“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:

2. Royal Navy : 25% higher naval force limit, and +10% more combat power for big ships.
3. Eltham Ordinance : +15% higher tax.
4. Secretaries of State : +1 diplomat
5. Navigation Acts : +10% trade income, and +10% more combat power for light ships.
6. Bill of Rights : -1 revolt risk.
7. Reform of Commission Buying : +10% discipline
8. 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..



Welcome back next week, where we'll talk in detail about the enhancements we've done to the religious aspect of the game!

 

[Talq]

Trade looks like a WIP, given the trade nodes seem to have moved from on sea (see the screenshots in DD2?) to on land (which by-the-by is more intuitive). I suspect the UI is already set up to at least have the option to only show the trade routes important to the country being played, so some care needs to be exercised interpreting them for other countries.

Also a historical quibble, Calais was a staple port in 1363. Why is there a decision nearly a century later?

Royal navy does seem like a strange first bonus - except that its not clear what you can replace it with (especially as historically England are in the throes on the war of the roses). They were also surprisingly good at this naval stuff before then.

 

[Sardoniscorn]

I think it would be better to phrase it like this: If a "grand strategy" game relies on flavor buffs to change the play style of nations, it is worse off for not being able to do so through dynamic, general game features.

For example, how does England still become a naval power and colonizer in EU3? It is not because of a big "England Naval Bonus" peg-on, but because its particular situation and initial condition makes it do so. Yes, sliders, missions and decisions guide you to a more particular play style, but they are either not major factors or reproduceable in any other nation given the right circumstances.

England could be any other nation tag in the same position with the same set of circumstances and the systems of the game would make it organically assume what we see as the English method . Making it so "England acts like England" by giving it a big, unique set of buffs is just lazy in a grand strategy game (EDIT: Of the level of complexity that Paradox have shown themselves capable of creating).

 

[Evie HJ]

While I am NOT comfortable with the size of the bonuses involved here - it's looking like a huge advantage for doing things "the historical" way that will disadvantage anyone else trying to go ahistorical...

I don't think a "grand strategy game" as described above, with dynamic, general features that suffice to represent all those historical things is a realistic expectations, because of the sheer number of dynamic, general features that would be needed. Past Paradox games prove this: they can be divided in the ones that generally followed history (even when it made no sense), and the one that went completely off track and resulted in complete nonsense nineteen game out of twenty.
EU3 was in that respect no different. England DID tend to be pretty English on average, but it (and more rarely France) are about the only major power that actually followed history on a regular basis. Austria did whatever it did through military power with very little diplomacy. Russia never formed, Spain never formed, the Ottomans always died, etc. To make all of these work more historically, you would need a very large number of features and generic systems.

"Better more intricate systems" is one of those wish list items, like "better AI" that sounds obvious in theory, but is practically impossible to do well enough in practice.

 

[Chamboozer]

To make all of these work more historically, you would need a very large number of features and generic systems.

While what you say is certainly true, personally I think the chaos was largely due to the ease of conquest. It was so easy to overrun an entire country (just beat their army in battle and chase it until its gone - no need to worry about attrition while chasing them into the interior!) that the AI could never handle building and consolidating large empires. The very fact that you can conquer all of France by placing one regiment on each province and just waiting, with each fort guaranteed to fall at some point in time is a testament to this.

The second half of the problem was the simplicity of sending armies across huge distances. It meant that countries like the Ottomans had to constantly fend off massive foreign invasions from all over Europe, and on the flip side it meant that those same European countries were sending their armies thousands of miles away instead of staying home to fight rebels, or to just defend. The AI also never kept armies in reserve as pure rebel hunters.

I think if those two issues were addressed we'd see far more stable AI empires and things would go a lot more historically.

 

[Evie HJ]

Yes. And we'd have the multiplayer and world conquest style players up in arms.

More to the point...especially in the absence of serious meaningful peacetime things to do (other than : trade to get richer to build larger armies), conquest is one of the relatively few actual "thigns to do" in EU. So if you cut back on the ability of conquering, then you're right back to needing extra features that require a large load of work.

 

[Chamboozer]

You'd still be able to conquer just as much, it'd just be harder (and more geographically sensible, but humans tend to conquer sensibly anyway). There's your 'thing to do'.

And it would also increase the challenge for a greater period of time. One of the main complaints people have with all Paradox games is that the challenging aspect disappears after you reach the size of a medium power.

 

[airpirate]

Looks good.

The one thing I don't like is the bill of rights thing, as it could potentially clash with an absolutist England and break immersion. The only thing I take issue in is the name, maybe something a little more vague so it could apply to all government types.

 

[unmerged(303218)]

I'm looking forward to the DD of next week, as this one gave rather little important information we didn't have yet. Just a reinforcement of worries about NIs.

 

[Brent15]

If I'm England, I have to have a Bill of Rights? What if I want to be an absolute monarch who offers his people no guarantees or rights?

You end up with your head separated.
:laugh:

That's funny, because I was thinking the same thing when I wrote it.

Putting that aside though, I think I should have the option to try.

 

[Antiscamp]

I am an Englishman in Spirit, so I will start by playing England. I started EUIII with Sweden, but I've never actually had any luck with that country. I've had the most fun playing England in EUIII.

 

[gja102]

Oliver Cromwell would have answered you here, but he was too busy leading an English army to conquer Scotland in 1651.

You raise a good point here, but there's a difference between a dictator using the language of conquest to suit his own goals, and an actual lasting military annexation.

Or are you genuinely arguing that Paradox are wrong to portray the Act of Union as an 18th century diplo-annexation? Because that seems the best portrayal to me.

 

[asamy]

I think it would be better to phrase it like this: If a "grand strategy" game relies on flavor buffs to change the play style of nations, it is worse off for not being able to do so through dynamic, general game features.

For example, how does England still become a naval power and colonizer in EU3? It is not because of a big "England Naval Bonus" peg-on, but because its particular situation and initial condition makes it do so. Yes, sliders, missions and decisions guide you to a more particular play style, but they are either not major factors or reproduceable in any other nation given the right circumstances.

England could be any other nation tag in the same position with the same set of circumstances and the systems of the game would make it organically assume what we see as the English method . Making it so "England acts like England" by giving it a big, unique set of buffs is just lazy in a grand strategy game (EDIT: Of the level of complexity that Paradox have shown themselves capable of creating).

Could not more agree with you!

 

[Sleight of Hand]

Or are you genuinely arguing that Paradox are wrong to portray the Act of Union as an 18th century diplo-annexation? Because that seems the best portrayal to me.

That sums it up, yes, but I'm assuming here that the 'Conquer Scotland' thing is about taking them province by province as opposed to forming a personal union or annexing them diplomatically?

 

[StephenT]

Or are you genuinely arguing that Paradox are wrong to portray the Act of Union as an 18th century diplo-annexation? Because that seems the best portrayal to me.

In game terms, England annexed Scotland in 1651 (the declaration I quoted from 1654 just made that official), and everyone thought it would be permanent. But then Cromwell died, the country suffered a big stability loss, and nationalist rebels under General Monck arose in Scotland, marched into England and won independence.

After that point things returned to the pre-war situation, with England and Scotland as individual countries in a PU, until 1707.

 

[Seli]

I think it would be better to phrase it like this: If a "grand strategy" game relies on flavor buffs to change the play style of nations, it is worse off for not being able to do so through dynamic, general game features.

For example, how does England still become a naval power and colonizer in EU3? It is not because of a big "England Naval Bonus" peg-on, but because its particular situation and initial condition makes it do so. Yes, sliders, missions and decisions guide you to a more particular play style, but they are either not major factors or reproduceable in any other nation given the right circumstances.

England could be any other nation tag in the same position with the same set of circumstances and the systems of the game would make it organically assume what we see as the English method . Making it so "England acts like England" by giving it a big, unique set of buffs is just lazy in a grand strategy game (EDIT: Of the level of complexity that Paradox have shown themselves capable of creating).

Perhaps, but in the previous incarnations where we could change our nation the one thing that was missing was a sense of 'what the nation used to be'. Which is an aspect of a nation that was not modelled by the old slider system, where (in approximation) the sliders defined the nation and where the sliders used to be was not important. At least this new system has the advantage of capturing this history, in addition to allowing us to mould our nations to our liking.

Perhaps ideally these traditions and history are properties of the provinces, not the nations covering them. However, in the current system (limited by developer time, computing resources, and probably more) that won't be implemented and the current solution is an achievable solution.

 

[unmerged(405910)]

(and more geographically sensible, but humans tend to conquer sensibly anyway)

Have you seen the empires Portugal and the Netherlands had? It wasn't really sensible to make those empires with such small populations as they had, even though things worked out quite well for them.

 

[unmerged(63836)]

Have you seen the empires Portugal and the Netherlands had? It wasn't really sensible to make those empires with such small populations as they had, even though things worked out quite well for them.

New trade route system would make such trading empires appear in the context of game mechanics (If AI has range, colonists, navy and trade acumen, it would calculate that it's worth to get some insignificant African coast province to benefit from trade route passing nearby).

 

[ANO1453]

Will national ideas be used to graduate naval supremacy? For example, Portugal would get a naval national idea by the start of the game, then the Spanish not very far off, then the Dutch and then the English to simulate the naval power move from the South to the North?

 

[unmerged(303218)]

Will national ideas be used to graduate naval supremacy? For example, Portugal would get a naval national idea by the start of the game, then the Spanish not very far off, then the Dutch and then the English to simulate the naval power move from the South to the North?

The problem is, they will all get national NIs (they are all important enough) but not in such an orderly fashion. For example, England's very first NI is Royal Navy +10% combat power to Big ships, while the Portuguese might only get the first really naval idea somewhat later.

The 7 National Ideas for England are:

2. Royal Navy : 25% higher naval force limit, and +10% more combat power for big ships.
3. Eltham Ordinance : +15% higher tax.
4. Secretaries of State : +1 diplomat
5. Navigation Acts : +10% trade income, and +10% more combat power for light ships.
6. Bill of Rights : -1 revolt risk.
7. Reform of Commission Buying : +10% discipline
8. 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.

 

[StephenT]

The problem is, they will all get national NIs (they are all important enough)

Every single country in the game will get national ideas. Kongo will get them. Aceh will get them. Köln will get them. The only thing is that countries like England will get specific ones, while "less important" countries will presumably get a more balanced set of general ideas giving them all-round bonuses instead of more focussed ones.

And honestly, I think the idea that a +10% bonus to big ship combat is some sort of game-ending, unbeatable 'win' button to be hyperbolic in the extreme. It'll give England a slight edge at sea, perhaps, but they'll still lose plenty of battles. So what happens if you're playing France with Land ideas and you need to challenge Britain at sea? Are you doomed by the game to always losing? Of course not. You can use your land advantage to conquer some extra coastal provinces in Europe, get a higher naval force limit, and then out-build the superior English navy and crush them with your superior numbers.

Instead of being able to mould your country perfectly to your will, you'll have to find ways to leverage your strengths to overcome your weaknesses. It might not be as easy, but it should be more fun.