• 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 3rd of October 2023 - Black & White Sheep // Georgia & Armenia

Good afternoon everyone and welcome! This week we will be covering multiple nations through the lenses of 2 Developer Diaries, one for Qara/Aq Qoyunlu and one for Georgia/Armenia in the thread below!

Embroiled in both external and internal conflicts, the Turkomans in the Middle East offer a very interesting playthrough including government mechanics, events, and now completely new mission trees, government reforms, and more! Both tags share similar mission trees, each imbued with unique branches for AQ and unique branches for QQ.

aqtree.png


qqtree.png

QQ and AQ will largely share most missions, each tree granting certain diversity in key points.

Despite its smaller size compared to its Eastern neighbor, AQ starts at a much stable situation (more on that further down!). In 1444 the legendary Uzun Hasan stands as the heir to a Tribal Federation ready to spread its wings and bring the surrounding territory under its heel.

The AQ mission tree offers 31 new missions, interacting with nearly every facet of gameplay, from conquest and integration to estate interaction and events. Your first tasks would be to eradicate the last remnant of the Ayyubids in Hisn Kayfa, and rally your powerful cavalry. The former will then give rise to aspirations for expansion in every direction while the latter mission (Rally the Turkomans) will play around with the existing Tribal Allegiance mechanic and grant a bonus to province warscore cost.

Screenshot_1.png

At the same time, you will be called to eradicate one of the last Roman bastions in Eastern Anatolia, Trebizond, offering a unique event reward:

Screenshot_2.png
Screenshot_3.png

The first option of the event will grant some prosperity over time in the entire state as well as some reduction to local autonomy among other minor rewards.

Another highlight of the Aq Qoyunlu conquest path is “The House of Wisdom”. The House of Wisdom in Baghdad was a renowned center of scholarship and intellectual activity in the Islamic world. Established during the Abbasid Caliphate in the 8th and 9th centuries, it continued to flourish into later centuries, being a hub of learning, translating, and preserving ancient Greek, Persian, and Indian texts, contributing significantly to the Islamic Golden Age. Scholars from various backgrounds gathered there to engage in scholarly pursuits, making significant advances in fields like astronomy, mathematics, medicine, and philosophy. The House of Wisdom's enduring legacy lies in its role in preserving and transmitting knowledge, which later influenced the European Renaissance and the broader development of human civilization. Therefore, there will be a mission about fully restoring it:

Screenshot_4.png

To wrap up the showcasing of conquest for Aq Qoyunlu, let’s take a look at “A Gunpowder Empire”. This is a term coined for empires such as the Ottomans, Safavids, and Mughals, as they used this new warfare technology to expand their territories and dominate their regions. Their military strength and control over trade routes were largely built upon their mastery of gunpowder weaponry and tactics, and Aq Qoyunlu may be able to join that group as well:

gunpowder_empire_akk.png

Moving on to the internal part of the content, we will be greeted by objectives centered around an improved court, the patronization of art and literature, as well as the development of new imperial fabrics:

Screenshot_5.png

Screenshot_6.png


Screenshot_7.png


Screenshot_8.png

Finally, let’s take a look at some more highlights before we move on to the Black Sheep:

Screenshot_10.png


Screenshot_11.png

The Black Sheep on the Eastern border suffered a turbulent time during the middle of the 15th century. In 1444 the lands around Mesopotamia were highly autonomous and far away from the central domain in Tabriz. As a result, the lands that fell in the hands of Ispend Mirza (brother of Jahan Shah) created a thorn in the side of the government, resisting the payment of taxes and drafts, thus posing a significant threat to Jahan’s rule. We decided to represent the Emirate of Baghdad via an Estate Privilege, which increases the autonomy in select areas via a flat and a monthly amount:

Screenshot_14.png

Screenshot_15.png
Screenshot_16.png

Getting rid of this privilege will be a race against time, as the autonomy of the provinces affected will be very difficult to lower - and at times it may even grow naturally over time.
Against the threat of the Ottomans to the West, not losing a single battle against this fearsome enemy will yield a powerful permanent reward:

Screenshot_19.png

The defeat of the Ottomans will herald a new era of warfare by introducing Janissaries in Tabriz as well as a new Tier 1 Government:

Screenshot_21.png

Unlike its Western counterpart, Qara Qoyunlu will facilitate a lot of its expansion into the lands of Persia in a different style, starting with the ‘Princes of Persia’ mission:

Screenshot_17.png


Screenshot_18.png

The content for the Turkomans could not be complete without a reference to a very iconic place of worship. The Blue Mosque in Tabriz, also known as the Masjed-e Kabud, is a historic mosque in Iran that earned its name from the stunning blue tiles that once adorned its walls. The mosque was originally built in the 15th century during the rule of the Qara Qoyunlu dynasty and features impressive, intricate architecture with beautiful calligraphy and geometric patterns:

Screenshot_22.png

Before we conclude this part of the Developer Diary, here’s some more content for these two countries:

Screenshot_13.png


Screenshot_12.png

It should be mentioned that the Turkoman trees are designed in a non-restrictive way to allow the player any playstyle - tribal, monarchy, horde. Although the mission tree follows the historical narrative of Persian conquests and Persianization, forming Persia is just an option the player can do at the end of the tree rather than being forced to do it. This philosophy is inspired by forum and Reddit comments by people who are hoping for the ability to stay as AQ/QQ rather than having to form another tag. Lastly, the content shown here is about half of the content planned for the Turkomen, and in the interest of keeping you excited and allowing you the ability to discover the content for yourselves, I decided against fully showcasing more missions, events, etc.

Be sure to check the continuation thread below as we dive into Georgia/Armenia....
 
  • 59Like
  • 18Love
  • 6
  • 6
  • 5
Reactions:
Good.

Singleplayer players have to worry about the checksum for achievements. Meanwhile multiplayer players are always free to use their own multiplayer oriented tuning mods without losing out on anything.

And even when the game is "balanced" around multiplayer any self respecting multiplayer lobby still uses mods that tune the balance.

So, please, stop. The only time I will ever accept that the game should even try to be "balanced" for multiplayer is when they make it so you can earn achievements outside of the vannila checksum, until then, singleplayer should always be the absolute priority.
true factual even
 
  • 6
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I stand by my philosophy that what is good for mp is good for sp, but what is good for sp isn't always good for mp.
I must firmly disagree. Multiplayer-reaction changes made back during DDRJake's tenure lead to end-game tags, corruption from territories beyond the arbitrary limit, and capital movement restrictions to prevent Asia and Africa starts from maximizing the old trade company system. What is good for multiplayer and what is good for singpleplayer may match, overlap, or be entirely opposed. Due to this I prefer that changes be made with single player in mind.
 
Last edited:
  • 16
  • 1
Reactions:
Good.

Singleplayer players have to worry about the checksum for achievements. Meanwhile multiplayer players are always free to use their own multiplayer oriented tuning mods without losing out on anything.

And even when the game is "balanced" around multiplayer any self respecting multiplayer lobby still uses mods that tune the balance.

So, please, stop. The only time I will ever accept that the game should even try to be "balanced" for multiplayer is when they make it so you can earn achievements outside of the vannila checksum, until then, singleplayer should always be the absolute priority.
Thanks for the reply!

I think you're misunderstanding something, due to my poor choice of the word "mostly" - a habit of mine due to irl career stuff. I'm not asking for the focus to become multiplayer at the expense of singleplayer balance - the player base for eu4 was, is, and always will be singleplayer. I simply believe it's possible to do both. My concern is the complete lack of alternatives in these mission trees when there is clear capacity and knowledge on how to do so, evidenced by Origins and Northern Lion. We got content in those dlcs that vibe well with multiplayer - why does it seem like that suddenly stopped?

The default for every MT Should be singleplayer, expansion, etc. But that doesn't mean it has to be the only option. Inclusion of country_or_non_sovereign_subject_owns instead of just owned_by etc in numerous trees since emperor (and even before) is an example of the changes in talking about. I'm not saying they should make a mission tree designed primarily for multiplayer and tack on some stuff just for sp. If anything it should be the opposite yes, but it doesn't have to be. As an example: Iran should have missions to conquer Egypt for the Achaemenid larp, for single player, and because it's natural and fun, but we could also include something similar to "Or = if an ally/subject who is being influenced by our Persian sphere owns Egypt receive X instead". Big boss and Ogele are very good at what they do, this shouldn't be too difficult to add (it takes me about 5-10 minutes per mission to add such alternatives in the mission trees I do, after I've planted everything, and i know these guys are much more proficient than I).

This was prevalent throughout Lions if memory serves, which was one of the most well received dlcs and did a lot to return confidence in the game's development post Leviathan. Lion also gave many new modifiers to play with, such as same religion advisor cost, etc. that were great while also working within preexisting mechanics. A lot of good insights were gained by the dev team and their approach has clearly been refined and nearly perfected... and yet they stopped adding in the optional completion of missions for some reason. The only logical concern I can think of is time management to meet deadlines?

The reduction of extremely long and wordy mission trees is a good thing in my opinion, but did it need to come at the cost of removing the optional cooperating methods of moving down a mission tree? The Rassids/Yemen will be getting content this dlc, as well the mamluks, yet it doesn't seem like the mamluks have much to do with them except eat the region. Ok, fair enough you want the trade power and the Rassids are Shia so it makes sense. But does Iran/QQ get anything to work with rassids, one of the few other likely Shia tags in the region? Ajuraan got missions to work with the Ottomans, Ethiopia missions and events with portugal. To this day Iran irl is heavily involved with trying to influence Yemen. Perhaps my memory is failing me, but I don't recall any Yemen specific missions in the Iranian tree other than perhaps a rather generic conquest/control trade one.

That's the crux of my argument. Yes, Singleplayer must be first. Yes, the last few dlcs had trees that were excessive. I don't believe that invalidates my opinion nor that I should refrain from stating that opinion. At the end of the day all I'm asking for is the developers' thoughts on the matter and perhaps some more consideration for these alternate paths that don't necessitate direct/vassal conquest.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Do you think crusader states will also get some flavor ? After all, Latin Empire became a TAG in 1.35... and with the Knight it is a beautiful story to write !
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
i dont expect anything from you guys, maybe you will completely surprise me with non shown half part of the content and i will lick my spit and apologize you.

btw: enacts modernized tribes: gets not even half of the modifiers of hordes. nice. at least you could give the damage bonus and nerfs of horde. i dont even understand why you guys deleted %25 warscore cost on sheeps in first place.
 
Last edited:
I must firmly disagree. Multiplayer-reaction changes made back during DDRJake's tenure lead to end-game tags, corruption from territories beyond the arbitrary limit, and capital movement restrictions to prevent Asia and Africa starts from maximizing the old trade company system. What is good for multiplayer and what is good for singpleplayer may match, overlap, or be entirely opposed. Due to this I prefer that changes be made with single player in mind.

Probably should've put this in the same reply as above.

Great points, and thank you as well for expressing your disagreement. I agree DDRJake went way too far, and I think you are completely valid in saying that sp and mp are different beasts, (though I obviously disagree in part).

My only real response to your statements specifically is that in my opinion (whatever that's worth) DDRJake made two fundamebtal mistakes that run contrary to game design as far as I can tell, a) focusing on his personal experience rather than crowd sourcing answers and b) removing/limiting mechanics that weren't broken (code/bug wise). I think there is space where sp and mp experience can exist without being mutually exclusive, and that we should strive to learn from past errors to find that space.

Thanks again y'all o7
 
  • 1
Reactions:
This doesn't make sense. The DLC adds stuff, so without the DLC it could only be as fun as it was before. It's not like old stuff has been removed and put into the DLC...
Except it has. They changed the starting setups that organically put countries in their challenging situation and replaced the challenges and uniqueness of those setups with missions only available in the DLC.

For example, playing as any of the Georgian nations before could lead to different scenarios (Imereti PU'd by Georgia, Samstkhe declaring on Imereti for its core in Guria, or playing as Imereti and using its stronger starting ruler and navy to get a bit of an early power boost and/or be insulated from QQ). Now they've basically just made Georgia playable and they pre-unified it with Samstkhe as a vassal and all the uniqueness is just one preformed blob with a mission tree.

So yeah, they took out content and the organic nature of the starting setup and replaced it with buttons to click in order. This is one of the most egregiously bad things that mission trees have brought.
 
  • 12
Reactions:
For example, playing as any of the Georgian nations before could lead to different scenarios (Imereti PU'd by Georgia, Samstkhe declaring on Imereti for its core in Guria, or playing as Imereti and using its stronger starting ruler and navy to get a bit of an early power boost and/or be insulated from QQ). Now they've basically just made Georgia playable and they pre-unified it with Samstkhe as a vassal and all the uniqueness is just one preformed blob with a mission tree.

Except that the starting situation never made sense in the first place since historically Imereti got independence in 1455.

However I agree that an event for Imereti getting independence, with possibly having the choice to play as them, should be made available even without owning the DLC.
 
  • 7Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Except it has. They changed the starting setups that organically put countries in their challenging situation and replaced the challenges and uniqueness of those setups with missions only available in the DLC.

For example, playing as any of the Georgian nations before could lead to different scenarios (Imereti PU'd by Georgia, Samstkhe declaring on Imereti for its core in Guria, or playing as Imereti and using its stronger starting ruler and navy to get a bit of an early power boost and/or be insulated from QQ). Now they've basically just made Georgia playable and they pre-unified it with Samstkhe as a vassal and all the uniqueness is just one preformed blob with a mission tree.

So yeah, they took out content and the organic nature of the starting setup and replaced it with buttons to click in order. This is one of the most egregiously bad things that mission trees have brought.
Except that Georgia was historically united in 1444.
 
  • 7
  • 1Like
Reactions:
So yeah, they took out content and the organic nature of the starting setup and replaced it with buttons to click in order. This is one of the most egregiously bad things that mission trees have brought.
Georgia being unified has nothing to do with mission trees though but historical accuracy, since it was unified in 1444.
 
  • 8
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I think it’s time to rethink all these National idea bonuses in general. Armenian ideas went from bad to mediocre, development cost and AT carrying hard. But I don’t think the problem is with Armenian ideas. I think there’s too many nations with the 10% morale of armies and quality of army ideas.
 
Turco-Iranian Culture is indeed a very good addition. But I think that you should add Oghuz Culture Group (Consisting Turkish Azerbaijani and Turkmeni) and make events or decisions to fracture it to the existing culture groups.

and they could still make ottos to get egyptian, syrian and mashriq cultures as accepted via mission rewards such as completing conquer mamluk state. (gain permanent +3 max accepted cultures together with these 3 cultures)

or maybe similar to turco-iranian culture they could add turko-byzantine culture if you chose to follow mysticism branch (which favors the miniorities) rather than legalism path.
 
Except it has. They changed the starting setups that organically put countries in their challenging situation and replaced the challenges and uniqueness of those setups with missions only available in the DLC.

For example, playing as any of the Georgian nations before could lead to different scenarios (Imereti PU'd by Georgia, Samstkhe declaring on Imereti for its core in Guria, or playing as Imereti and using its stronger starting ruler and navy to get a bit of an early power boost and/or be insulated from QQ). Now they've basically just made Georgia playable and they pre-unified it with Samstkhe as a vassal and all the uniqueness is just one preformed blob with a mission tree.

So yeah, they took out content and the organic nature of the starting setup and replaced it with buttons to click in order. This is one of the most egregiously bad things that mission trees have brought.
1)Unification is historically accurate, as the civil war didn't erupt until much later, and Samtskhe was subjugated a decade earlier, after an unsuccessful revolt of Jakelis.
2)I don't know what your definition of """uniqueness""" is, because there was nothing unique with Georgian start, asides the pointless and absolutely aimless frustration, not to mention jut being a free real estate for the neighboring nomads and sultanates, despite it being a country that survived 8 (!) invasions of a lame Uzbek that exterminated millions of people in Middle East, Persia, Central Asia and India. But that's one part of the problem. Another Problem was the fact that after the initial difficulties would be dealt with, it would become one of the blandest and most boring countries to play as. All those wacky meme campaigns about recreating Soviet Union as Georgia was unironically a quintessential representation of this issue, because after becoming a major power, Georgia essentially functioned as Russia, except for the unique flavor, government reforms or even proper names for the government (just a few patches earlier, Georgian principalities were called "Khanates" for some unfathomable reasons)l.

If anything, I was pleasantly surprised about how much unique content will be added in an upcoming patch for Georgia. I was unironically expecting something formal and bland, like the Wallachian tree, highlight of which is just Dracula shoving a pointy stick up in the Sultan's rectum.
 
  • 7Like
Reactions:
Georgia being unified has nothing to do with mission trees though but historical accuracy, since it was unified in 1444.

It has everything to do with mission trees since historically they were de facto separate for almost a century before. That's why originally in EU4 Georgia was one kingdom and was split when Cradle of Civilization was released and the area was redone the first time. Now they're re-unified except that Samtskhe is separate for some bizarre reason which is trying to model it both ways (both united and separate). EU4 doesn't model things like split kingdoms and such really at all, so at the very least the way it was after Cradle of Civilization was more fun and realistically better modeled the split kingdoms and their disputes (especially when it comes to helping each other due to wars, rivalries, etc.).


But no, now we have missions trees and the organic content that came out of that region is gone and replaced by clickable bonuses.
 
  • 12
Reactions:
Your own cited """source""" outright reads that at that time, the Georgian Kingdom was unified under the Triumvirate, the revolt of the Nobility began after the death of Demetrius and that Samtskhe (which was revassalized in 1414 after the revolt of Ivane II Jakeli was squashed by King Alexander) entered in an open rebellion in 1451.
Just admit that you simply hate Mission trees and you dont really care about historical accuracy at all. You've been doing nothing but to complain about it throughout previous threads as well.
 
  • 13
Reactions:
Your own cited """source""" outright reads that at that time, the Georgian Kingdom was unified under the Triumvirate, the revolt of the Nobility began after the death of Demetrius and that Samtskhe (which was revassalized in 1414 after the revolt of Ivane II Jakeli was squashed by King Alexander) entered in an open rebellion in 1451.
Just admit that you simply hate Mission trees and you dont really care about historical accuracy at all. You've been doing nothing but to complain about it throughout previous threads as well.
I hate mission trees. That's the only truth in your reply.

But using historical accuracy to justify removing content and replacing it with with paid DLC is pure fanboyism.

My own "source" doesn't contradict at all what I said. I said EU4 doesn't model split kingdoms and internal politics well. France was given its duchies as separate entities after being the BBB for a long time. Georgia was split in the Cradle of Civilization DLC patch because someone at that time thought it better represented Georgia in the context of EU4. Now it's been re-unified with Samstkhe inexplicably separated as a vassal state. EU4 doesn't represent the internal divisions well because it doesn't represent internal politics well. At least before it was more fun to play as an form Georgia proper and get rid of internal divisions. Now you can just pretend they don't exist and click on buttons.

Have you ever played a game in this region before? It was awesome. Now it's just mission trees.

Enjoy your $15 clickfest because it's all you're going to get from now on.
 
  • 16
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
I hate mission trees. That's the only truth in your reply.

But using historical accuracy to justify removing content and replacing it with with paid DLC is pure fanboyism.

My own "source" doesn't contradict at all what I said. I said EU4 doesn't model split kingdoms and internal politics well. France was given its duchies as separate entities after being the BBB for a long time. Georgia was split in the Cradle of Civilization DLC patch because someone at that time thought it better represented Georgia in the context of EU4. Now it's been re-unified with Samstkhe inexplicably separated as a vassal state. EU4 doesn't represent the internal divisions well because it doesn't represent internal politics well. At least before it was more fun to play as an form Georgia proper and get rid of internal divisions. Now you can just pretend they don't exist and click on buttons.

Have you ever played a game in this region before? It was awesome. Now it's just mission trees.

Enjoy your $15 clickfest because it's all you're going to get from now on.
They divided Georgia in the Craddle of Civilization, because there were no disasters. Now they can make the historical collapse actually happen without inaccurately making Georgia divided in 1444.
 
  • 10
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I wonder if some if this Coptic flavor might be added to Ethiopia as well... as the other major Coptic nation, it would be a bit weird for one to be able to spawn Coptic Centers of Conversion, while the other can't. Would also be strange for Ethiopia's Liberate Alexandria to have such little focus compared to Coptic Restoration, despite the two having pretty much the same goal and the same outcome. Regardless, am very excited for King of Kings!! Tinto is only getting better and better with their content additions
 
  • 5
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I wonder if some if this Coptic flavor might be added to Ethiopia as well... as the other major Coptic nation, it would be a bit weird for one to be able to spawn Coptic Centers of Conversion, while the other can't. Would also be strange for Ethiopia's Liberate Alexandria to have such little focus compared to Coptic Restoration, despite the two having pretty much the same goal and the same outcome. Regardless, am very excited for King of Kings!! Tinto is only getting better and better with their content additions
Alexandria really should be the Center of Conversion.
 
  • 4
Reactions: