“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!

 

[icedt729]

To weigh in on the NI debate: England's naval NIs give things like 10% combat strength bonuses to specific ship types. With the first English idea, 10 English big ships are worth 11 big ships from a country with equivalent tech and no equivalent NI bonus. This is not exactly what I'd consider a "guarantee" that in-game England will always have a powerful navy. The extra forcelimits and slight edge in combat are there, but they're not large enough to guarantee anything. Much less because we can expect other, nearby countries (like the Dutch, Portuguese, Castilians and Danes) to have similar naval bonuses. Many of the "unique" national advantages seem to be on the magnitude of 5-10% here or there, a difference that could be overcome by slider positions in EU3 and that I'm sure won't be as important as smart management of your idea groups and tech.

Ultimately, I think the loss in freedom is relatively small and the gain in flavor and immersion is relatively large. CK2 and Vicky2 work as (almost) total sandboxes because of the deep systems for titles & claims and POPs respectively, but EU3 is a game about national development. To say that countries shouldn't have any unique traits relative to each other in EU4 is like saying there should be no distinctions between different types of POPs in Vicky or between different succession laws in CK. It's just fundamentally necessary for the game to have depth, variety and strategy.

 

[1alexey]

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.

How about the "i can have more coastal province" perk that contineental powers can enjoy?

You guys seem to be complaining that beating England now requires strategies more complicated than "have more ships and have more soldiers."

No, it is pure whinking from the desire to only fight in a chivalrous way(akka outnumbered), and still win.

I mean how bad it should be to just owerwhelm opponent with numbers? That is not fun!!11.

Their very first unique NI unlocks sometime before ~1526, probably in the 15th Century. If they choose the naval idea group as their first choice, you've got no way to keep up with them. In EUIII if they took a naval idea, you could take the same idea to at least try to match them. If they ever took any idea other than a naval one, you could surpass them by making a naval choice. But this system for EUIV ensures that they'll always be one step ahead of you. England already starts with the highest amount of naval forcelimits (I'd be shocked if this changed in EUIV), they don't need to have stronger ships as well.

What is so bad about making naval strength dependant on something other than a permanent bonus given to only certain nations & a linear idea path? Why not give the player more ways to improve the quality of his navy?

Exept, you also get a bonus, that is either a navy buff, or economy buff and since ships are not free, economy buff is also a navy buff, or a land ppwer buff. that will allow you to extend your coastline to be bigger than British, and larger coastline=more monies and more naval forcelimit, so, oh and ah, also a naval buff.

To weigh in on the NI debate: England's naval NIs give things like 10% combat strength bonuses to specific ship types. With the first English idea, 10 English big ships are worth 11 big ships from a country with equivalent tech and no equivalent NI bonus. This is not exactly what I'd consider a "guarantee" that in-game England will always have a powerful navy. The extra forcelimits and slight edge in combat are there, but they're not large enough to guarantee anything.

and the islands also make expancion a tricky buisness.

 

[Chamboozer]

Exept, you also get a bonus, that is either a navy buff, or economy buff and since ships are not free, economy buff is also a navy buff, or a land ppwer buff. that will allow you to extend your coastline to be bigger than British, and larger coastline=more monies and more naval forcelimit, so, oh and ah, also a naval buff.

So, yet again, instead of being interesting and innovative, the way we expand our navy's strengh is by conquering a bigger coastline with our land army.

 

[George LeS]

It sort of takes it in a direction I wasn't going to go in, as it's basically impossible for Paradox to model what 'accurately reflect is position' is supposed to mean (e.g. is it accurate for England to have high forcelimits in 1444? Since forcelimits don't exist in real life, the question can't be answered).

Rather, I was going to question the logic of modeling such an important historical development as England's rise to power through an unchangeable National Idea. I think even deterministic people can agree that any country's ability to maintain a powerful fleet was not a result of the properties of geography itself, but rather was the result of the advantages given to a country based on that geography. For example, one could say "England had a strong navy because it was an island country", and while that is a true statement, it wasn't the island itself that led to a strong navy, but rather the conditions that come with living on an island. For instance, a large fishing industry which gave England a pool of skilled seamen to recruit from. This is something that applies equally to many other countries, such as Portugal, the Netherlands, and Aquitaine.

I use that last example to show that it's not always a country that has the capacity to build a strong navy, but that it can also be a region of a country - something that NI bonuses will entirely miss. England gets a NI to (presumably) represent how it historically was able to harness the advantages of its society and geography to make a stronger navy than the other European countries. Other countries historically had some of those same advantages, but by limiting the factors that determine our naval strength to mere tradition, advisors, technology, and NIs, Paradox is simplifying the elements that went into making historical navies powerful. Worse than that, all of the things that affect our navy appear to be country-wide bonuses that don't take into account the areas we rule. And I thought players were begging for more ways to interact with their provinces?

A great way to add more variety to the system would be to give each coastal province a "Seamen" value which is quadrupled in provinces producing fish, doubled for naval supplies. England, with her long coasts, will be naturally endowed with a large supply of seamen, thus satisfying the determinists. Running out of seamen wouldn't mean you couldn't build ships, but that your ships would have lower morale. People recruited from the inland regions of your country have probably never even seen the sea before - this was a huge problem for France during the Napoleonic Wars. But at least now the system is flexible - If England loses too many battles, her supply of naval manpower could run out, unlike the EUIV system where it simply costs money and is tied to your land manpowerconfused.

It would also be good to tie it to trade, so countries which establish large trading networks will be able to field vast fleets and have large reserves of naval manpower, maybe this bonus could be a National Naval Manpower Modifier of +X% based on how wide-ranging your merchant connections are. The point is, Paradox seems to be making the system very linear. If you want to improve your navy, go to the naval national idea group, or hire an advisor. This makes bonuses given to any single nation unfair because it's that much harder to overcome. Any change, such as the ones listed above, would make the system more gradient such that every country in the game could have navies of varying quality. Want a better navy? Take over provinces that produce fish to get manpower, or increase the size of your trading network. These are things you could potentially do faster than England, whereas we can assume that most countries will stay on par with each other in terms of the amount of NIs they have at any given time.

Ultimately what I want to see is naval strength tied to some value that is independent of the overall country, be it either provinces or trade. As it is, your naval strength is determined almost entirely by your number of coastal provinces (forcelimits), and your naval idea group (everything else). And that's just profoundly disappointing. Once naval strength is more flexible, I'll be willing to accept giving some countries small bonuses from unique National Ideas.

The 2nd point is better than the 1st. You can see the trouble with tying navy size to provinces by comparing the Dutch and English in the 17th C. If you load any start date during any of the Dutch Wars (in EU3), you'll see that NED is completely outmatched. Another example is the 18th C, comparing France to both Britain and Spain. Sure, the RN was bigger (it wasn't always in the 17th) than the French, but the latter were usually 2nd. In EUIII, they are a distant 3rd (if that) to Spain.

Trade, however, is the best single test. The key, as you say, was the number of seamen. Anyone can build ships; you cannot build sailors. (In this respect, France in the Nap War face a problem, with sailors, similar to that of Japan, regarding pilots, after 1942. Over 25%--at least--of French able seamen were British prisoners by Leipzig.)

But there is no simple answer. My own take is that the game should have a flatter curve, from highest to lowest. And tradition (which should decay MUCH more slowly) should matter, as should simply maintaining a fleet. Perhaps there will be some actions (not just ideas, but event/mission/decision-based modifiers) which one can take to increase your fleet.

My own take on the general issue here is that I like it. I just question the timing of this one bonus for England. And again, it may be needed for game play. It is entirely arguable that the RN needs buffing early, to avoid what I've seen too often--large parts of England owned by continental powers.

 

[Niptium]

The French navy under the latter years of Jean-Baptiste Colbert and the early years of his son outmatched the English or the Dutch navies (during the 1680s).

 

[1alexey]

So, yet again, instead of being interesting and innovative, the way we expand our navy's strengh is by conquering a bigger coastline with our land army.

You also have techs, and naval NIs, so where did you get the lack of ability to be innovative, is a mystery to me.

Britain is an island, with long coastline, reasonable merchant and fishing marines, so the fact that they have better ships, compared to mostly land focused nations is not surprising, or is it?

How do they relate to other seafaring nations, is up to specualtion, so...

 

[WeissRaben]

You also have techs, and naval NIs, so where did you get the lack of ability to be innovative, is a mystery to me.

Britain is an island, with long coastline, reasonable merchant and fishing marines, so the fact that they have better ships, compared to mostly land focused nations is not surprising, or is it?

How do they relate to other seafaring nations, is up to specualtion, so...

Yes - but, to make an example, a fully formed Italy (with Naples too, just to be even more effective) would be extremely naval-oriented, with all the Marine Republics under its wing and the geographical position. If Milan founds it, though (Land based), Italy will be Land based, even if it makes no sense. Maybe, of course - we still have to see how the Union countries will work. But Milan that is going to press the button to become Italy already is Italy from every point of view.

 

[Andrelvis]

The linearity of idea obtaining seems to me to be a rather restrictive and uninteresting game mechanic... while I will probably buy EU4 anyway, this will make me less interested in the game, and thus I will most likely take longer to purchase it. But more importantly, I'm worried that we haven't really seen much advance in regards to the expansion of moddability since the launch of the Clausewitz engine. Games like Starcraft 2 and Civilization 4 allow modders an immense amount of possibilities, while the Clausewitz games, in comparison, allow for relatively little moddability.

 

[unmerged(63836)]

Britain is an island, with long coastline, reasonable merchant and fishing marines, so the fact that they have better ships, compared to mostly land focused nations is not surprising, or is it?

What if I start as Scotland and conquer England in early 1500s. Would game recognise that I am an island nation with foes only overseas, and grant me same kind of NIs in late-game? Or would game be totally inflexible, by giving me NIs for remote highlander kingdom just because I'm not called England?

This system is massively flawed. It's ok with first 1-2 NIs for representing situation prior to start of the game and giving flavour (though to make sense they should be active right at the beginning) - it stops making sense later on to the point of ridiculous, if player plays ahistorically. England was highly unlikely to not focus on the seas for obvious reasons, but how would this system work with less obvious countries that can develop in several totally different ways?

 

[Thure]

What if I start as Scotland and conquer England in early 1500s. Would game recognise that I am an island nation with foes only overseas, and grant me same kind of NIs in late-game? Or would game be totally inflexible, by giving me NIs for remote highlander kingdom just because I'm not called England?

This system is massively flawed. It's ok with first 1-2 NIs for representing situation prior to start of the game and giving flavour (though to make sense they should be active right at the beginning) - it stops making sense later on to the point of ridiculous, if player plays ahistorically. England was highly unlikely to not focus on the seas for obvious reasons, but how would this system work with less obvious countries that can develop in several totally different ways?

You can still choose many more other NIs. The national NIs are only a little part of this.

 

[WeissRaben]

You can still choose many more other NIs. The national NIs are only a little part of this.

Yes, but they are presented as the national ethos - the characteristics that nation has because of its position and background and economics and stuff. While a Scotland-England is quite different in culture from England-Scotland, the main problems that brought England to be a naval power apply to Scotland-England too. Of course, I'll keep saying that this discussion needs more known elements; but what we have now it is not that hard to find...improbable situations.

 

[unmerged(63836)]

You can still choose many more other NIs. The national NIs are only a little part of this.

Sure. But why introduce flawed system into the game? Is joy of gaining 'unlockable' bonus with tiny icon and fancy name worth leading to potential immersion braking, nonsensical situations? I love unlocking new skills while playing roguelikes or rpgs, and I'm fine that once I chose paladin or mage, my skill tree is partially pre-scripted. Is it really necessary to have such mechanic in one of the most complex strategy games on the market?

 

[Colombo]

Sure. But why introduce flawed system into the game? Is joy of gaining 'unlockable' bonus with tiny icon and fancy name worth leading to potential immersion braking, nonsensical situations? I love unlocking new skills while playing roguelikes or rpgs, and I'm fine that once I chose paladin or mage, my skill tree is partially pre-scripted. Is it really necessary to have such mechanic in one of the most complex strategy games on the market?

I play in skill-based systems where nothing like "paladin" or "mage" realy exists. And I hate class and level systems.

 

[Colombo]

Yes, but they are presented as the national ethos - the characteristics that nation has because of its position and background and economics and stuff. While a Scotland-England is quite different in culture from England-Scotland, the main problems that brought England to be a naval power apply to Scotland-England too. Of course, I'll keep saying that this discussion needs more known elements; but what we have now it is not that hard to find...improbable situations.

So scotland would forget all those elements that meant scotland only because in real life, Great Britain was created by England?

 

[Dafool]

Yes, but they are presented as the national ethos - the characteristics that nation has because of its position and background and economics and stuff. While a Scotland-England is quite different in culture from England-Scotland, the main problems that brought England to be a naval power apply to Scotland-England too. Of course, I'll keep saying that this discussion needs more known elements; but what we have now it is not that hard to find...improbable situations.

Actually these don't seem to represent a total ethos. In EU3 the elusive ethos was a mix of sliders and NI's. Here it is a mixture of Idea Groups and NI's. It's hardly different in most respects, especially when you consider that Idea Groups are much more varied and controllable than sliders ever were. It'll probably be a rough transition, but it's probably better to look at the NI's as being the sliders of EU4, at least when talking of "national predispositions".

Sure. But why introduce flawed system into the game? Is joy of gaining 'unlockable' bonus with tiny icon and fancy name worth leading to potential immersion braking, nonsensical situations? I love unlocking new skills while playing roguelikes or rpgs, and I'm fine that once I chose paladin or mage, my skill tree is partially pre-scripted. Is it really necessary to have such mechanic in one of the most complex strategy games on the market?

The system is not flawed. If it was flawed, then the NI system of EU3 was also flawed, as was the slider system. Any player who treads off the beaten path is likely going to find themselves in "immersion br[e]aking, nonsensical situations" and that shouldn't be the least bit surprising if that's how you want to play. Having some basic historical nudging in a historical game is not in any way a problem. It should be expected if nothing else.

 

[unmerged(63836)]

Any player who treads off the beaten path is likely going to find themselves in "immersion braking, nonsensical situations" and that shouldn't be the least bit surprising if that's how you want to play.

So unlike CK2, or EU3, there's only one, historical path that is optimal to follow? That's huge flaw. How true are marketing slogans of 'shape your own history' or 'plausible outcomes' then? What about replayability? What about predictability of events or AI behaviour?

Having some basic historical nudging in a historical game is not in any way a problem. It should be expected if nothing else.

Historical nudging is terrible (X happens because it happened historically at a time). Realistic mechanics is good (x happens because historical causes are replicated). And don't tell me that it's too complicated - paradox already done that, even in EU4 apparently with new monarch system.

 

[Chamboozer]

You also have techs, and naval NIs, so where did you get the lack of ability to be innovative, is a mystery to me.

Because in EUIII if you wanted to improve your navy, you had the options of sliders, NIs, advisors, and tech. Now sliders are gone and NIs (i.e. Idea Groups) are linear - in EUIII you could choose any naval NI, in this game you must take them one at a time. You have less options for how to improve your navy than you did in EUIII.

Less options means that any bonus applied to a single nation and no others becomes magnified more than it otherwise would. If England took naval NIs, you could move your slider to naval to compensate. Now the only way to compensate is to imitate their moves, which means that due to their bonus they are one step ahead of you.

 

[Dafool]

So unlike CK2, or EU3, there's only one, historical path that is optimal to follow? That's huge flaw. How true are marketing slogans of 'shape your own history' or 'plausible outcomes' then? What about replayability? What about predictability of events or AI behaviour?

No. Don't over exaggerate the mechanics in order to prove a point. It will get you nowhere. EU3 gave you the full ability to do what you want and even gave you basic tools to do so. Recreate the Byzantine Empire. Conquer the Inca as Portugal. Unite the HRE. Conquer France as England. All ahistoric. All possible. They even have mechanics to allow you to pull off such things. As far as we know, none of this has changed in EU4. So please stop pretending that adding in a bit of nation specific content is railroading. I'm sure I'm not the only one tired of explaining it to you. (Even the devs had to say something about it.)

Historical nudging is terrible (X happens because it happened historically at a time). Realistic mechanics is good (x happens because historical causes are replicated). And don't tell me that it's too complicated - paradox already done that, even in EU4 apparently with new monarch system.

No it's not. You may not like it, but many people do. On top of what people like and don't like, it's important if the game is to function. You can't have anything relatively plausible if the game has no rules or models to work with. We've seen no indication that historical railroading is to replace game mechanics. Just because a mechanic exists to encourage historical results does not mean it is only there to limit things. Once more, you need to understand the point that has been brought up many times: historical content is not railroading.

 

[unmerged(63836)]

It's not going anywhere.

 

[Kiithis]

Historical nudging is terrible (X happens because it happened historically at a time). Realistic mechanics is good (x happens because historical causes are replicated). And don't tell me that it's too complicated - paradox already done that, even in EU4 apparently with new monarch system.

In the new DLC for CK2 there are several new events for Byzantium. Would you call those deterministic?

1. I believe an event that can only be triggered by the PLAYER's actions cannot be defined as deterministic.

2. I do however believe that an event that directly effects outcomes regardless of player action is deterministic.

I invite you to name one thing that follows the parameters of number 2 that is confirmed to be in EU4.