• 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:
Except in real life Scotland formed a PU with England, Scotland being the senior partner, and then formed GreatBritain some 100 years later.
And I can nitpick similar dumb thing about Hannoverian dynasty and claim that GB is more Hannoverian than both English or Scottish.

The point was somewhere else. And I don't think that you didn't knew it.
 
I didn't realise there were so many seers and prophets amongst us paradoxians. :)

Seriously, I don't understand the people that are arguing that these bonuses are going to definitively alter the balance of England. This is a game, and paradox's record of after release support with patches etc. will surely fix any incredibly unfair advantage if one should develop. There will be other countries with other bonuses, events, decisions and game mechanics that will surely serve to balance out all countries.
 
Remember people, we have no idea how EU4 is going to be balanced, so complaining that something might be overpowered or could make games "Samey" is impossible.

I still like my idea of attaching the unique national ideas to the idea groups you focus on (i.e. unique navy bonuses for navy focused England), thus getting rid of the whole "Merchant Republic Poland" problem. Still, we don't have any idea how big these bonuses are compared to those of other countries or the general ideas, so for all we know NI's might have a tiny effect on the course of the game.
 
I still like my idea of attaching the unique national ideas to the idea groups you focus on (i.e. unique navy bonuses for navy focused England), thus getting rid of the whole "Merchant Republic Poland" problem. Still, we don't have any idea how big these bonuses are compared to those of other countries or the general ideas, so for all we know NI's might have a tiny effect on the course of the game.

Yes, this idea is much better. Also the idea of making the unique NIs act just like any other idea group.
 
It looks like EU4 will be to EU3 as Civ V was to Civ IV. I really hope my most hated word in the english language -- "Accessible" does not start to be thrown around
What do you base that off of? Unlike Civ 5, EU4 has been stated that it is being built of off EU3, not completely shaking up the serious like Civ5 has. And also unlike Civ5, most of the same people are working on EU4 as EU3. Civ 5 had a different head designer from Civ 4.
 
Besides. Civ 5 is better than Civ 4.
 
Exept, IRL, the war actually was trigered by the lack of heir, but as any war, it didn`t started at once, and the existance of the heir at that point, didn`t metter, the war would happen anyway.

Which is why, having an event, that triggers event chain of war of the roses, have no heir, is actually the correct representation of history, while it is your assumption that the event would trigger war at once, that is wrong:

I suppose it depends when exactly the chain of events trigger. However, the real trigger for the war is many years past, and thus should either be set in stone as "this will happen", thanks to the seizure of the throne by Henry VI's grandfather, or should have a proper trigger for the event. After all, for the event chain to give a historical effect it would have to trigger (on the "no heir" front) in the first nine years of the game. After that, historically (and this is what DHE is meant to help with) there was an heir. I still think a better option for the trigger would be an unpopular (thus low legitimacy) king with high revolt risk (possibly with a flag "usurper dynasty" - given when a pretender rebel takes the throne, may raise RR, and a check to be removed each time a new king of that dynasty ascends the throne), possibly along with something to do with "insanity of the monarch".

I have to admit, I'd like a dev to say something about the War of the Roses, and how long the chain will be, and thus if the lack of an heir, actually a relatively minor point, since has already been pointed out, there is /always/ an heir, is in fact a correct and reasonable trigger, or if a more subtle trigger should be in place. In this case the heir is a little murky, however the war as a whole was not about an heir, or lack thereof, it was deposing an unpopular line that had usurped the throne from their cousins. I doubt that had Henry's son been born in 1444 it would have changed much with the plans of York to depose him and reclaim the throne he felt was his by right.

And I can nitpick similar dumb thing about Hannoverian dynasty and claim that GB is more Hannoverian than both English or Scottish.

The point was somewhere else. And I don't think that you didn't knew it.

It's hardly a nitpick. Scotland inherited England, not the other way around. This is something that I am fed up of people getting wrong, and then attacking people who point out the correct state of affairs. Why is it "dumb" or "nitpicking" to state a correct historical position to correct someone who has it wrong? That'd be like saying it's nitpicking to point out that Napoleon was a relatively normal height, it's just English and French inches were different.

Incidentally, the whole thing with Scotland inheriting England is tied up with the war of the Roses. Had so many potential kings not been killed, captured, or otherwise removed from succession, then the thrones might have remained separate, instead of England being inherited through a link a couple of generations old.
 
It's hardly a nitpick. Scotland inherited England, not the other way around. This is something that I am fed up of people getting wrong, and then attacking people who point out the correct state of affairs. Why is it "dumb" or "nitpicking" to state a correct historical position to correct someone who has it wrong? That'd be like saying it's nitpicking to point out that Napoleon was a relatively normal height, it's just English and French inches were different.

Incidentally, the whole thing with Scotland inheriting England is tied up with the war of the Roses. Had so many potential kings not been killed, captured, or otherwise removed from succession, then the thrones might have remained separate, instead of England being inherited through a link a couple of generations old.

That's not accurate. England was still the "senior partner", since the Scottish monarch moved to London and ruled both realms primarily an English king.
 
And that's something the game cannot represent, since PU partners are different TAGs.
William III moved over to London as well, and so did the king of Navarre with Paris. The Whole Habsburg PU is impossible to represent as well. Charles V was from Burgundy (Wich should not be Austrian) and PU's Spain and Austria. Only for Spain to inherit Burgundy...
 
That whole sequence is one epic mess, which differ wildly from the popular perception parroted by many people that Burgundy died the instant Charles the Bold did.

The closest I can manage to representing the whole mess:
1477 (until August 18): Burgundy is independent, the ruler is Mary I
1477-82 : Burgundy is the lesser in a PU with Austria (Mary is married with Maximilian)
1482-94 : Burgundy is a vassal of Austria ruled by a regency council (Philip IV is ruler in name; his father Maximilian of Austria rule as regent)
1494-1506: Burgundy is independent
1506 (briefly, from June to August): Burgundy lead a personal union with Castille.
1506-1515: Back to vassalship under Austria, rule by regency council (Charles V is ruler in name; his grandfather appoints a regent)
1515-1516 : Burgundy is again independent under Charles V.
1516-1519 : Burgundy is now in personal union with spain, quite arguably as the leader of the union (but it could really go both way).
1519-1521 : Burgundy is now in personal union with Spain and Austria, and quite arguably union leader.
1521-1555/6/8 : Burgundy is back to just personal union with Spain, Ferdinand now is Archiduke of Austria. Burgundy/Spain (not Austria) is Holy Roman Emperor
1555/6/8 : Spain inherits Burgundy, Austria becomes Holy Roman Emperor.

To simplify a bit, I would go with:

1477 (until August 18): Independent Burgundy, ruler Mary I
1477-1494: Personal union under Maximilian of Austria.
1494-1516: Independent again (or vassal), under Philip IV, Regency Council, then Charles V.
1516-1519: Spain leads a personal union with Burgundy.
1519+: Spain is HRE. Austria remain independent under Ferdinand.
1555: Spain inherits Burgundy. Austria becomes HRE.
 
That whole sequence is one epic mess, which differ wildly from the popular perception parroted by many people that Burgundy died the instant Charles the Bold did.

The closest I can manage to representing the whole mess:
1477 (until August 18): Burgundy is independent, the ruler is Mary I
1477-82 : Burgundy is the lesser in a PU with Austria (Mary is married with Maximilian)
1482-94 : Burgundy is a vassal of Austria ruled by a regency council (Philip IV is ruler in name; his father Maximilian of Austria rule as regent)
1494-1506: Burgundy is independent
1506 (briefly, from June to August): Burgundy lead a personal union with Castille.
1506-1515: Back to vassalship under Austria, rule by regency council (Charles V is ruler in name; his grandfather appoints a regent)
1515-1516 : Burgundy is again independent under Charles V.
1516-1519 : Burgundy is now in personal union with spain, quite arguably as the leader of the union (but it could really go both way).
1519-1521 : Burgundy is now in personal union with Spain and Austria, and quite arguably union leader.
1521-1555/6/8 : Burgundy is back to just personal union with Spain, Ferdinand now is Archiduke of Austria. Burgundy/Spain (not Austria) is Holy Roman Emperor
1555/6/8 : Spain inherits Burgundy, Austria becomes Holy Roman Emperor.

To simplify a bit, I would go with:

1477 (until August 18): Independent Burgundy, ruler Mary I
1477-1494: Personal union under Maximilian of Austria.
1494-1516: Independent again (or vassal), under Philip IV, Regency Council, then Charles V.
1516-1519: Spain leads a personal union with Burgundy.
1519+: Spain is HRE. Austria remain independent under Ferdinand.
1555: Spain inherits Burgundy. Austria becomes HRE.
when and where would the capital move to in the Nederlands?
 
My impression of the War of the Roses, is that the greatest problem was Henry VI being incompetent (when he wasn't flatly incapable), and the proximate cause was Henry having a son (which meant Richard of York was no longer heir, and consequently lost a fair amount of political power). If Henry had died earlier, it is doubtful Somerset would have had the power to stop Richard taking the throne. That said, there was a fair amount of pent up frustration in the English nobility, so there could have been disturbance regardless. There is then a small issue for EU4 as it means that the War of the Roses isn't really avoidable given the start date, which would make certain people sad.
 
The greatest problem was that England had just lost the Hundred Years' War. Such a humiliation made a lot of people angry with the King's government; the people who'd acquired lands in France after Henry V's conquests there were naturally the most upset. Add to the mix a lot of unemployed soldiers back from the Continent and wandering around looking for someone to pay them; and a king who was scorned as weak, naive and over-idealistic even before he went mad - a madness which, incidentally, was also caused by the defeat in the Hundred Years War. (Henry became catatonic when he received news of the loss.)


The Duke of York had a reasonable claim to the throne, being descended from Edward III. The Lancastrians weren't hated - Henry V had been the most popular king for years - but Henry VI didn't have much personal support, while Richard of York did. York was already raising an army before Prince Edward was born - and everybody remembered how Henry Bolingbroke had seized the throne from Richard II.
 
DreadLindwyrm: I it sound aggresive, I am sorry for that.

The point is, that, as Andrelvis stated, that GB wasn't ruled from Scotland. And in game, it doesn't realy matter who inherited whom in real-life, because in game most of unifications would be made by conquest, not by personal unions. And when one hypothetical state with aim A would be conquered by second hypothetical state with aim B, it would be realy stupid, if unified nation created by national decision in game would inherit aims of A, just because in game it was state with aim A that made the unification and continued with its aims.
 
There may be a case to say that if small country A gets large country B in a PU, then when each monarch dies there should be four, not three options:

1. PU continues, B is junior to A.
2. PU ends.
3. A inherits B.
4. PU reverses: B becomes the senior partner due to their larger size.

4 is basically what happened to Britain. James VI/I might have moved down to London after inheriting England, but he was still a Scottish monarch with Scottish advisors and friends, trying to rule England according to Scottish rules. (And creating a lot of resentment because of that). His son Charles, however, lived in England most of his life, regarded himself as English and treated Scotland as the junior partner (which created even more resentment, naturally, leading to open war.)
 
DreadLindwyrm: I it sound aggresive, I am sorry for that.

The point is, that, as Andrelvis stated, that GB wasn't ruled from Scotland. And in game, it doesn't realy matter who inherited whom in real-life, because in game most of unifications would be made by conquest, not by personal unions. And when one hypothetical state with aim A would be conquered by second hypothetical state with aim B, it would be realy stupid, if unified nation created by national decision in game would inherit aims of A, just because in game it was state with aim A that made the unification and continued with its aims.

No problem, and I didn't mean to sound aggressive back.
We'd need some serious mechanics changes to allow the formation of GB to work historically.
I'd have to disagree with the idea that most unifications are going to be by conquest, at least by direct conquest. Some might involve a war to impose a PU though, followed by an inheritance.

There may be a case to say that if small country A gets large country B in a PU, then when each monarch dies there should be four, not three options:

1. PU continues, B is junior to A.
2. PU ends.
3. A inherits B.
4. PU reverses: B becomes the senior partner due to their larger size.

4 is basically what happened to Britain. James VI/I might have moved down to London after inheriting England, but he was still a Scottish monarch with Scottish advisors and friends, trying to rule England according to Scottish rules. (And creating a lot of resentment because of that). His son Charles, however, lived in England most of his life, regarded himself as English and treated Scotland as the junior partner (which created even more resentment, naturally, leading to open war.)

How big a difference would we need for this to be the case?
Would the capital of the joint nation switch, and would the player be subject to losing control of the PU that they have created, either by lucky marriage or by war?
 
Would the capital of the joint nation switch, and would the player be subject to losing control of the PU that they have created, either by lucky marriage or by war?
Yes to both.

You could make the player-controlled nation immune to loss of control, if you wanted; or give some way of avoiding it. (For example, control won't switch if relations are above 150.) But it's accurate. If you as, say, King of Navarre managed to become King of France as well, it's highly unlikely that Navarre would become a world power while France remained your contented junior partner.
 
I don't know how much I like this idea.
Perhaps if it were to happen it could give you a choice of which nation to retain control of? So you might start as King of Navarre, somehow PU France, and then get the choice to switch to France if they took control of the PU.

I don't know how possible this would be from a programming point of view.
I was just thinking it would be massively frustrating for the player to lose their hard won PU by the AI suddenly being in charge of it, especially if the two nations are close in size and influence. Imagine the threads on the forum :p
"I had managed to get France into a Personal Union, but my king died, and suddenly I couldn't start wars or marry anyone! Why has my game broken?"
 
I don't get the whole big "England now has to have a big navy!" complaint. Only two of their ideas are naval bonuses. And the 2nd is the last, which means you won't have until much later in the game. The rest of the ideas affect trade and diplomacy and have nothing to do with your navy. Seems like plenty of opportunity to take a different path to me.
 
The tradition and NI feature might actually be good at simulating the decline of the steppe hordes. Their setup could be something like this:

- Traditions that give mighty military bonuses
- Each NI, after the first two, has a military malus, together with some other bonus, so that the more advanced a horde gets, the more of their initial bonuses are reversed. It would allow a horde to fully invest in the land idea group before the transformation starts.

This would be a simple setup to model a shift away from a traditional nomadic militaristic way of life towards a more settled less aggressive way of living.
 
Last edited: