Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries
Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Europa Universalis IV 82769 EUIV: Bug Reports 1346 EUIV: Suggestions 19380 EUIV: Technical Support 6896 EUIV: FAQ & Strategy Guides 241 EUIV: AAR's, Let's Plays, and Fan Fiction EU IV: Alternate History Short Story Contest Contr 30
Previous dev diary Next dev diary
Show only dev responses

EU4 - Development Diary - 31st March 2016

dev diary.jpg


Hello and welcome back. Mare Nostrum will be upon us very soon so I will take this last dev diary before release to show some extras and the 15 new achievements which will be part of the 1.16 patch. With Wiz safely banished to the furthest reaches of space to make friends with Blorg, I am free to ensure there are no more Eastern Roman Empire related Achievements.


The 15 new achievements, which some clever cookies may have seen before are:
  • Mare Nostrum: Restore the Roman Empire and own the entire Mediterranean and Black Sea coast lines.

  • Kuban Cigars: As Kuba, own or have a subject own Havana and be the world’s leading producer of Tobacco.

  • Kushite Restoration: As a Nubian culture nation, own the entire Egyptian region as core provinces.

  • The Fezzan Corridors: As Fezzan, control at least 90% of the trade power in Tunis, Katsina, Safi and Timbuktu.

  • Victorian Three: As Basoga, Buganda or Karagwe, reach administrative, diplomatic and military technology level 32.

  • The Animal Kingdom: As Manipur, unite the Bengal region and convert it to Animism.

  • Golden Horn: As a Somali nation, fully own the Horn of Africa region and have a monthly gold income of at least 50 ducats.

  • Kinslayer: As Tver, Yaroslavl, Ryazan or Odoyev, eliminate all other Rurikovich nations without changing your ruling dynasty.

  • Choson One: As Korea, own or have a subject own all Shinto, Confucian and Buddhist provinces in the world.

  • Sailor Mon: As Pegu, have at least 100,000 sailors.
  • The White Company: Hire your army out to both sides in a war and fight in a battle against your former employer.

  • Networking: Have 100 point spy networks in 3 rival nations.

  • Time Bandit: Successfully steal a map from another nation.

  • With a little help..: As Ragusa, lead a Trade League of at least 5 nations and guarantee the Ottomans’ independence

  • Just Resting In My Account: Corrupt the officials in a rival country
eu4_2.jpg


Going hand-in-hand with one of these achievements, we have added one of the longest requested formable nations: The Roman Empire. It is no easy task to perform, requiring Christianity or Paganism and ownership of the regions of Italy, France, Iberia, Balkans, Anatolia, Mashriq as well as certain key provinces, but doing so will allow you to recreate the thousand year empire and grant you the new unique culture of Roman.

rome.jpg


Forming Rome is a free feature, available as part of the 1.16 patch.

Next up is Timeline, a new Mare Nostrum feature

timeline1.jpg


At any point through your campaign you can hit the new timeline button next to the date and observe how the world has evolved throughout the years. Watch as empires rise and fall and re-live how your own nation rose to its great heights (hopefully)

timeline2.jpg


Opening Timeline will bring the map back to how it was at the start of your campaign and then you can choose at what speed to run through the world's history. You can pan all over the map during this timeline, so while the Big Blue Blob takes over Europe you can admire infighting new world natives or see which of the Daimyo's made Japan theirs.

Finally, some ideas, starting with the aforementioned Roman Empire

Roman ideas:

Code: 
Traditions:
        discipline = 0.05
        legitimacy = 1
   
Ambition:
         global_manpower_modifier = 0.33

    pax romana
        global_unrest = -1

    legacy of rome
        diplomatic_reputation = 2
 
    SPQR
        stability_cost_modifier = -0.2

    roman legions
        infantry_power = 0.10
        land_forcelimit_modifier = 0.15
 
    roman architecture
        production_efficiency = 0.2
 
    imperial bureaucracy =
        global_tax_modifier = 0.1
 
    imperium sine fine = {
        core_creation = -0.20

African Great Lakes Ideas:

Code: 
    traditions:
        loot_amount = 0.25
        hostile_attrition = 1.0
ambition:

        merchants = 1

    source_of_the_nile
        global_manpower_modifier = 0.15
 
    heirs_of_kitara
        prestige = 1
 
    no_illegitimate_children
        heir_chance = 0.5
 
    cwezy_religion
        tolerance_own = 2
 
    emitwe
        infantry_cost = -0.1
 
    unity_of_clans
        infantry_power = 0.1
 
    development_of_clientship
        global_tax_modifier = 0.1

And as a representative for the Irish, let's bring in Desmond.

Code: 
Traditions:
        garrison_size = 0.25
        global_manpower_modifier = 0.25

Ambition:
        defensiveness = 0.15

    dms_the_land_of_castles
        build_cost = -0.1
 
    dms_cadet_lines
        stability_cost_modifier = -0.1
 
    dms_gaelic_bastion
        land_morale = 0.1  
 
    dms_the_munster_ambition
        province_warscore_cost = -0.1
        core_creation = -0.1
 
    dms_fierce_independence
        diplomatic_upkeep = 1
 
    dms_promote_the_clture_of_service
        war_exhaustion = -0.02
        prestige_from_land = 0.25
 
    dms_inner_perfection
        adm_tech_cost_modifier = -0.1


Mare Nostrum will set sail on Tuesday April the 5th for €14:99, and by popular request is available for pre-order at https://www.paradoxplaza.com/europa-universalis-iv-mare-nostrum
 
  • 126
  • 41
  • 9
Reactions:
Sort by date Sort by reaction score
Blindbohemian said:
Well, my problem is that the situation you outline is already quite silly. But even if he did start calling himself Emperor of Rome (which I doubt, to be honest), he wouldn't put a big fat SPQR on the flag. And so on. Have you seen those Roman ideas? The whole thing is moronic.
Click to expand...
I'll grant that he wouldn't be likely to trot out trappings like SPQR on the flag. But he already called himself Roman Emperor.
 
Hate to say it, cause I love formable Rome, buuuut requiring that much territory makes it impossible to actually play a game as them in vanilla. I'd much rather have an achievement for reacquiring the full extent of them empire, and be able to actually form it quicker (maybe by regaining something resembling Justinian's conquests.)
 
Wagonlitz said:
Nope, since the two kingdoms of Burgundy both went south instead of north. Lotharingia on the other hand fits much better with where Burgundy actually conquered land. Plus I might be mistaken, but as far as I am aware it was Lotharingia and not Burgundy the emperor planned on giving the duke of Burgundy before he fled during the night.
Click to expand...

No, he was going to give him the title "King of Burgundy", as it was an extant title among those of the Emperor's that could still be given (as the Emperor was also King of Germany, Italy, and Burgundy). In fact, the idea of "Burgundy" = "Low Countries" still was around in the 1770s during the War of the Bavarian Succession, when the Emperor proposed trading his Low Countries provinces and the title "King of Burgundy" to the Elector of Bavaria in return for Bavaria proper.

I agree if a formable "Lotharingia" were to be made, it should be formable by Lorraine and Brabant, as they were the two legal heirs to Lotharingia as a state. But Lotharingia would need to stand on its own merits - stating that if we have a formable Roman Empire we should also have a formable Lotharingia is a bit disngenous since once lasted nearly 1500 years (arguably over 2200 if you count "Rome" as a single governmental entity through its entire history from Romulus to Mehmet), while the latter was around, discontinuously, for only about a century.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Blindbohemian said:
Because, you know, forming the Roman Empire in the early modern period is not at all silly.
Click to expand...

It certainly doesn't make sense in the context of what actually happened in history, because we have the benefit of hindsight.
But you are assuming the national context of the time would be the same regardless of any historical changes, and I think this is where your logic fails. You are disconsidering how important the consequences of a different outcome of a war would be, for example. Had the germans won WWII, maybe we wouldn't have opinions and ideas like the ones we have now. Had napoleon never been born, maybe france wouldn't have expanded so much. Had the royalty supressed the French Revolution, maybe nationalism wouldn't have been an idea as widespread as it was. Had England won the Hundred Year War, it's possible the world would have become a very different place in 1500 (other politics, other ideas, other influences).
In Chaos Theory we can't simply assume that the way things happened in real life HAD necessarily to have happened this way. One minor change in history has the power of changing everything. A reality where a king dies at the age of four is forever completely different from the one where he dies at the age of 70.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Dalieux said:
It certainly doesn't make sense in the context of what actually happened in history, because we have the benefit of hindsight.
But you are assuming the national context of the time would be the same regardless of any historical changes, and I think this is where your logic fails. You are disconsidering how important the consequences of a different outcome of a war would be, for example. Had the germans won WWII, maybe we wouldn't have opinions and ideas like the ones we have now. Had napoleon never been born, maybe france wouldn't have expanded so much. Had the royalty supressed the French Revolution, maybe nationalism wouldn't have been an idea as widespread as it was. Had England won the Hundred Year War, it's possible the world would have become a very different place in 1500 (other politics, other ideas, other influences).
In Chaos Theory we can't simply assume that the way things happened in real life HAD necessarily to have happened this way. One minor change in history has the power of changing everything. A reality where a king dies at the age of four is forever completely different from the one where he dies at the age of 70.
Click to expand...

Okay, let me rephrase.

Because, you know, reforming the Roman Empire in the early modern period with a point of divergence in 1444 isn't silly.

(It's absolutely absurd. I demand a formable Gondor, Mordor and Third Reich in the next patch).
 
  • 7
  • 4
Reactions:
Rome? Ehh... ummm...

Wasn't it pretty much a dead nation by this point? Also Roman culture? I thought Roman culture was meant to represent the cultures of Italy before the shattering of Rome.
 
If you don't like the Roman Empire in the game, breathe easy - you'll never see it.

I see no reason to worry about an option that only exists if the player -really- tries for it.
 
  • 7
  • 2
Reactions:
ArzhurG said:
Thanks for the precision. My history isn't great.

I don't think that it really change my overall point thought (i.e. Rome was a great republic for a while so they should also get republican tradition if they get legitimacy).
Click to expand...
Don't worry. I was just correcting you 's all so others didn't jump on you for it. If you ask me, and I think someone else said it already, any NI's that give legitimacy while being a monarchy, should give repub tradition if they're a republic.

Lord_P said:
Rome? Ehh... ummm...

Wasn't it pretty much a dead nation by this point? Also Roman culture? I thought Roman culture was meant to represent the cultures of Italy before the shattering of Rome.
Click to expand...
Dead only in the sense that it had less than a decade left before it died to the sound of ottoman cannons yes. Roman culture still existed as well, but it changed massively over the thousand years since the various crisis that hit since the crisis of the third century as all cultures are wont to do over massive spans of time(and huge losses of territory).
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Honestly I can't imagine a country that conquers this much land would throw away their national identity. If anything they'd claim to have surpassed Rome.
 
lotpk said:
Honestly I can't imagine a country that conquers this much land would throw away their national identity. If anything they'd claim to have surpassed Rome.
Click to expand...

Maybe. They would definitely not trade in their language and customs to mimic a dead people, though. If France reformed the Roman Empire, "Roman" would be the same as French from that point on. If Spain did it, "Spanish" would be the Roman culture.

The primary culture of the Roman Empire should be that of whichever nation formed it.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Lemont Elwood said:
Maybe. They would definitely not trade in their language and customs to mimic a dead people, though. If France reformed the Roman Empire, "Roman" would be the same as French from that point on. If Spain did it, "Spanish" would be the Roman culture.

The primary culture of the Roman Empire should be that of whichever nation formed it.
Click to expand...
Well if you're willing to throw away your national spirit (ideas) after 2 to 3 hundred years of conquering you might as well embrace a new culture.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Angelos said:
What is that supposed to mean? I find your post deeply and personally offensive. I have been playing Civ since 1994 and EU since 2001, yet i also have a Masters degree in History which -i am fairly certain- guarantees i do not hate it. In any case, it's not your place to wonder why i play EU and it certainly is not your right to categorize gamers like me as "such people" who belong to "their kind".
Click to expand...

It wasn't mean to be offensive, we don't insult people intentionally because such bullying only causes unnecessary resentment. We were simply suggesting that they would reconsider their choice of games because they feel unsatisfied with the game as they've already suggested adding Civ/Total War features such as hex map, throne room and 3D battles. Such additions would kill the nature of the game such is the case with adding the Roman Empire as formable nation.

And you with Masters Degree In History approve of adding fantasy nations to this originally historical game that slowly becomes more and more fantasy game with such additions?
 
  • 12
  • 1
Reactions:
"we" ? Do you represent a group or something?
Anyway, your historical "purism" is totally groundless, considering EU (and Vicky, CK and HoI for that matter) is a game whose stated purpose is to allow the player to alter the past. Every time you play, you create a "fantasy nation" even by just conquering a single province that did not historically belong to the player's nation, or by conquering a historical province a single year too early or too late. Forming a historical nation like Italy or Germany too early (as per EU achievements, i.e. the implied will of the game designer), is as much a fantasy as restoring a Roman Empire too late.
By playing a grand strategy game, as i assume you do, you have already accepted that history is to be altered in-game, the scale of the alteration being relative to your ability. Otherwise, the next time you choose to play a historically doomed state like Venice, Aragon or Byzantium, you should just surrender on the spot to preserve historical accuracy.
I believe that your historical purism is appropriate and should be expected only from books or other non-interactive, non-fiction mediums.
 
  • 13
  • 1
Reactions:
Angelos said:
"we" ? Do you represent a group or something?
Anyway, your historical "purism" is totally groundless, considering EU (and Vicky, CK and HoI for that matter) is a game whose stated purpose is to allow the player to alter the past. Every time you play, you create a "fantasy nation" even by just conquering a single province that did not historically belong to the player's nation, or by conquering a historical province a single year too early or too late. Forming a historical nation like Italy or Germany too early (as per EU achievements, i.e. the implied will of the game designer), is as much a fantasy as restoring a Roman Empire too late.
By playing a grand strategy game, as i assume you do, you have already accepted that history is to be altered in-game, the scale of the alteration being relative to your ability. Otherwise, the next time you choose to play a historically doomed state like Venice, Aragon or Byzantium, you should just surrender on the spot to preserve historical accuracy.
I believe that your historical purism is appropriate and should be expected only from books or other non-interactive, non-fiction mediums.
Click to expand...

Still find it funny people complain about historical inaccuracies that THEY HAVE TO CARRY OUT (even AI France won't be conquering enough land to form the Roman Empire), whilst ignoring some of Paradox's actual historical flaws.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Angelos said:
"we" ? Do you represent a group or something?
Anyway, your historical "purism" is totally groundless, considering EU (and Vicky, CK and HoI for that matter) is a game whose stated purpose is to allow the player to alter the past. Every time you play, you create a "fantasy nation" even by just conquering a single province that did not historically belong to the player's nation, or by conquering a historical province a single year too early or too late. Forming a historical nation like Italy or Germany too early (as per EU achievements, i.e. the implied will of the game designer), is as much a fantasy as restoring a Roman Empire too late.
By playing a grand strategy game, as i assume you do, you have already accepted that history is to be altered in-game, the scale of the alteration being relative to your ability. Otherwise, the next time you choose to play a historically doomed state like Venice, Aragon or Byzantium, you should just surrender on the spot to preserve historical accuracy.
I believe that your historical purism is appropriate and should be expected only from books or other non-interactive, non-fiction mediums.
Click to expand...
Sigh. Okay. Let's make an example.

You toss a coin. It comes out as tails. This is OTL, IRL, call it however you want.
You toss a coin. It comes out as head. This is alternative history of the most plausible kind: solid, probable consequences of an event, that however did not happen OTL.
You toss a coin. It falls exactly on its rim. This is shaky alternative history: it's not like it is impossible, but I mean, what are the odds?
You toss a coin. The coin doesn't fall. Trumpeter penguins hack down the door and start painting the Mona Lisa. This is ASB. There was nothing in how the coin flew, fell, in the air, in the pavement, in anything, that would make it possible.

I am okay with the first two, and somewhat with the third. Not with the fourth. A nation conquering Europe, saying it is Rome (not the successor, not the heir, but literal Rome) and starting to wear tunics, togas, and speaking Latin, is solidly in the fourth section. Removing the Roman culture part helps taking it to the third section.
 
  • 9
  • 3
Reactions:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back