• 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:
Because it's a historical flavor National Idea, so it's absurd to make it occur in every game 100% of the time at an ahistorical time. Or should we give France an 'absolutism' National Idea in 1550?



Here.





And on my own knowledge, which is based on this and this.

England's rise to naval prominence began in the middle of the 16th Century, when England perfected bronze gun manufacture. By the latter half of the century it can be legitimately argued that they had a superior navy to the other Atlantic powers, due to innovations in tactics and versatile ship design. England also perfected the design of short-range, extremely heavily armed galleons, which led to what we now know as the ship-of-the-line. These are not things that date from the 15th Century.
Did you actually read my question?

It was conserning a pure metter of big ship design, the firepower of a ship, not the "perfection of manufacture", nor the "naval dominance".

As a metter of fact, the best comparison would be the rate of weight of leed that a british ship would launch into enemy in a unit of time, compared to other major naval nations.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Armada

read this your plain wrong the english navy was a long way ahead of every other european power in the early 1500s and even before in medievil times

the spanish had strong naval allies too

in the first hundred war with france they completly decimated the french fleet in 1213 and 1217

and then again in 1340 against the french an genoese

they then sunk castilles fleet in 1350

then defeated the french yet again at sea in 1416

this was all before 1500 they were by far the dominat sea power from around the 1200s onwards

the naval reforms started in 1485 they should get these descions early and they should be able to field a larger navy and more advanced navy then the next 3 largest powers combined

Well, if you rely on english wiki about how great and powerful we were... Its your choice. But no. Being dominant power doesnt mean winning a few battles here and there. I case you are not aware, there were defeats also. And the spanish armada sunk because of storms after an engagement were the english got the best part. Just that. But nationalism made the iggest victory of all times out of it.

By 1500 the spanish and especially the portuguese had more naval "tradition" (using the eu III terminology) and tech than the english navy. It wasnt until mid the XVIII century when brithish navy victories become almost a constant, even if before that GB had a potent navy
 
...and if my grandmother had wheels she would be a tram - as we say :)

I like the way people arguing endlessly about 'what if'-s here.

Well the thing is that we at least can imagine an alternative reality here, although only in the short term. Anything beyond the successful establishment as Sigismund III as king over Sweden quickly becomes arbitrary.
 
How much will England rise to power be subject to what happens in other nations?

What is a certain Dutch king didn't ever rule England?
What if the Netherlands stay Spanish?

I always kinda see EU as a timemachine: what if I change this factor, what happens then?

But I understand EU following a more historic path, but I would like to see a reason for this ingame.
 
It was conserning a pure metter of big ship design, the firepower of a ship, not the "perfection of manufacture", nor the "naval dominance".

As a metter of fact, the best comparison would be the rate of weight of leed that a british ship would launch into enemy in a unit of time, compared to other major naval nations.

The very fact that you're talking about cannon useage and 'big ship design' shows that you don't know what you're talking about with regard to the 15th Century. This is a time period when most Atlantic ships were converted merchant or fishing vessels, and 99% of combat involved grappling and boarding, with people firing muskets and crossbows from high forecastles. In fact the forecastle was one of the most prominent elements of the carrack, showing that combat involving boarding was still the most important element of 'big ship' battles (i.e. cannons were not used). This was because one of the main reasons for engaging enemy ships in the first place was to capture its cargo. After all, armies on land got tons of booty for winning battles and sacking cities, people in the navy had the exact same motivations - destroying a ship with cannon from a distance would be unprofitable. IIRC the only cannons on carracks were installed to stern, to allow the ship to defend itself while retreating.
 
Which, I think, is best simulated through taking a naval idea group. If Paradox is going to guarantee that no matter what happens we get a certain national idea in a certain time period, it should be based entirely on history. Though I would of course prefer more flexibility.
I would say that taking the naval idea group is the government taking an active interest in the navy, while the NI's are simulating the advantages coastal nations have because many people are already involved at the sea and in trade before (and outside of) government interference.
 
I dont see any problem with the new way PI has taken about NIs. If you remember the previous DD, it said that we now have idea GROUPS (each with seven ideas in them) We can take several of those groups, so, we can still make England, or any other country, the country we want, even if we also have a especific NATIONAL idea group for our country we dont even have to take it, if we dont want, or we cant take it (and become a naval power) but also take the quality idea GROUP and also become a land power, or take the Trade and the Exploration idea group and become a trading power. In short, we still have a lot of room for an open game. Please, read the previous DD and you will see there is no need to worry, IMHO
 
Last edited:
I would say that taking the naval idea group is the government taking an active interest in the navy, while the NI's are simulating the advantages coastal nations have because many people are already involved at the sea and in trade before (and outside of) government interference.

But.. that's simply not what it's simulating. Otherwise it would just be a bonus every coastal nation gets. England gets it whether or not they have a coastline. Literally the only thing it simulates is that England historically had a good navy. Except it's (probably) being given to England long before they historically achieved naval prominence.
 
How much will England rise to power be subject to what happens in other nations?

What is a certain Dutch king didn't ever rule England?
What if the Netherlands stay Spanish?

I always kinda see EU as a timemachine: what if I change this factor, what happens then?

But I understand EU following a more historic path, but I would like to see a reason for this ingame.

Or what if the Netherlands stay Burgundian or Austrian? In a way it's a time machine, but it's more about plausibility than historicity.
 
Well the thing is that we at least can imagine an alternative reality here, although only in the short term. Anything beyond the successful establishment as Sigismund III as king over Sweden quickly becomes arbitrary.

If he granted sweden protestants normal laws and agreed that his son get bohemian and russian crown, we would get a huge powerhorse and become BFF.:p
 
Being dominant power doesnt mean winning a few battles here and there. I case you are not aware, there were defeats also. And the spanish armada sunk because of storms after an engagement were the english got the best part.
The Spanish Armada didn't sink by some fluke coincidence. It sank because the English fleet shot its ships full of holes, then forced them to flee north into the stormy waters of the North Atlantic. And an important point that often gets missed is that Spain in the 16th century had about three times the population of England and was much richer. The fact that England was not only able to meet them on equal terms at sea, but get the overall advantage, does suggest that there needs to be some special factors involved - such as national ideas representing an established naval tradition.

Again, though, a +10% big ship bonus doesn't suddenly make England the "dominant power"...
 
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.
I know that, apparently I wasn't clear enough about that. But with National NI==National National Idea, I tried to refer to unique NIs - sorry for not being clear on that.
 
I think some anti-sandbox people are confusing the difference between "initial condition" advantage and boons of nations and continuous, pervasive modifiers that constantly force you to make certain decisions over others. The point brought up about playing a plutocratic, naval Poland in end-game and having aristocratic/cavalry boons be unlocked thanks to a prefab national development path is what we worry about.

No, having all nations start with the same provinces and the same modifiers is silly. However, it seems Paradox is trying to both have its cake and eat it by shoehorning in "flavour modifiers" which, i am sorry, but are founded on a deterministic, hindsight version of history which seems to hardly allow for the radical deviations and non-specificity that make recent Paradox games so awesome. It is pandering to a simplified conception of states to say that there is something "essentialist" about them, which causes them to inevitably pursue long term policies that are "essential" to their nature.

Many people feel that the power of grand strategy games is to take control from a certain set of initial conditions, bound by dynamic and organic game rules and see how history develops in reaction to wildcards and player intervention. Paradox have been gradually progressing towards this end and EUIV just seems like a step back for this philosophy. "Developments costs" seem to be hardly an issue, because Paradox have shown themselves to be more than capable of this complexity.

Even the most rigidly scripted game will not be an accurate portrayal of true history. If you want flavor, read/eat a history book.
 
Seriously, having your hand held like this does remind me of Civ or Total War something: "England: Maritime/Innovative, +10% Ship Combat, Special unit: Britannia Flamethrower Barque".

If this is the future, I feel sad.

This post, more than anything else, describes my view on the whole NI issue. If it's there for historical flavor's sake, make it a smaller buff. If it's there for gameplay purposes to help England with its navy, make it optional.

To everyone who's said that we can't judge how big of a buff it is because we don't know what 'combat power' is, notice that in the same list England gets a 10% bonus to discipline from one of the ideas. That's twice the bonus Sweden got in EUIII, so we can presume that the bonuses recieved from National Ideas will be very significant. Besides, 10% of anything is a big change.
 
A few people seem to think irrelevant/too big is some sort of knife edge. I'm not convinced that England is going to start ruling the seas from 1470 purely because of this bonus (yes opposing them, you have to bring more ships, but you were going to do that anyway). Paradox may revise them as a result of playtesting, but the rest of us don't have enough information to go on.

Secondly, is anybody going to put forward a plausible alternative first NI for England or just gripe about the existing one?