“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!

 

[Seli]

If it was so simplistic, and societies were destined to follow exact historical patterns, why paradox bothered with open ended, non scripted, elaborate PoP system for Victoria 2? Answer - there was cause and effect, and nothing was destined to strictly follow historical patterns - mechanics representing cause and effect are always better than script telling game that at date x, y happens (NI).

...

If everything was set in stone, why bother with player's input - game would be much more 'historically accurate' by playing itself.

In my opinion it is not about destiny (and I don't think it is set in stone, keep in mind we have all the other slots to change the nations to our liking), but about a representation of the population living somewhere. They changed of course under the influence of government and history but in return also exerted influence themselves.

Ignoring the civilization completely or allowing full player control over the population in my eyes is worse than the assigning of 'national characteristics' we seem to get with the NI's. A dynamic system in theory could result in a better solution, but there are practical limits and game-play decisions to keep in mind as well.

 

[Herr Doctor]

In my opinion it is not about destiny (and I don't think it is set in stone, keep in mind we have all the other slots to change the nations to our liking), but about a representation of the population living somewhere. They changed of course under the influence of government and history but in return also exerted influence themselves.

Ignoring the civilization completely or allowing full player control over the population in my eyes is worse than the assigning of 'national characteristics' we seem to get with the NI's. A dynamic system in theory could result in a better solution, but there are practical limits and game-play decisions to keep in mind as well.

I agree with you. For example mentioned "merchant republicanism" for Poland is so fantastic scenario that personally I cannot even imagine any realistic way to accomplish this in real life considering the historical (or unhistorical) social development. But in game you of course can click couple of bottoms within several dozens years and become "Baltic Venice" with only some relative stability hit.

 

[WeissRaben]

I agree with you. For example mentioned "merchant republicanism" for Poland is so fantastic scenario that personally I cannot even imagine any realistic way to accomplish this in real life considering the historical (or unhistorical) social development. But in game you of course can click couple of bottoms within several dozens years and become "Baltic Venice" with only some relative stability hit.

Revolutions happen, though. Bad kings ruin a country and are toppled, or sudden deaths change the line of succession to favor the most unlikely person, or wars change that much the socio-economical landscape that society simply has to adapt. It is not unthinkable, for example, the often quoted example of an absolutistic England. On the other hand, one king saying that he is the state doesn't make for an absolute genetic disposition towards centralization.

 

[unmerged(63836)]

In my opinion it is not about destiny (and I don't think it is set in stone, keep in mind we have all the other slots to change the nations to our liking), but about a representation of the population living somewhere. They changed of course under the influence of government and history but in return also exerted influence themselves.

Ignoring the civilization completely or allowing full player control over the population in my eyes is worse than the assigning of 'national characteristics' we seem to get with the NI's. A dynamic system in theory could result in a better solution, but there are practical limits and game-play decisions to keep in mind as well.

Yes, I agree that it should be represented, and there should be a difference of burgher/merchant dominated society of Low Countries, and aristocracy dominated PLC for example. Yes, I agree that crazy total transformation should not be easily achieved. However, in my opinion it should be modelled by game mechanics - not sent from heavens at date X, just because. It's hard to imagine Netherlands ruled by strong aristocrats, but it could be constitutional monarchy, republican dictatorship or merchant republic in game terms. This could be modelled by faction system, and Netherlands would feel and play like urbanised, developed, non-feudal state because of game mechanics, not because of arbitrary stuff. Examples of Sweden and Denmark show that things can go in different ways - if you want to script it be consistent and script everything, including wars and monarchs that led to these changes.

I agree with you. For example mentioned "merchant republicanism" for Poland is so fantastic scenario that personally I cannot even imagine any realistic way to accomplish this in real life considering the historical (or unhistorical) social development. But in game you of course can click couple of bottoms within several dozens years and become "Baltic Venice" with only some relative stability hit.

I consciously exaggerated that example as something achievable in game - not something plausible in terms of alternate history. However, if Poland annexed Prussia completely it would change balance of power between cities and landed nobles. Later this can cause protestantism actually taking root in such Poland. This in turn, can end union with Lithuania, which could shift interests of such Poland from the east to Baltic sea, and can enable Polish kings to limit power of aristocrats with help of Polish-Prussian cities. Far fetched - maybe. Should be possible in game - definitely. It's a game, not history book.

 

[Herr Doctor]

Revolutions happen, though. Bad kings ruin a country and are toppled, or sudden deaths change the line of succession to favor the most unlikely person, or wars change that much the socio-economical landscape that society simply has to adapt. It is not unthinkable, for example, the often quoted example of an absolutistic England. On the other hand, one king saying that he is the state doesn't make for an absolute genetic disposition towards centralization.

And what kind bourgeois revolution in Poland? The cities and towns would crazily develop populated by the Martian colonists by the sign of magic stick? This is not that easy really to switch from feudal society and serfdom to plutocracy when you even do not have rich townspeople powerful enough to influence the politics.

 

[Werther]

I just want that essentialism and determinism don't win and become the new focus of the game. I don't want that England always become a sort of Constitutional monarchy and France an Absolutist monarchy in the XVIIIth when you start a game at the first date.
Why i take this example? Because the two counries had approximatly the same political situation (monarchy with centralisation, not absolutist or "liberal") at the beginning of the game and during the period became different. But there is a lot of evolution (long term) and events (random) which create these changements and the final situation of the XVIIIth. Yes it's possible that England became a Republic or a absolutist Monarchy and yes it's possible that France became a Monarchy without absolutism ("traditionnal" even constitutionnal).

 

[WeissRaben]

And what kind bourgeois revolution in Poland? The cities and towns would crazily develop populated by the Martian colonists by the sign of magic stick? This is not that easy really to switch from feudal society and serfdom to plutocracy when you even do not have rich townspeople powerful enough to influence the politics.

I don't know, really. But Poland, not even two centuries before, was a cauldron of squabbling dukes trying to contend for supremacy. Many things change: less involvement with the east (a failed union with Lithuania) and better concentration on economical and trading matters could push the nation. It would be horrendously slow, but the game lasts for three and half centuries.
(Moreover, I did not talk about Poland.)

 

[Herr Doctor]

I consciously exaggerated that example as something achievable in game - not something plausible in terms of alternate history. However, if Poland annexed Prussia completely it would change balance of power between cities and landed nobles. Later this can cause protestantism actually taking root in such Poland. This in turn, can end union with Lithuania, which could shift interests of such Poland from the east to Baltic sea, and can enable Polish kings to limit power of aristocrats with help of Polish-Prussian cities. Far fetched - maybe. Should be possible in game - definitely. It's a game, not history book.

You are greatly exaggerating the influence of the foreign politics and military successes onto the social development. Poland did historically controlled quite developed and urbanized Royal Prussia (and it was much richer than Ducal Prussia btw) but this did not show any great influence on social processes in, say, Masovia or Lesser Poland. Also I do not see how the end of the union with Lithuania could do this: nobles/szlachta republicanism is the purely Polish thing (as Urszula Augustyniak wrote in one of her brilliant essays, the implementation of the Polish political system to Lithuania was absolutely inadequate to the actual social, political and economical development of the Grand Duchy as it was based rather on the quite strong Royal power and senatorial magnates oligarchy), the Sarmatism as the myth about the genesis of the nobility is also purely Polish (Lithuanian nobility before the 17th cnetury used the so-called Roman "Polemon" myth), the local Orientalism in clothes and weapons developed under the Hungarian and Vlach influence also came to Lithuania from Poland not otherwise etc etc.

Also there is a big Marxist myth that the centralisation of the Royal power was wholeheartedly supported by the urban elites because in fact the first steps the monarchies usually doing to straighten their power were to destroy all medieval autonomies and rights of the said cities and towns and implementing high taxes on them. And in most such cases the monarchs still relied on nobility. Danzig would have no chance to be such a phenomenon as we know it historically if Poland would go absolutist and the free city would defiantly never support the king in this path (you know, the events in 1575-1577).

 

[Herr Doctor]

I don't know, really. But Poland, not even two centuries before, was a cauldron of squabbling dukes trying to contend for supremacy. Many things change: less involvement with the east (a failed union with Lithuania) and better concentration on economical and trading matters could push the nation. It would be horrendously slow, but the game lasts for three and half centuries.
(Moreover, I did not talk about Poland.)

And how is a failed union with Lithuania is a path to the development of the Polish cities?
I understand that this is just an example but it portraits that not every radical social changes are possible in history quite well.

 

[unmerged(63836)]

You are greatly exaggerating the influence of the foreign politics and military successes onto the social development. Poland did historically controlled quite developed and urbanized Royal Prussia (and it was much richer than Ducal Prussia btw) but this did not show any great influence on social processes in, say, Masovia or Lesser Poland. Also I do not see how the end of the union with Lithuania could do this: nobles/szlachta republicanism is the purely Polish thing (as Urszula Augustyniak wrote in one of her brilliant essays, the implementation of the Polish political system to Lithuania was absolutely inadequate to the actual social, political and economical development of the Grand Duchy as it was based rather on the quite strong Royal power and senatorial magnates oligarchy), the Sarmatism as the myth about the genesis of the nobility is also purely Polish (Lithuanian nobility before the 17th cnetury used the so-called Roman "Polemon" myth), the local Orientalism in clothes and weapons developed under the Hungarian and Vlach influence also came to Lithuania from Poland not otherwise etc etc.

Also there is a big Marxist myth that the centralisation of the Royal power was wholeheartedly supported by the urban elites because in fact the first steps the monarchies usually doing to straighten their power were to destroy all medieval autonomies and rights of the said cities and towns and implementing high taxes on them. And in most such cases the monarchs still relied on nobility. Danzig would have no chance to be such a phenomenon as we know it historically if Poland would go absolutist and the free city would defiantly never support the king in this path (you know, the events in 1575-1577).

Impact was low, because Royal Prussian cities received wide autonomy. However, starting with 1444 we can annex whole Prussia without giving autonomy. This would change internal situation a lot, and since there was many conflicts of the crown with nobles - king potentially could call for help of the cities promising them some privileges that he didin't give them in the first place. Plus, talented monarchs increased their power by smartly playing one faction at another - not by saying 'support us, and be my slaves'. If you claim that such event would not alter history of Poland, and everything would follow historical path - that's dogmatic belief in history as a series of inevitable events, that I cannot agree with.

EDIT

As for lack of union with Lithuania. Smaller Poland (with Prussia) would be easier to manage, with higher ratio of cities to landowner estates. King would have it easier to fight nobles that way.

 

[WeissRaben]

And how is a failed union with Lithuania is a path to the development of the Polish cities?
I understand that this is just an example but it portraits that not every radical social changes are possible in history quite well.

It moves the focus away from the East. Now, WHAT would happen next I cannot say - but (and Paradox agreed enough to put the focus of the game on it) a strong monarch with clearly defined idea COULD steer the nation in the desired direction. It happened, time and again. Not in Poland, sure, but it is not really a winning argument when talking about possible ways to ahistorical outcomes.

 

[Svip]

Ideas replace the government types as well!? Where did it say that? Where did it say there was a Danish idea that would turn Denmark an absolute monarchy?

 

[WeissRaben]

Ideas replace the government types as well!? Where did it say that? Where did it say there was a Danish idea that would turn Denmark an absolute monarchy?

It's more about England having the Bill of Rights as a National Idea - which, playing as an absolutistic monarchy, could well cause immersion problems.

 

[Svip]

It's more about England having the Bill of Rights as a National Idea - which, playing as an absolutistic monarchy, could well cause immersion problems.

It gives -1 revolt risk. Even an absolute monarchy could give out some basic rights. When Denmark became an absolute monarchy, it was actually - initially at least - an advantage for the non-nobles. I do not see the mutual exclusiveness.

 

[WeissRaben]

It gives -1 revolt risk. Even an absolute monarchy could give out some basic rights. When Denmark became an absolute monarchy, it was actually - initially at least - an advantage for the non-nobles. I do not see the mutual exclusiveness.

It probably represents the Bill of Rights of 1689, going by the time it is unlocked, though - the one that restricted the sovereign power in favor of the Parliament.

 

[Svip]

It probably represents the Bill of Rights of 1689, going by the time it is unlocked, though - the one that restricted the sovereign power in favor of the Parliament.

That's likely. But gameplay-wise, there is no issue. But given stuff like Magna Carta, it seems rather natural for the British to talk about rights, be opposing the sovereign power or other rights.

I don't think they should be so directly related to the event/thing they are obviously inspired by.

 

[Herr Doctor]

Impact was low, because Royal Prussian cities received wide autonomy. However, starting with 1444 we can annex whole Prussia without giving autonomy. This would change internal situation a lot, and since there was many conflicts of the crown with nobles - king potentially could call for help of the cities promising them some privileges that he didin't give them in the first place. Plus, talented monarchs increased their power by smartly playing one faction at another - not by saying 'support us, and be my slaves'. If you claim that such event would not alter history of Poland, and everything would follow historical path - that's dogmatic belief in history as a series of inevitable events, that I cannot agree with.

EDIT

As for lack of union with Lithuania. Smaller Poland would be easier to manage, with higher ratio of cities to landowner estates. King would have it easier to fight nobles that way.

This looks extremely unrealistic. In such scenario the Prussian League would stay loyal to the Order and would fight and rebel against the Polish Crown to death all the time. Additionally Prussia as all the German Baltic coast defiantly was not the cradle of innovation and urban development. Despite many powerful old free Hanseatic cities and towns Prussia or Pommerania were still the stronghold of the old feudalism of the lesser knights (junkers) and peasant serfdom.

I do not say that Poland cursed to the liberum veto-style anarchy. There are a lot of ways for different political development (for example, saving the old monarchia mixta from falling towards the nobles republicanism). But this is not like it could become warmongering Anabaptist theocracy or merry Calvinist merchants republic under any realistic scenario within next two-three centuries in game. There are certain social patterns that not easy to overcome even for the most talented rulers and the consensus within elites. So, in my opinion a certain amount of such game determinism you are criticizing is very necessary to avoid absurdities.

Regarding Union of Lublin: it did not change anything for the Polish Crown in sense of "manageability" (except the incorporation of Ukraine may be) as the whole Lithuanian administration system was saved and worked as before independently from the Polish.

 

[WeissRaben]

So, in my opinion a certain amount of such game determinism you are criticizing is very necessary to avoid absurdities.

I would prefer if the change could be possible de jure but impossible de facto: 1789 would find the nation still mid-change, because it would have a LOT to change. Other nations could operate significant changes in the timeframe of the game or even during the life of a couple of talented kings (think about Prussia under Frederick Wilhelm and Frederick I) because their society would be less opposed to those. Think about it as an evolution of the sliders of old, with frequency of change modified by the ruler's abilities but mostly way slower than EU3. With one slider move every, what do I know, 30 to 50 years with a mediocre king/ruler, Poland could not possibly change inside out in a night. A veritable heap of great kings (almost absurd in quantity) could bring a nation to veer its course quite thoroughly. We do not have sliders anymore, of course, but it would have been nice having a similar system to represent long-term change a bit more granular than Idea groups. But what is done is done.

 

[unmerged(63836)]

EDIT

never mind..

 

[k_merse]

Yeah, exactly! How is anyone ever gonna beat a +10% big ship combat bonus? So when its combat power would be 10, it is now 11!!! Holy moly! England is unbeatable.

Let's see:
25% higher naval force limit +10% more combat power. So they can build more and stronger ship for less penalty.
+15% higher tax. If you ever played with a country which has constant taxation problems, you know exactly how decisive this is.
+10% trade income, and +10% more combat power for light ships. Same issue as with the two above.
+10% discipline. As this factor multiplies its effect based on several other factors, the differences will be huge in land combat.
-50% Naval Attrition. Again, an NI which will make it impossible to race with England in either numbers or quality in naval forces.

Only these NIs mean that if you're not playing England, or other lucky nations who will get their own naval NI, means that you won't be able to colonize anything. Even if you succeed, England declares war on you, takes your colonies and you can do nothing to prevent it, because their fleet will block your way there.