• 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.
Welcome to the fifth and last development diary for Europa Universalis 4: El Dorado. Today we’ll be talking about the gold and silver mines of the new world and how to best secure that wealth for your colonial empire.

Treasure Fleets
It’s no secret that the Spanish conquest of Mexico, Central and South America was primarily driven by a desire for gold and silver. The Spanish crown had sole rights to mine these precious metals in their colonies, which were then loaded onto well-guarded ships and sent back to Spain. Unsurprisingly, this floating wealth drew the attention of pirates and privateers, leading to the Golden Age of Piracy and the Pirates of the Caribbean that we all know and love.

In the El Dorado expansion, we represent this through a mechanic we call ‘Treasure Fleets’. For those that have the expansion, Colonial Nations with gold provinces will no longer gain the income of that gold for themselves, but instead will store it in a ‘Treasure Fleet Counter’ that counts up towards a certain sum depending on the size of the colony’s gold mines. Once the counter is full (usually about twice a year), the colony will send a Treasure Fleet. The Treasure Fleet travels downstream along the trade routes, passing each node between the Colonial Nation and its mother nation’s trade capital. If there are privateers present in these nodes, they will steal a share of the gold relative to their power in the node - so if privateers hold 50% of the power in the Caribbean, they will take half the value out of any treasure fleet that passes through there. At the end of the journey, any money that remains is given to the mother nation, who suffer some inflation depending on the amount of money relative to the size of their economy.

Nations who do not have their trade capital downstream of their colonies’ trade nodes will be unable to receive treasure fleets. In these cases, the colonial nation will simply keep the gold for themselves, paying just the usual amount in tariffs.

attachment.php



Pirate Hunting
If you see a lot of your treasure going into the pockets of filthy buccaneers, we have given you a new way to stop them. To repel the privateers that are stealing your trade or seizing your gold fleets, we’ve added the option for your navies to go Pirate Hunting in the El Dorado expansion. Heavy Ships and Light Ships can be sent pirate hunting in a particular node, and will reduce the efficiency of all pirates in that node based on the amount of guns that the pirate hunting fleet can bring to bear. This gives you an way to combat piracy without having to go to war and gives Heavy Ships some use at peacetime besides sitting mothballed in port.

attachment.php



Terrain Rework
As a bonus feature in the free patch, we’ve majorly reworked province terrains and the terrain mapmode. Many parts of the world have had their terrain updated to better reflect reality. For example, Spain is no longer mostly desert, and Eastern Europe is no longer one big swamp. The map has also been tweaked so that it is much easier to tell the terrain of a province simply from looking at said province.

As part of this reworking, we’ve added four new terrain types:
Highlands: Hilled but deforested regions (such as the Scottish Highlands). The old Hills terrain has been modified to represent forested, more inaccessible hilled regions.
Drylands: Arid regions that can still support agriculture, such as southern Spain.
Farmlands: Densely populated and cultivated areas with rich soils, such as you’d find in northern Italy.
Savanna: Largely open regions with alternating dry and wet seasons, such as the African Savannas.

attachment.php



That’s it for the El Dorado dev diaries! Over the next week, we’ll be posting excerpts from the 1.10 patch notes, and Thursday the 26th of February the El Dorado expansion and corresponding patch will be released.

+
Europa Universalis: El Dorado Live Stream from PDXCon 2015
[video=youtube;zM7q2CjikLE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zM7q2CjikLE[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zM7q2CjikLE
 

Attachments

  • eu4_5.png
    eu4_5.png
    3,9 MB · Views: 33.789
  • eu4_7.png
    eu4_7.png
    3,1 MB · Views: 34.103
  • eu4_8.png
    eu4_8.png
    3,3 MB · Views: 33.407
Last edited by a moderator:
Hahh, this will never change^^ You would have to let the AI know about the most aggressive nations and allow it to form countermeasures against them. The problem is: The most aggressive nation is always the player-controlled one.^^
This exists and is called the "Hard" setting -- AI evaluates player actions more harshly for this precise reason :)

Only problem with it is that the AI still fails to deal with other AI like France...
 
Ya got my fingers crossed too but I find myself losing interest slowly, I love eu4 just like I loved euIII and eu2 but man, I feel let down constantly. I feel like all the ck2 expansion were groundbreaking and all the euiv expansions are peanuts except AoW.

Honestly the expansion which has mechanics I use every single game happens to be Res Publica. All the neat stuff related to Art of War came in the free patch. Occupation transfer used to be neat but then they nerfed it to the point where it's too strict on what you can and can't transfer now.
 
Is there anything that represents the effects of the gold and silver mines in the Amercias on the rest of the world? It wasn't just Spain that got hit by inflation, China and Persia (the only two I definitively remember) were also damaged by inflation. Silver from Peru went east through the Philippines then to China I believe.
 
It is indeed the patches that result in most of the good/bad alterations, including almost all of the bad. Broken cross-platform support, broken rebel defections, hidden changes to peace deals...these are all things firmly in the territory of patches, not the accompanying DLC. It is in the patches where PI really tries to be too ambitious, and in the patches where they make large alterations to game functionality.

The problem is, they don't have any consistent documentation methodology that's used in practice (tons of changes good and bad that are more significant than dozens of listed items go unmentioned, even popular or not-unpopular changes sometimes), and the hotfixes lean into "exploits" harder than functionality issues. This is a game that crashes often when resetting game state for half a year at least, but where priority went to stopping using colonies to alter religious unity, and where nobody outside of the company can tell you the entire functionality of a basic gameplay rule like "what factors into making an alliance while at war and how strongly?" despite that the change was just made. A game of "we're planning on locking unit movement at 50% in the future without any clear picture as to how this keeps players from exploiting the AI's movements...but right now your peace deal screen is still inaccurate". We still have a game where the AI will refuse to core its own provinces while protected for 50 years and we're worried about unit movement intricacy?

For the most part, I like the gist of the DLC features, but that's true of the previous ones too. What has been consistently poor is:

- UI (WOULD YOU LIKE TO USE YOUR TRANSPORT SHIPS? HOW ABOUT NOW? WHAT? YOU CAN MARCH TO THE PROVINCE IN LESS TIME? HEY, LISTEN! WOULD YOU LIKE TO USE YOUR TRANSPORTS :p?)

- UI accuracy (this deal will cost you 0 dip = 300 dip, or 300 dip = 0 dip, that nation will accept CTA --> not called)

- Tracking changes such as WE/stabhit threshold (1.7 altered the rules there bigtime, still hasn't shown up in a patch note)

- Patch note accuracy
Will now only give claims and cores in war to human

- Cross platform MP and hotjoin (these are still advertised features on the game's front page)

- Game stability --> Frozen armies, crash on exit to menu or reload, but necessity to reload because subjects stop converting religions or moving units until you do so.

I realize the patches need to bring new things, and that bug fixes are not necessarily mutually exclusive. However, the above is stuff that has been present across major patches dating back for the majority of the existence of the game. These are pattern low priorities that should be higher than non-DLC feature alterations that introduce new bugs or closing exploits that a tiny % of the player population uses.

When given the choice between "hey, let's think of a way to stop a player from abusing that mission" and "hey, multiple people have reported proper bug submissions that the UI is inaccurately displaying cost or misleading the player as to what is happening/will happen", why is PI consistently addressing the former, but not the latter?
 
What is there to do if you restrict mindless expansion?

This game is built on mindless expansion. You can't just nerf expansion like that and then expect there to still be a game left.

There already can be restrictions on mindless expansion - Johan itself was forced to admit that he had found England mind-numbingly boring. If you can easily (because England is not exactly Ryukyu) reach a point where gameplay is absolute fecal matter, then it's pretty obvious that there's something to fix - i.e, actually having a game left if you do not go to war. I depicted some posts ago how I would do it.
 
When given the choice between "hey, let's think of a way to stop a player from abusing that mission" and "hey, multiple people have reported proper bug submissions that the UI is inaccurately displaying cost or misleading the player as to what is happening/will happen", why is PI consistently addressing the former, but not the latter?
Sometimes it's just a matter of how easy it is to repair a given thing.

Fixing an exploit by changing a couple lines of logic and a parameter or two is simple. You do that and move on; there's very little notable impact on development of everything else you're working on.

A bug with a cause buried deep in a system's implementation that requires large-scale rewriting to fix will necessarily take lower priority -- usually until that system also needs to be rewritten for other reasons (like wanting to add a DLC feature that it can't support without a rewrite). If you have to rewrite big chunks of a module to repair a bug or provide better information to the UI, you also risk adding a whole bunch of new bugs with the rewrite. You also increase demands on your (probably small & overworked) QA team, because instead of just focus-testing one feature, they now have to exhaustively test everything this module interacts with.

tldr: software development is really hard, and looking at notes from the outside rarely suggests much about actual motivations and decisions made by the team.
 
What about moving the 50% privateer efficiency policy out of exploration / offensive.
As for now, only colonizing nations can make use of privateers efficiently but they already need their light ships for trading.

If you wanna play a privateer game you're kind of forced to pick exploration. Make no sense for berbers / ottomans / Gotland etc..

Great idea!
 
A bug with a cause buried deep in a system's implementation that requires large-scale rewriting to fix will necessarily take lower priority -- usually until that system also needs to be rewritten for other reasons (like wanting to add a DLC feature that it can't support without a rewrite). If you have to rewrite big chunks of a module to repair a bug or provide better information to the UI, you also risk adding a whole bunch of new bugs with the rewrite. You also increase demands on your (probably small & overworked) QA team, because instead of just focus-testing one feature, they now have to exhaustively test everything this module interacts with.

tldr: software development is really hard, and looking at notes from the outside rarely suggests much about actual motivations and decisions made by the team.
+1, or maybe +1000000. Which is why "maintenance" typically swallows up far more resources than initial development...
 
I'm kind of wishing that I could destroy privateers with my navy. Not just reduce their effect.

A suitable compromise I feel would be to have Pirate Hunting missions occasionaly [very occasionaly] fire events where the privateering fleet is damage and/or loses one or two ships, so as to simulate smaller skirmishes or ambushes. That would make pirates a worthwhile threat [a superior navy couldn't just blow them all out of the water at once because the pirates' interests lie on avoiding such engagements] while also making sure that it's not a fire-and-forget, risk free enterprise for the funding nation that will occasionaly need to be reinforced.
 
Sometimes it's just a matter of how easy it is to repair a given thing.

Fixing an exploit by changing a couple lines of logic and a parameter or two is simple. You do that and move on; there's very little notable impact on development of everything else you're working on.

Several long-standing issues I mentioned above are lines of text to display. I don't buy those being harder than some of the more esoteric exploit fixes for a second. The ship one I can understand. "you will pay 50 dip for this when you actually pay 0"...no, not so much, double no because of 1.8 adding vassal CB declarations that show wrong displays on DIP cost...you know...one of those
that system also needs to be rewritten for other reasons
times.

Accuracy in patch notes? NOPE. Again, not buying it. Not tracking that stuff is going to lead to bugs, not reduce them. Clearly, not everyone is on the same page if there isn't even a valid change log, and so how are these non-same-page mechanics expected to interact?

also increase demands on your (probably small & overworked) QA team

Yes, but when you know for a fact you have a small & overworked QA team (and probably dev team also), why heavily alter multiple features at once? Would people have avoided AoW if patriot rebels didn't spawn in friendly territory? Would they have avoided it if province defection logic for religious rebels went unaltered? Was making CNs unable to purchase land outside their region more important than editing lines of freaking text so that the achievement descriptions are a reasonable representation of their actual requirements...or is that too complicated to code :p?

+1, or maybe +1000000. Which is why "maintenance" typically swallows up far more resources than initial development...

Perhaps so, but if that's the case, why increase maintenance on purpose?
 
Will we have the option to allow the CN to keep the gold if we're already comfortable with our income? I like giving my subjects at least one gold province anyway because it tends to make them quite a bit more stable.
 
There was a Map mod I used that did that but it wasn't updated for 1.8/9.

It was cool
that requires i use that map mod though, i dont want to
 
Several long-standing issues I mentioned above are lines of text to display. I don't buy those being harder than some of the more esoteric exploit fixes for a second.
Depends on the availability of the information to the UI module. But yeah some of it is probably really easy and just fell through the cracks, which is where your harping about it has the potential to help things. I didn't explicitly say so, but I wasn't trying to refute the entire content of your post with my comments.

The ship one I can understand. "you will pay 50 dip for this when you actually pay 0"...no, not so much, double no because of 1.8 adding vassal CB declarations that show wrong displays on DIP cost...you know...one of those times.
The simple fact that the displayed costs disagree with the actual costs at all suggests something relatively complex going on under the hood. The simplest explanation would be that the calculations are done by two different chunks of code, which would typically be horrible design, probably legacy stuff from a long time ago that hasn't been a priority to repair in any engine upgrade iterations. However, that would also be very easy to fix (just repair the outdated section of the code; parallel maintenance sucks, but you work with what you've got). That leaves me suspicious that it's something worse -- that the same calculation code returns different results depending on when it's run (during the war vs after the peace is applied). This would require a much more delicate fix; you don't want to just patch in a correction for each circumstance where this discrepancy exists, because then you get a smattering of parallel code logic and an eventual maintenance nightmare (basically more bugs down the line).

Accuracy in patch notes? NOPE. Again, not buying it. Not tracking that stuff is going to lead to bugs, not reduce them. Clearly, not everyone is on the same page if there isn't even a valid change log, and so how are these non-same-page mechanics expected to interact?
Truth! This is extremely common in the discipline, unfortunately, especially among smaller teams that grew out of side projects or hobbies. Human error is inevitably going to result in stuff getting missed no matter what you do, though. Even Blizzard, arguably the masters of delivering quality* in games (and who spend $TEXAS to do it) have this problem in their WoW patch notes.


* Quality meaning "game that works as expected" more than "game that is the awesomesauce" -- I'm not actually a fan of most of their games
 
Honestly the expansion which has mechanics I use every single game happens to be Res Publica. All the neat stuff related to Art of War came in the free patch. Occupation transfer used to be neat but then they nerfed it to the point where it's too strict on what you can and can't transfer now.

I haven't seen anything I couldn't transfer as long as I connected the province I wanted to give to say a vassal to him lands by giving him "linking" occupations. What annoys me is that I can't have my vassal Full Annex a nation unless it only has it's capital left/ the only other provinces left besides the capital can be core returned.
 
I haven't seen anything I couldn't transfer as long as I connected the province I wanted to give to say a vassal to him lands by giving him "linking" occupations. What annoys me is that I can't have my vassal Full Annex a nation unless it only has it's capital left/ the only other provinces left besides the capital can be core returned.
In general, a fix for this whole set of "capitals are special" peace deal restrictions is WAY OVERDUE.