• 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.
“This England never did, nor never shall,
Lie at the proud foot of a conqueror”


Welcome to the 7th development diary for Europa Universalis IV,
where we talk about the dominant power by the end of the Europa Universalis time frame, the country formerly known as England.
England can be considered both as one of the easier nations to play, but also one of the more challenging nations. That´s a paradox, you say?
Well, it all depends on what you wish to accomplish and what kind of empire you want to create ;)

The unique possibilities of England
What truly makes England unique to play is that the country has natural borders protecting it and that you can strengthen those borders dramatically with rather cheap investments. You can decide to let England get involved in the continent, from a safe position, or choose to isolate England and go overseas. The country also sits on a bloody nice position to control the trade from the Baltic and from North America. So the options are huge for you to take England in plenty of directions when creating your empire.

England’s Dynamic Historical Events
England is has one of the richest and best known histories. That may sound lovely for you guys, but it also means that we have had to work hard when it comes to decisions about historical events to include in Europa Universalis IV. The important countries in EU4 have a lot of events going on, so some of those major historical events have been turned into the starting points of large event chains that we call Dynamic Historical Events.

War of the Roses is an excellent example of Dynamic Historical Events. If England in the 15th century has a ruler without an heir, that means that there is a likelihood of a large event chain beginning. The player has to select who to back for the throne, York or Lancaster. This decision will throw the country into turmoil with various parts declaring for either the red or white rose, and you have to make sure to eliminate the very strong, rather resilient pretenders. What makes this interesting is that this event chain is not an event series that is guaranteed to come every time you play as England. It only occurs if all the necessary underlying factors are fulfilled. When it happens, you won't have planned for it to arrive on schedule, like many people did when they played Europa Universalis II, the last game in the series with a serious focus on historical events. We hope that this variation will gives you rather unique experiences when you play major powers.

The English Civil War will be another major event series that might encounter when you play as England, but we will not spoil it for you here yet. ;)
England also has many smaller DHE, like The War of Captain Jenkin's Ear: if they are rivals with Spain, after 1700, then you can get a casus belli on Spain. Or an event like The Muscovy Trade Company, where if you discover the sea route to Archangelsk, and its owned by the Muscovites, then there is a likelihood of this historical event happening.

England’s Missions & Decisions
We have kept the historical missions that existed in Europa Universalis III and we are expanding them for Europa Universalis IV, so you'll still see missions to conquer Scotland and colonize North America. When it comes to decisions, England still manually have to rely on the Wooden Wall, and make Calais into a Staple Port.

England’s National Ideas
The traditions that England starts with is a small boost in naval morale and a 5% boost to their trading efficiency.
The trading efficiency boost is due to the fact that the economy of England to fund their participation in the Hundred Years War was their taxation of the very profitable wool trade.

The 7 National Ideas for England are:
  1. Royal Navy : 25% higher naval force limit, and +10% more combat power for big ships.
  2. Eltham Ordinance : +15% higher tax.
  3. Secretaries of State : +1 diplomat
  4. Navigation Acts : +10% trade income, and +10% more combat power for light ships.
  5. Bill of Rights : -1 revolt risk.
  6. Reform of Commission Buying : +10% discipline
  7. Sick and Hurt Board : -50% Naval Attrition.



Reward: English Ambition
When England has gotten all seven of their National Ideas, they get the bonus of 'English Ambitions' which gives them a +100% on their embargo efficiency.

Here's a screenshot where I've cheated to show a little bit of the idea progress..

7.png

Welcome back next week, where we'll talk in detail about the enhancements we've done to the religious aspect of the game!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
England really should NOT get a mission to conquer Scotland (and that they did caused needless problems in EU3). England historically tried quite hard to conquer Scotland in the CK period, under Edward I and III, and they got kicked out by rebels both times. After that, they felt that conquering Scotland just wasn't worth it.
Oliver Cromwell would have answered you here, but he was too busy leading an English army to conquer Scotland in 1651. :)


One thing does concern me - those trade routes leading to Antwerp. In 1585 or thereabouts, they should all shift and go to Amsterdam instead. Arguably after about 1700 they should all move to London. But are they going to be fixed all through the game in EU4?
 
OK. The DD is overall quite good, but I do feel obliged to put in again on the matter of the War of the Roses.
Henry VI, the king at the start of the actual War of the Roses, had an heir http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_of_Westminster,_Prince_of_Wales . Now admittedly he isn't born until 1453, but that isn't the point here. The point is the trigger that keeps being listed is "No heir", which is simply incorrect. If we follow the historical setup, then the war of the roses, as currently listed, cannot happen in the time frame it did since the war officially starts 6 years after the birth of an heir.


I also do not see why this could not be genericised so that if a pretender has come to power, sometime in the next two or three generations the previous line can arise to try to recapture the throne. Regardless of country.
Thus, if the Burgundian Capets were to seize power from the Valois, the "War of the Lillies" could occur. Similarly if the Scots were to suffer this, then a "War of the Lions" could occur.
 
England really should NOT get a mission to conquer Scotland (and that they did caused needless problems in EU3). England historically tried quite hard to conquer Scotland in the CK period, under Edward I and III, and they got kicked out by rebels both times. After that, they felt that conquering Scotland just wasn't worth it. So they shouldn't get a mission to do so... if the player wants to ahistorically attempt to conquer Scotland, or the AI does so, fine, but they shouldn't be pushed that way by a mission.

So the historical attempts to conquer Scotland shouldn't count for a mission to try?
So we should only get a mission to do it if it was successful, despite it being something the country "tried quite hard" to do?
 
Oliver Cromwell would have answered you here, but he was too busy leading an English army to conquer Scotland in 1651. :)


One thing does concern me - those trade routes leading to Antwerp. In 1585 or thereabouts, they should all shift and go to Amsterdam instead. Arguably after about 1700 they should all move to London. But are they going to be fixed all through the game in EU4?

He wasn't conquering Scotland though, just bringing them to heel. Since England and Scotland were still two separate kingdoms, albeit sharing King, it would be entirely reasonable for the Scots to keep Charles I whilst the English got rid of him. Of course Cromwell wasn't having any of that.
EU3 gives a quite simple illustration of the situation. England leads a PU with Scotland just with a republican dictatorship rather than a monarchy, that is in effect what happened.

I remember one book I read made a point of saying that the "English Civil War" is very misleading, as it actually involved England, Scotland and Ireland!
 
I also do not see why this could not be genericised so that if a pretender has come to power, sometime in the next two or three generations the previous line can arise to try to recapture the throne. Regardless of country.
Thus, if the Burgundian Capets were to seize power from the Valois, the "War of the Lillies" could occur. Similarly if the Scots were to suffer this, then a "War of the Lions" could occur.

Indeed. Unfortunately, "War of the Lillies" or "War of the Lions" didn't happen, and primary feature of EU4 are dynamic historical events. We would have to wait for 'elaborate generic events mod' I'm afraid. ;)
 
[The 7 National Ideas for England are:
  1. Royal Navy : 25% higher naval force limit, and +10% more combat power for big ships.
  2. Eltham Ordinance : +15% higher tax.
  3. Secretaries of State : +1 diplomat
  4. Navigation Acts : +10% trade income, and +10% more combat power for light ships.
  5. Bill of Rights : -1 revolt risk.
  6. Reform of Commission Buying : +10% discipline
  7. Sick and Hurt Board : -50% Naval Attrition.

Royal Navy bonus in the 15th Century? (assuming that we get our first NI before 60 years have passed). I was under the impression that England's naval prominence didn't really begin until much later.

Generally speaking it seems to me that some of these bonuses are too large. We should have more control over the elements of the game that give us things like a 10% increase in a ship's fighting power or 10% increase in discipline. If the NIs are to be uncontrollable and nation-specific, it would be good for them to be more subtle.
 
Arguably after about 1700 they should all move to London. But are they going to be fixed all through the game in EU4?

That's about 100 years too early. London didn't surpass Amsterdam as financial and trading hub until the French Rev. Wars
 
I also do not see why this could not be genericised so that if a pretender has come to power, sometime in the next two or three generations the previous line can arise to try to recapture the throne. Regardless of country.
Thus, if the Burgundian Capets were to seize power from the Valois, the "War of the Lillies" could occur. Similarly if the Scots were to suffer this, then a "War of the Lions" could occur.

This.
 
Henry VI, the king at the start of the actual War of the Roses, had an heir
In a hereditary monarchy, it's remarkably difficult to not have an heir. Even if it's the previous monarch's fifth cousin nine times removed on his mother's side, there'll be somebody with a trace of royal blood. The real issue is legitimacy: do the nobility and church accept the putative heir as the rightful next king?

The easiest change, from Paradox's point of view, is just rewrite the "No heir" text to say, "No recognised heir". One extra word solves all the historical griping. :)

In the case of the Wars of the Roses, the Duke of York's main aim was to be recognised as Henry VI's heir, and he was already gathering an army in 1451 before Prince Edward was born. After he was, York tried to spread rumours that he wasn't the king's actual son, but that Queen Isabella had been having an affair with the Duke of Somerset - given Henry VI's insanity, the claim didn't seem all that incredible. So yes "no generally recognised heir" does seem to be a good statement of the situation.



He wasn't conquering Scotland though, just bringing them to heel.
No, he was conquering them and annexing them.

Here:

Ordinance for uniting Scotland into one Commonwealth with England said:
His Highness the Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland, &c., taking into consideration how much it might conduce to the glory of God and the peace and welfare of the people in this whole island, that after all those late unhappy wars and differences, the people of Scotland should be united with the people of England into one Commonwealth and under one Government, and finding that in December, 1651, the Parliament then sitting did send Commissioners into Scotland to invite the people of that nation unto such a happy Union, who proceeded so far therein that the shires and boroughs of Scotland, by their Deputies convened at Dalkeith, and again at Edinburgh, did accept of the said Union, and assent thereunto; for the completing and perfecting of which Union, be it ordained, and it is so ordained by his Highness the Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, by and with the advice and consent of his Council, that all the people of Scotland, and of the Isles of Orkney and Shetland, and of all the dominions and territories belonging unto Scotland, are and shall be, and are hereby incorporated into, constituted, established, declared and confirmed one Commonwealth with England; and in every Parliament to be held successively for the said Commonwealth, thirty persons shall be called from and serve for Scotland.

And for the more effectual preservation of this Union, and the freedom and safety of the people of this Commonwealth so united, be it ordained, and it is ordained by the authority aforesaid, that all the people of Scotland and of the Isles of Orkney and Shetland, and of all the dominions and territories belonging unto Scotland, of what degree or condition so ever, be discharged of all fealty, homage, service and allegiance, which is or shall be pretended due unto any of the issue and posterity of Charles Stuart, late King of England and Scotland, or any claiming under him; and that Charles Stuart, eldest son, and James, called Duke of York, second son, and all other the issue and posterity of the said late King, and all and every person and persons pretending title from, by or under him, are and be disabled to hold or enjoy the Crown of Scotland and other the dominions thereunto belonging, or any of them; or to have the name, title, style or dignity of King or Queen of Scotland; or to have and enjoy the power and dominion of the said kingdom and dominions, or any of them, or the honours, manors, land, tenements, possessions and hereditaments belonging or appertaining to the said Crown of Scotland, or other the dominions aforesaid, or to any of them, any law, statute, usage, ordinance or custom in Scotland to the contrary hereof in any wise notwithstanding.

And it is further ordained by the authority aforesaid, that the said office, style, dignity, power and authority of King of Scotland, and all rights of the three Estates of Scotland to convocate or assemble in any general Convocation or Parliament, and all conventional and Parliamentary authority in Scotland, as formerly established, and all laws, usages and customs, ordaining, constituting or confirming the same, shall be and are hereby and from henceforth abolished and utterly taken away and made null and void.

And that this Union may take its more full effect and intent, be it further ordained by the authority aforesaid, that the Arms of Scotland, viz. a cross, commonly called St. Andrew's Cross, be received into and borne, from henceforth in the Arms of this Commonwealth, as a badge of this Union; and that all the public seals, seals of office, and seals of bodies civil or corporate, in Scotland, which heretofore carried the Arms of the Kings of Scotland, shall from henceforth instead carry the Arms of this Commonwealth.
These days, historians mostly talk about the Wars of the Three Kingdoms or the British Civil Wars. :)
 
Probably a silly question, but... let's say I'm a "creative" player and don't want to develop the navy, instead trying to wage land wars all over continental Europe. With the nation-specific national ideas, does it mean I'd be forced to go the navy route or is there another way?
 
Probably a silly question, but... let's say I'm a "creative" player and don't want to develop the navy, instead trying to wage land wars all over continental Europe. With the nation-specific national ideas, does it mean I'd be forced to go the navy route or is there another way?
You get a small bonus to naval morale. I'm not really seeing how that would force you to go the naval route?
 
Probably a silly question, but... let's say I'm a "creative" player and don't want to develop the navy, instead trying to wage land wars all over continental Europe. With the nation-specific national ideas, does it mean I'd be forced to go the navy route or is there another way?

Please read the last dev diary. There is explained that you have 16 idea groups with 7 ideas each. In the course of the game you can pick up to 8 groups with all 7 ideas. Thats 7*8 = 56 Ideas for you to choose. The fixed national ideas are seperate from these. So you have 7 national ideas against 56 ideas of your own choosing. I think you can steer your nation the way you want, regardles of the national ideas.
 
Probably a silly question, but... let's say I'm a "creative" player and don't want to develop the navy, instead trying to wage land wars all over continental Europe. With the nation-specific national ideas, does it mean I'd be forced to go the navy route or is there another way?
It doesn`t forces you to go naval. nor does it prevents you from getting any of the military idea groups, but, England as a nation with huge costline naturally should have a decent navy.

How the bonuses fare against bunuses of other countries and generic ones from NIs, i think military NI tree>= any tradition tree that a country like Prussia or France can recive.
 
I'm more worried about how an average nation that gears itself entirely to navy by getting everything in the naval idea group will fare against an England that does the same. 10% is a huge bonus to provide to English ships, especially so early on (and in an era when big ships were faring worse in comparison to galleys, not better).
 
Yes, I am indeed worrying about the Dutch or French navies here which did compete with the Stuart (post Restoration) navy.
 
I'm more worried about how an average nation that gears itself entirely to navy by getting everything in the naval idea group will fare against an England that does the same. 10% is a huge bonus to provide to English ships, especially so early on (and in an era when big ships were faring worse in comparison to galleys, not better).

In my opinion 10% is average, 20 % would be huge. Definitely I would exchange first bonus for big ships for small ships in matter of balance