• 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.

EU4 - Development Diary - 14th of April 2016

Hello everyone, and welcome to another development diary for Europa Universalis IV. Today we’ll focus a bit on Mare Nostrum, and what was the goal of the features in that expansion and the accompanying patch.


Improve the Naval aspect of the game
The Naval game is something that has received quite a few complaints over the year, so we really wanted to make an expansion on the naval theme.

Some of the features like Sailors and the Combat Tweaks were just too much of a rework of core concepts that they had to go into the free patch.

We’re rather happy with how the naval combat now works, now that quality actually matters, and it is no longer just about who has the most money to maintain the most heavy-ships.

The Naval Missions, and the Repair mechanics was based on our experiences of the Hearts of Iron IV development, and how much more fun it made the naval game, to avoid constant micromanagement. It was one of the main features we built the exoansion around.

The changes to making blockades more visible, and having Admirals that could be good at blockading was a few free features that have proved to be a success as well.


More Peacetime Activities
After Art of War there has been a constant barrage of requests for more peace-time activities. Pretty much every expansion since then have had a large focus on adding more things to do at peace time. El Dorado had exploration related mechanics, Common Sense added Development, Interaction with Subjects & Parliaments, while Cossacks had Estates and Diplomatic Feedback, not to mention all minor actions added for the all.

Mare Nostrum is no exception there, with two major systems to enhance gameplay outside of war. First of all, we reworked how espionage works for the free patch, to make it more of an interactive mechanic, and far more transparent than before. We also made Support Rebels more of a valid option, and added lots of new spy actions.

Secondly, the feature that was the biggest to develop for Mare Nostrum. The Condottieri. We designed and added this because at the end of the day fighting in eu4 is fun. It was also heavily influenced of the fact that HoI4 testing showed us it was great fun helping out in the Spanish Civil War while still building up your own nation. Of course, Eu4 was not really designed to have units checking two sets of allegiances, so the amount of work to get it to the state we have now was enormous.

It is also the only feature that has made the AI able to crush all QA within a few decades, so we had to scale it back a bit when balancing.


Regional Specific Enhacements
Every expansion we try to add unique mechanics to some part of the world, to make for more variation in gameplay.

Besides implementing a detailed map for central and east africa, with lots of new nations and ideas, we added two cool features to make some less popular countries played, while keeping to the naval theme.

There is not much to say about the Slave Raids and Trade Leagues, except that they work, they are fun, and they create diversity.


Community Requested
We also try to add in things that the community requests in each patch, and Mare Nostrum contains two such features..

Unconditional Surrender - This was requested by both SP & MP proponents, and was added to make it possible to get out wars when you have truly lost, without the opponent totally ruining your nation forever.


Timeline Mapmode - I think this feature has been requested since eu1. One of the most

Balance Related
Obviously, these are the features that tend to be not so popular.

Corruption - This solves quite a lot of balance problems, and makes for a more challenging game longterm.

States and Territories - This solves the problems of overseas mechanics which you had to work around and exploit to benefit from. It also gives greater flexibility to the player.


The teams favorites

So, what did the development team like the most from Mare Nostrum?

Condottieri won in a landslide!


0fC0qse.jpg
 
  • 72
  • 53
  • 33
Reactions:
The first game I played with the new patch is Portugal, because I wanted to conquer an exploit (oops, I mean 'explore') the new African provinces and while I haven't gotten into all the new features, one thing I've noticed is the new State/Territory system blends perfectly with the Trade Company concept. It's not a 'all or nothing' path of conquest. First thing you do is assign all your newly acquired conquests to your trade company, eventually make them territories, then states. It fills up peace time quite nicely. Yeah, there are some weird things. I have three colonial provinces in Quito that I will never be able to make a colonial nation because of English Colombia to the north, so I made them states. No forts, so AI England doesn't even bother trying to siege them when at war, and there really doesn't seem any ill effect from the distance. But then again, there was British Hong Kong.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Right now in MP the game has become about who has the biggest army. We need a tad bit more strategic element involved in fighting. The attrition is of little consequence right now. And people fight like its 1915 and army can be maintained forever. The army can march deep into enemy territory and supply lines are magically intact because well its EU4. Fighting in EU4 right now is not fun.
 
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
Balance Related
Obviously, these are the features that tend to be not so popular.

Corruption - This solves quite a lot of balance problems, and makes for a more challenging game longterm.

States and Territories - This solves the problems of overseas mechanics which you had to work around and exploit to benefit from. It also gives greater flexibility to the player
I understand why people don't like Corruption, even though I think it's great. It's another big blow to map painters.

I do NOT understand why anyone doesn't like states. I can play as Jerusalem without being crippled by overseas mechanics now. Not only has it improved things for me, a not map-painter, but it is likely an improvement for many map painters as well, as it lets you do waaaay gamey-er things in terms of early expansion options.
 
  • 6
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
@Johan,

1) Now that several espionage actions are DLC gated, Espionage needs to be removed from idea groups and instead linked to DiploTech.

Current bonuses can be redistributed to DiploTech and other lackluster idea groups, as well as new policies. The actions can be unlocked via DiploTech directly.

This also opens up a chance to add a new idea group to collect and balance other bonuses from currenty overpowered idea groups.

2) Corruption needs to be balanced ny Government Types and Tech groups.

Chinese Tech, for instance, should be more resistant to corruption than Western tech due to Confusian policies and sensibilities.

3) Corruption needs to be integrated with Estates, badly. As well as Parliaments.

4) Remove tech corruption malus from having a disparity with diplotech.

Have corruption only be effectes by a lack of balance between AdminTech and MilTech. This makes a lot more sense historically, gamplay-wise, and eliminates entirely the problem this creates for nations who are without navies (natives or inland nations) and should not be keeping their DiploTech High unless they have vassals.

Also, increase corruption when your vassals have better DiploTech than their liege. This balances out the above.

5) Have corruption be much lower when you have very little money in the treasury and are balancing your budget well.

Have corruption be tied to having a larger treasuries. This makes sense flavourwise, balancewise, and encourages 'using or losing' those cash reserves.

This helps nations with relatively high development but poor cash flow from wrong culture/religion, while sensibly hurting nations hording money.

Hording money, in affluent and decedant Nations, historically, was a major incentivisor of corruption.

e.g. Aztecs, Incas, Spain; etc.

"Insert Thank You meme here".
Finally a measured, constructive, yet strong critique of the corruption mechanism.
I coudn't agree more, espacialy with point 5. I should add : corruption must be proportionate to treasure, not income.
If I can add something that has nothing to do with corruption : Why, for f..k's sake, can a fleet no longer block straits if both sides are owned by the same country ?! I can easily forgive Paradox making mistakes when trying new features, but how can they replace good mechanisms with utter non-sense ?
 
  • 6
Reactions:
Not sure whats the fuss and why there is so much negativity. Corruption is not perfect but give them some time to improve it ?! Or you really want that feature out ? Its like saying AI sux in colonizing so remove it from the game. Or remove random new world, or AI sux in naval combat, remove it from the game.. Or blobbing is better than developing, remove it.

Many of these systems in the game were not very good but they were improved one by one and now we have good interesting game. Hotfix already fixed corruption problem a lot.

They will fix AI debt problem, RU corruption problems - like that of switching religion or some nation starts. We need more tools and more sense into that mechanic. Think most of corruption haters are exaggerating a bit, its just a larger money sink that needs to be improved.

Too many ducats problem is in EU4 for ages already, i am glad they are trying to fix it. Reducing tech production/trade efficiencies to 5% for example was great improvement. For example, some patches ago they killed trade income and still there were too much money in the game.
 
  • 9
  • 2
Reactions:
@Johan,

1) Now that several espionage actions are DLC gated, Espionage needs to be removed from idea groups and instead linked to DiploTech.

Current bonuses can be redistributed to DiploTech and other lackluster idea groups, as well as new policies. The actions can be unlocked via DiploTech directly.

This also opens up a chance to add a new idea group to collect and balance other bonuses from currenty overpowered idea groups.

2) Corruption needs to be balanced ny Government Types and Tech groups.

Chinese Tech, for instance, should be more resistant to corruption than Western tech due to Confusian policies and sensibilities.

3) Corruption needs to be integrated with Estates, badly. As well as Parliaments.

4) Remove tech corruption malus from having a disparity with diplotech.

Have corruption only be effectes by a lack of balance between AdminTech and MilTech. This makes a lot more sense historically, gamplay-wise, and eliminates entirely the problem this creates for nations who are without navies (natives or inland nations) and should not be keeping their DiploTech High unless they have vassals.

Also, increase corruption when your vassals have better DiploTech than their liege. This balances out the above.

5) Have corruption be much lower when you have very little money in the treasury and are balancing your budget well.

Have corruption be tied to having a larger treasuries. This makes sense flavourwise, balancewise, and encourages 'using or losing' those cash reserves.

This helps nations with relatively high development but poor cash flow from wrong culture/religion, while sensibly hurting nations hording money.

Hording money, in affluent and decedant Nations, historically, was a major incentivisor of corruption.

e.g. Aztecs, Incas, Spain; etc.

Great ideas +1. They could keep espionage group but instead of unlocking most of the things it unlocks now they could double efficiencies. For example 50% cheaper rebel support, or 50% faster claims, more effective sabotage reputation/corrupt officials, hell they could include some idea to fight corruption there etc. This would also make diplomatic tech more important - seems like nobody wants to tech diplo.
Your corruption ideas are good also.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Hey Johan,
since corruption and states/territories are so controversial this patch, as you yourself acknowledged, why can't you make a separate game version with the new naval mechanics and espionage and map changes but no corruption, states/territories.
I personally don't like these changes but can readily admit that some people do. So I thought maybe the team could make a steam beta game version, much like being able to revert to 1.15, but just without the changes that so many people dislike. I think a lot of us would like to play 1.16 because its the best patch yet (as always) just without these "balance" changes.

Sincerly,
Long time Paradox fanboi
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:

Regional Specific Enhancements

Every expansion we try to add unique mechanics to some part of the world, to make for more variation in gameplay.

There is not much to say about the Slave Raids and Trade Leagues, except that they work, they are fun, and they create diversity.

East Asia is crying because PDX's definition of lesser played countries includes quite a bit of Europe.
 
Wow...this developer diary was light. Basically just told us what was in the patch and the DLC, just in case you didn't know. I would of loved to hear what Paradox was working on to fix some of the issues with the patch. Or perhaps a more in depth look at the design rationale for some of the features.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
I do NOT understand why anyone doesn't like states. I can play as Jerusalem without being crippled by overseas mechanics now. Not only has it improved things for me, a not map-painter, but it is likely an improvement for many map painters as well, as it lets you do waaaay gamey-er things in terms of early expansion options.

My personal issues with states/territories is that you can now make an overseas province have 0 minimum autonomy, even if it is on the other side of the world. Sure it will cost you higher maintenance, but that state will easily pay for the maintenance itself and then some. This is highly inaccurate. You should not be able to manage a province on the other side of the world with the same efficiency that you can manage a province bordering your capital.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I understand why people don't like Corruption, even though I think it's great. It's another big blow to map painters.

For the last god damn time: Most people hate corruption because of it's impact on ROTW and religions that were already 'inferior'. It's impact on blobbing/painting is next to zero because you can feed almost everything to a vassal, it's very rare that you can't. When that gets nerfed, THEN you can say that.
Balance Related

Corruption - This solves quite a lot of balance problems, and makes for a more challenging game longterm.

Just keep digging that hole Johan. Honestly, heaven help the game if you or anyone who had a say in this believe that corruption solved balance problems. Less Corruption and No Corruption are the second and fifth most popular items this week on the steam workshop...
 
  • 8
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I understand why people don't like Corruption, even though I think it's great. It's another big blow to map painters.

But it's not a blow insofar as "painting the map is now a much more difficult and rewarding experience", it's a blow to map painters in so far as map painting is now a much more tedious and unrewarding experience and even then, only for ROTW who will inevitably run into religious and tech disparities. The solution is to minimise expansion, sit around, do exceedingly little and gun for Westernisation as soon as possible. As for corruption's relation to overextension, personally I haven't found it particularly cumbersome.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
I do find it vexing that, in the face of heaps of arguments from numerous players of different skill about how corruption makes balance worse, we just get a blanket claim that it "solves balance problems".

Solves in what sense, exactly? Is it the same sense that 15 year truces were supposed to discourage total war, despite the fact that they demonstrably incentivized it (given 5 year truce minimum, the most gains/time was obviously full 100%)?

I challenge the assertion of balance. Actually, I am willing to issue a strong challenge: for any pre-set stated criteria of "balance" aside from "making the map less balanced between options", corruption fails to meet that criteria in its present form. There you have it, a falsifiable claim.

I understand why people don't like Corruption, even though I think it's great. It's another big blow to map painters.

You quite obviously do not understand why people don't like corruption, or you'd have never written this.
 
  • 14
  • 4
Reactions:
I mean along the lines of how corrupt they become vs how much they contribute etc. You could have them root out corruption to the best of their ability, but then they're less likely to help you in wars or invest in infrastructure. That kind of tradeoff.

I think corruption would be better suited with a complete rework though, to the point where it's influencing estate loyalty but also their ability to ignore autonomy in provinces, or impacts LA floor, but in some cases having non-zero corruption would be optimal.
implying that corruption should have interesting decisions instead of being a straight punishment mechanic for not starting in favored techgroups ...
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
implying that corruption should have interesting decisions instead of being a straight punishment mechanic for not starting in favored techgroups ...

In a way, it kind of is like trying to sneak some of the -1 monarch point/month on lower tech groups back into the game. If the differential reaches the level of advisors, it's functioning in exactly that capacity.
 
  • 4
Reactions: