion and it is disappointing to see the Buddhist and local folk cultures completely ignored by Paradox...

 

[Sapa Inca]

@Pavía
Have you considered to transform post-mingexplosion rebel tags in historical rivals one with each other? This could solve the problem where the new emperor of China is a small/medium tag that prefer transform the others chinese tags in tributaries and allies instead of reunite China.

 

[Sidolowka]

Could we also take a quick look at the Korean dynamic province list while we're in the far east?

Korean Dynamic Province Names

In light of Korea finally getting its well deserved buff (bless the devs), I'd like to quickly go over a few suggestions for Korea's province names. Rename Hamheung's provincial capital to Hamheung. Rename Yukjin's provincial capital to...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

 

[RhoxOS]

No. I take a look into this and try to motivate Korea to play tall.

Would it be possible that you shared your sources for Manchuria? I am quite interested in the area and I would like to read more about it, if possible. Specially if there are maps, even if they are in Chinese.

So I was thinking about surrounding Korea with little tributary Jurchens since AI Korea will be reluctant to attack its tributary Jurchen. To do that, devs need to further fragmentize the provinces and clans but since they already claimed they won't be fragmenting the provinces so maybe we should work with fragmenting clans only.

The Korea-Jurchen relationship was kinda not ideal to call it tributary, but since we're not adding more relation types, so tributary is the closest one I guess.

======================================================================================================

While researching that, I Got some interesting things from the Korean paper: Review of the relationship between Joseon and Udike - https://www.kci.go.kr/kciportal/ci/...kci?sereArticleSearchBean.artiId=ART002001364

This paper is mostly about Seongjong's era (1469 ~1495) but most of them work fine IMO. Some Background information before introducing this paper's contents:
=====================================================================


1. It's admirable to exclude the Western Jianzhu region from this paper. There was a major event called the killing of Li Manzhu (李滿住) which happened in 1467 that shook the whole Ming-Korea-Jurchen relationship. If you guys are interested in that area too, I'll look more for it.

1-2. Furthermore, making Jurchen living in a Xingjing area a Korean tributary will likely result in a war between Ming. While Korea and Ming disputed over control of various Jianzhu clans, Koreans never dared of escalating it to a war with Ming.


2. Josanbo incident: In 1491, Some of the Udege Jurchens raided Korean lands and even killed some of the officers in Josanbo(조산보;造山堡; EU4's Yukjin province). Korea didn't know which Udege Jurchen it was, so they attacked mostly likely Udege Jurchen which is Nimaca.

To do that King mustered 20 thousand force and attacked the Nimaca. However, this humungous force made Jurchen flee and Koreans only burned Jurchen houses and killed "9" Jurchens, then returned home.

After that, surprise surprise, the actual culprit was the Dogol (EU4's Ilah Hala) after all. So King's prestige was hit and many relationships with Jurchens were shaken. Such as Namnul and Nimaca stop to pay tribute.


3. Orangke and Odoli are not categorized as Udege and are excluded from this paper. However, Orangke tributed more than 100 times during the Sejo era (1455~1468) So I think they can be a tributary.

<Blue fonts are all added by me>

So following countries should be added as tributary to Korea

0. Odoli is the tribe that Aisin-Gioro Mengtemu controlled. Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mengtemu
So no change since they already control the whole Jianzhu Jurchen country and they shouldn't be tributary of Korea.

1. Country name: Korkhan (골간;骨看)
Holding province: Furdan (2106)
Leader: "Kim" Ma Sang Hap (김 마상합;金 麻尙哈; 馬尙申) #Dynasty name is Kim. His name is found throughout 1456~1490 so make him young. His name is 馬申哈 in Ming's record

2. Nimaca (니마차;尼麻車) or Hyomjin (혐진;嫌眞)
Holding province: Nigguta (2107)
Leader: "Kim" Geo Eul Ga Gae (거을가개;巨乙加介) #His dynasty name is unknown but just give him Kim since his son has Kim on it.
Heir: "Kim" Wu Du (김 우두;金 亐豆)

3. Namnul (남눌;南訥)
Holding province: Fu'erhe (4654)
Leader: Du La Dae (두라대;豆羅大)
Heir: Nae Ya Hap (내야합;內也哈)

4. Orangke or Orangkhai (오랑캐;올량합;兀良哈) #They're a really decentralized state and some even claim they're much like EU4's Stateless Society reform.
Molyeonwi(모련위;毛憐衛) #This is a name used by ming
Holding province: Huncun (2108)
Leader: Pa Nan(파난;波難) #As I said above, Orangkes are more like collections of small tribes and this is one of the notable names from a single tribe living in the Huncun area.






Well, thanks for reading

PS These pronunciations could be fitted better if I knew more about the Jurchen language. So if you know please help.

 

[currylambchop]

1. If your capital is on the Chinese subcontinent, you cannot make another country your tributary state if their capital is also on the Chinese subcontinent.

this is a bad restriction when you’re playing in China, just make the AI don’t make tributaries he has claims on.

 

[Vulkandrache]

If we are doing vassalization of tributaries, which sounds good, can we also change
the loss of all reforms upon forming another country?

 

[Chazb5046]

Please please please buff Russia & especially Muscovy- it clearly needs it look at the poor thing. Also some way of allowing the AI to beat back the ottomans without making it easy for the player would be cool.

 

[Romanix90]

there're difference between Manchu and Mongol. In modern china, almost no Manchu people can speak there own language, and this situation had started since the middle of Qing, that's to say, Manchu are highly integrated into Han nation. But Mongol is still Mongol, still many of them in modern time use there own language. Yuan lasts less that 1 century, they lost mandate before being integrated

I understand that. But this is all what if scenario. Yuan dinasty indeed failed after 1 century. During that time they went back and fort in an atempt to bring closer Mongols to Chinese. I think that decision should be there only if the player restores Yuan.

 

[SaoMagnifico]

I was just puttering around with Ming today and, yeah, it just isn't very fun to play. I do like a lot of what's mentioned here, especially being able to tag-switch to another Chinese warlord. That being said, I have a few suggestions:

1. You shouldn't be able to make a state with its capital in your subcontinent and/or that has its primary culture in your culture group a tributary — this would now fit with the change to Vietnamese culture to remove it from the Chinese culture group. If that's too restrictive, there ought to be some mechanism to make it significantly more feasible to vassalize/diplo-annex such a tributary than it would be for Ming to, say, vassalize/diplo-annex Champa or Ayutthaya. (The former change has the advantage of fixing the recurring problem of Japan making Ainu a tributary instead of actually annexing Hokkaido and Karafuto as they did in history, something that will hopefully be addressed as part of this patch, too.)
2. While it makes perfect sense for Korean and Vietnamese to be able to choose to Sinicize their culture under certain (restrictive) conditions, I would look at doing this with Altaic and Tibetan culture groups as well. That would open up more and interesting possibilities for Central Asian hordes pushing into China and seems historically appropriate.
3. If Vietnamese is being split off into its own culture group, I would suggest dividing it between Tonkinese (or Trinh) culture for the north and Annamese (or Nguyen) culture for the south, similar to how the Japanese culture group is split along roughly geographic lines. But I'm not an expert on Vietnamese culture or history, so someone else please let me know if this is off-base.
4. Stronger Korea is a good thing, because right now, it's barely worth playing the tag. That being said, AI Korea should be building tall and/or trying to colonize rather than blobbing into Mongolia. Maybe rework its national ideas to give a dev cost modifier instead of, say, manpower?
5. While I like the idea of Japan not being forced to go colonial right away just to complete its mission to settle Karafuto, I do foresee some issues for the Ainu being split between two islands, especially in the early game. I thought of a strait crossing between Sakhalin and Hokkaido, but that probably would be counterproductive, given that will only accentuate the tendency for AI Manchurian countries to blob into Hokkaido. Maybe split the Ainu culture group into two tags, one in Hokkaido and the other in Sakhalin? Or just have Nivkh start with all of Sakhalin? (Also, given the change to the mission tree that will already be required, I would look at giving Japan a mission to control the north part of Sakhalin, which didn't historically happen but was an off-and-on national goal.)

And a few thoughts on the other changes:

1. Please be careful with the CBs. They've already undergone a lot of changes in recent updates. I'm particularly concerned that if taking provinces is not allowed under a Subjugation or Restoration of Union CB, and yet the target country is too large to actually take over without them being massively disloyal, the CBs with time limits on them will become even more unviable than they currently are. In theory, you could take a mission to subjugate a much larger country and eventually whittle them down to a manageable size with a series of wars, but if you only have ten years before the CB expires, that's not possible without truce-breaking, which the AI never does and the mechanics of the game greatly discourage. I liked the suggestion upthread about allowing provinces to be taken with these CBs, but only if the war goal of making the target a subject is met as well, a la independence wars.
2. Another option with the CBs, and one that isn't mutually exclusive with the above, is to reduce the war score cost for releasing nations or returning cores to non-belligerents in wars fought with a CB of imposing subject status. This could incentivize splitting up a target country before bringing the rump state under a vassalage or personal union, making it more manageable to control while also giving more Reconquest CBs, which the AI doesn't take advantage of enough as it is, IMO. But some AI testing should quickly determine whether or not this would work as intended.
3. I really don't think Portugal needs a buff to infantry combat ability. If the issue with Castile being able to PU Portugal early is fixed, I think that ought to be enough of a buff for Portugal right there. It's already far and away the best colonizer in the early to mid-game; I don't think it needs space marines on top of that. If Portugal does get a mil buff, England/Great Britain and Denmark ought to have the same — British national ideas are humdrum at best, and Denmark's are downright poor. Honestly, though, I don't think any of those countries ought to be geared toward fighting massive land wars in Europe, at least past the Age of Reformation, and I think their current focus on naval power, colonization, and trade is appropriate.
4. The problem of the AI Ottomans routinely annexing Crimea early on, mentioned upthread, seems like an opportunity to fix a larger issue with marches. Maybe bump up the malus for revoking march status — a significantly greater hit to liberty desire? negative diplo rep? national unrest? — and/or add a minimum number of years before you can revoke the status of a new march. (This would also address similar issues with AI Poland and AI Savoy quickly gobbling up their event marches.)
5. The other side to that, AI Russia not aggressively countering the Ottomans, also seems like a relatively easy fix, especially if you're already tinkering with the balance and flavor in those areas. I like the suggestion upthread to have a "historical rivals" modifier between Russia and the Ottomans seems like the most elegant solution. It might also make sense for Russia to have some sort of event or mission to reduce the "not same religion" malus with Muslim countries, given its complicated historical relationship with Persia and the Central Asian khanates, which were dictated much more by strategic interests than by religious differences. (For that matter, it might make sense to have this as a universal modifier for Orthodox and Coptic nations vis a vis Sunni and Shia nations, given the centuries of coexistence between patriarchates and Muslim sovereigns in Egypt, Turkey, and Armenia and the distinct lack of any Orthodox crusading.)
6. Just in general, I love the idea of giving Rûm and the Roman Empire more flavor, among other challenging formable tags. So I'm really happy to see both of them mentioned in this dev diary. Some love for other advanced/aspirational tags like Scandinavia, Egypt, Arabia, Marathas, Aotearoa, etc., would be really fun to see as well, whether in 1.33 or later on this year.

 

[Fvuxie]

Question:
Since there's a change to Alcharinga (No longer require missions), does that also mean they can possibly spawn Zealots? Or any other way for nations to become alcharinga?
Perhaps at least a decision for countries that have animism and an Australian primary culture could work

 

[Aldaron]

So I was thinking about surrounding Korea with little tributary Jurchens since AI Korea will be reluctant to attack its tributary Jurchen. To do that, devs need to further fragmentize the provinces and clans but since they already claimed they won't be fragmenting the provinces so maybe we should work with fragmenting clans only.

The Korea-Jurchen relationship was kinda not ideal to call it tributary, but since we're not adding more relation types, so tributary is the closest one I guess.

======================================================================================================

While researching that, I Got some interesting things from the Korean paper: Review of the relationship between Joseon and Udike - https://www.kci.go.kr/kciportal/ci/...kci?sereArticleSearchBean.artiId=ART002001364

This paper is mostly about Seongjong's era (1469 ~1495) but most of them work fine IMO. Some Background information before introducing this paper's contents:
=====================================================================


1. It's admirable to exclude the Western Jianzhu region from this paper. There was a major event called the killing of Li Manzhu (李滿住) which happened in 1467 that shook the whole Ming-Korea-Jurchen relationship. If you guys are interested in that area too, I'll look more for it.

1-2. Furthermore, making Jurchen living in a Xingjing area a Korean tributary will likely result in a war between Ming. While Korea and Ming disputed over control of various Jianzhu clans, Koreans never dared of escalating it to a war with Ming.


2. Josanbo incident: In 1491, Some of the Udege Jurchens raided Korean lands and even killed some of the officers in Josanbo(조산보;造山堡; EU4's Yukjin province). Korea didn't know which Udege Jurchen it was, so they attacked mostly likely Udege Jurchen which is Nimaca.

To do that King mustered 20 thousand force and attacked the Nimaca. However, this humungous force made Jurchen flee and Koreans only burned Jurchen houses and killed "9" Jurchens, then returned home.

After that, surprise surprise, the actual culprit was the Dogol (EU4's Ilah Hala) after all. So King's prestige was hit and many relationships with Jurchens were shaken. Such as Namnul and Nimaca stop to pay tribute.


3. Orangke and Odoli are not categorized as Udege and are excluded from this paper. However, Orangke tributed more than 100 times during the Sejo era (1455~1468) So I think they can be a tributary.

<Blue fonts are all added by me>

View attachment 795699

So following countries should be added as tributary to Korea

0. Odoli is the tribe that Aisin-Gioro Mengtemu controlled. Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mengtemu
So no change since they already control the whole Jianzhu Jurchen country and they shouldn't be tributary of Korea.

1. Country name: Korkhan (골간;骨看)
Holding province: Furdan (2106)
Leader: "Kim" Ma Sang Hap (김 마상합;金 麻尙哈; 馬尙申) #Dynasty name is Kim. His name is found throughout 1456~1490 so make him young. His name is 馬申哈 in Ming's record

2. Nimaca (니마차;尼麻車) or Hyomjin (혐진;嫌眞)
Holding province: Nigguta (2107)
Leader: "Kim" Geo Eul Ga Gae (거을가개;巨乙加介) #His dynasty name is unknown but just give him Kim since his son has Kim on it.
Heir: "Kim" Wu Du (김 우두;金 亐豆)

3. Namnul (남눌;南訥)
Holding province: Fu'erhe (4654)
Leader: Du La Dae (두라대;豆羅大)
Heir: Nae Ya Hap (내야합;內也哈)

4. Orangke or Orangkhai (오랑캐;올량합;兀良哈) #They're a really decentralized state and some even claim they're much like EU4's Stateless Society reform.
Molyeonwi(모련위;毛憐衛) #This is a name used by ming
Holding province: Huncun (2108)
Leader: Pa Nan(파난;波難) #As I said above, Orangkes are more like collections of small tribes and this is one of the notable names from a single tribe living in the Huncun area.






Well, thanks for reading

PS These pronunciations could be fitted better if I knew more about the Jurchen language. So if you know please help.

Very nice. Thank you!

 

[RMS Oceanic]

Do the devs have any reconsideration about blocking province conquest from PU/Subjugate wars? I'm not even sure it's appropriate, because there have been examples of a newly created client state having territory sliced off by the victorious country. And gameplaywise there's another start this seriously hampers besides Nahuatl nations: Navarra. To take advantage of the PU over Aragon it's traditional to take as many provinces as you can because otherwise it's going to be impossible to control Aragon (and maybe Naples) as a One Province Minor.

 

[nyanmurai123]

I was just puttering around with Ming today and, yeah, it just isn't very fun to play. I do like a lot of what's mentioned here, especially being able to tag-switch to another Chinese warlord. That being said, I have a few suggestions:

1. You shouldn't be able to make a state with its capital in your subcontinent and/or that has its primary culture in your culture group a tributary — this would now fit with the change to Vietnamese culture to remove it from the Chinese culture group. If that's too restrictive, there ought to be some mechanism to make it significantly more feasible to vassalize/diplo-annex such a tributary than it would be for Ming to, say, vassalize/diplo-annex Champa or Ayutthaya. (The former change has the advantage of fixing the recurring problem of Japan making Ainu a tributary instead of actually annexing Hokkaido and Karafuto as they did in history, something that will hopefully be addressed as part of this patch, too.)
2. While it makes perfect sense for Korean and Vietnamese to be able to choose to Sinicize their culture under certain (restrictive) conditions, I would look at doing this with Altaic and Tibetan culture groups as well. That would open up more and interesting possibilities for Central Asian hordes pushing into China and seems historically appropriate.
3. If Vietnamese is being split off into its own culture group, I would suggest dividing it between Tonkinese (or Trinh) culture for the north and Annamese (or Nguyen) culture for the south, similar to how the Japanese culture group is split along roughly geographic lines. But I'm not an expert on Vietnamese culture or history, so someone else please let me know if this is off-base.
4. Stronger Korea is a good thing, because right now, it's barely worth playing the tag. That being said, AI Korea should be building tall and/or trying to colonize rather than blobbing into Mongolia. Maybe rework its national ideas to give a dev cost modifier instead of, say, manpower?
5. While I like the idea of Japan not being forced to go colonial right away just to complete its mission to settle Karafuto, I do foresee some issues for the Ainu being split between two islands, especially in the early game. I thought of a strait crossing between Sakhalin and Hokkaido, but that probably would be counterproductive, given that will only accentuate the tendency for AI Manchurian countries to blob into Hokkaido. Maybe split the Ainu culture group into two tags, one in Hokkaido and the other in Sakhalin? Or just have Nivkh start with all of Sakhalin? (Also, given the change to the mission tree that will already be required, I would look at giving Japan a mission to control the north part of Sakhalin, which didn't historically happen but was an off-and-on national goal.)

And a few thoughts on the other changes:

1. Please be careful with the CBs. They've already undergone a lot of changes in recent updates. I'm particularly concerned that if taking provinces is not allowed under a Subjugation or Restoration of Union CB, and yet the target country is too large to actually take over without them being massively disloyal, the CBs with time limits on them will become even more unviable than they currently are. In theory, you could take a mission to subjugate a much larger country and eventually whittle them down to a manageable size with a series of wars, but if you only have ten years before the CB expires, that's not possible without truce-breaking, which the AI never does and the mechanics of the game greatly discourage. I liked the suggestion upthread about allowing provinces to be taken with these CBs, but only if the war goal of making the target a subject is met as well, a la independence wars.
2. Another option with the CBs, and one that isn't mutually exclusive with the above, is to reduce the war score cost for releasing nations or returning cores to non-belligerents in wars fought with a CB of imposing subject status. This could incentivize splitting up a target country before bringing the rump state under a vassalage or personal union, making it more manageable to control while also giving more Reconquest CBs, which the AI doesn't take advantage of enough as it is, IMO. But some AI testing should quickly determine whether or not this would work as intended.
3. I really don't think Portugal needs a buff to infantry combat ability. If the issue with Castile being able to PU Portugal early is fixed, I think that ought to be enough of a buff for Portugal right there. It's already far and away the best colonizer in the early to mid-game; I don't think it needs space marines on top of that. If Portugal does get a mil buff, England/Great Britain and Denmark ought to have the same — British national ideas are humdrum at best, and Denmark's are downright poor. Honestly, though, I don't think any of those countries ought to be geared toward fighting massive land wars in Europe, at least past the Age of Reformation, and I think their current focus on naval power, colonization, and trade is appropriate.
4. The problem of the AI Ottomans routinely annexing Crimea early on, mentioned upthread, seems like an opportunity to fix a larger issue with marches. Maybe bump up the malus for revoking march status — a significantly greater hit to liberty desire? negative diplo rep? national unrest? — and/or add a minimum number of years before you can revoke the status of a new march. (This would also address similar issues with AI Poland and AI Savoy quickly gobbling up their event marches.)
5. The other side to that, AI Russia not aggressively countering the Ottomans, also seems like a relatively easy fix, especially if you're already tinkering with the balance and flavor in those areas. I like the suggestion upthread to have a "historical rivals" modifier between Russia and the Ottomans seems like the most elegant solution. It might also make sense for Russia to have some sort of event or mission to reduce the "not same religion" malus with Muslim countries, given its complicated historical relationship with Persia and the Central Asian khanates, which were dictated much more by strategic interests than by religious differences. (For that matter, it might make sense to have this as a universal modifier for Orthodox and Coptic nations vis a vis Sunni and Shia nations, given the centuries of coexistence between patriarchates and Muslim sovereigns in Egypt, Turkey, and Armenia and the distinct lack of any Orthodox crusading.)
6. Just in general, I love the idea of giving Rûm and the Roman Empire more flavor, among other challenging formable tags. So I'm really happy to see both of them mentioned in this dev diary. Some love for other advanced/aspirational tags like Scandinavia, Egypt, Arabia, Marathas, Aotearoa, etc., would be really fun to see as well, whether in 1.33 or later on this year.

I agree with point 2. Making altaic and Tibetan groups also being able to sinicize would make a lot of sense and just open up a lot more interesting possibilities. I would also look at adding at the very least a Tibetan culture formable China tag and maybe a Korean chinese emperor tag (Since Altaic already has Yuan, but having more formable chinese emperor tags can't hurt in general)

 

[simden16]

How does not being able to take provinces in restoration of union balance anything? Makes it worse in my opinion, especially for smaller nations, because you can't possibly keep big nations loyal without making them smaller and you can't promise land for allies if you declare restoration of union CB.