• 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:
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.
Seeing as ROTW nerfs were WAD - I actually wonder whether Johan's opinion about ROTW being overpowered comes from (lets be charitable)... differently utilizing neighbor bonus mechanics w.r.t westernization. If you use neighbor bonus to its fullest, it becomes very obvious just how good western techgroup is.

I can feel the wasted bird mana in my soul whenever I tech diplo in the ROTW.
 
  • 7
Reactions:
@Johan

Respectfully, please realize that Espionage ideas will never be popular or even useful. They offer so little compared to every other idea group. Apart from the 2 Colonizing ideas, which unlock a huge gameplay mechanic, every other idea group offers exclusively direct benefits to your nation and rarely rely on the player constantly micromanaging their diplomats. Espionage just let's you unlock some extra gameplay that is rarely useful. Because Espionage ideas sucked in the past, every player has learned to play the game without those diplomatic actions. So you have conditioned the player to never pick Espionage because on one hand they see some seemingly unnecessary diplomatic interactions, and on the other hand they see a bunch of bonuses that will make them stronger.

Make the diplomatic actions contained in Espionage to be part of Diplomatic Technology instead. And then convert the Espionage group to be a more aggressive version of the Diplomatic ideas. Have it give Dip Rep and extra diplomats, improve spy defense/offense efficiency and the impact of spy actions, improve siege ability, reduce or eliminate time to send spies after being caught, give extra diplomatic slots, reduce unrest (since internal agents keep an eye on population) and increase loyalty of subject nations (since external agents keep an eye on them). Also the finisher would be to gain one province extra vision on yours and your subject's borders, as well as vision of the capital province and its surrounding provinces of every nation you currently have a diplomat assigned or sent a diplomat recently. Suddenly Espionage is a lot more appealing and you revitalize the interest in Espionage actions.
 
  • 42
  • 1
Reactions:
I was sceptical about corruption at first but after playing a new game up to 1785 as Kilwa I didn't find it too problematic. I'm in tech lead as east african tech group (165 % more expensive tech), I've conquered pretty much everything in eastern Africa as you can see and have built up a strong presence in India and a weaker trade based operation Indochina and Polynesia. Pretty much all land is state-cored.

C3625B75EC0CB1C6D23453E1ADF5B8578C7FBCA2


I do however think that it messes a lot with religion, it's already bad to have low religious unity as it is, now it could completely break your nation. Just imagine being a reformation hotspot with even numbers of provinces divided between Catholicism, Reformed and Protestantism. It'd just simply be game over.
That's because you expanded very slowly, so it didn't cripple you. But if you had been stuck at adm tech 3(ex: 0/x/x rulers that everyone loves) for the first 150 years, well then you would understand how broken of a mechanic it is. Outside of europe the amount of corruption that you get dependent on the RNG, how is that is not problematic.
 
  • 6
  • 2
Reactions:
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.

I think you are too harsh on corruption. Corruption does not really influence monarch point significantly after the hotfix. It just forces you to spend bigger sums of money fighting it - in order not to lose those monarch points. I finished Kongo campaign after the hotfix no problem, corruption was just heavy money sink. Now playing Hormuz, still no problems at all. I even pick up 0.2 or 0.5 corruption events option frequently because its easy to get rid of it. I don't think i ever went > 2. Western countries have the same problems, its not just ROTW so to say its strictly ROTW nerf is incorrect.

Real problem with corruption is religion conversion for example - which needs to be handled better. I converted Kongo to Catholicism and corruption went to 8. Also some countries starts might be affected badly. AI debt should be addressed. If player can do it quite easily, AI should be able to do decent job.

If they go easier on corruption than they should see to somehow reduce number of ducats in the game.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
That's because you expanded very slowly, so it didn't cripple you. But if you had been stuck at adm tech 3(ex: 0/x/x rulers that everyone loves) for the first 150 years, well then you would understand how broken of a mechanic it is. Outside of europe the amount of corruption that you get dependent on the RNG, how is that is not problematic.

I conquered whole Africa fighting wars from the beginning up to late 1700s, mostly taking 90%+ overextension and had no problem with corruption. I even colonized and converted zillion of fetishist and sunni provinces to catholicism which drained lots of gold. Most of my rulers were below average. I got stuck twice in stupid long regencies (14 years and 6 years) with 0-1-3 councils and heirs were not mouch better than that.

In late 1700s i started having stupid amount of money so i built Training fields (300-310g each) everywhere to see if i can reach 1 million manpower.
 
  • 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".

Same reason they disabled boats for the Americas despite Inca getting an event that INVOLVES sending their heir on a boat. That is so very foul. I just played an Inca game for the lols, no Europeans in South America until 1557 and this is NOT the first time that's happened, I just don't play in the region anymore because of this nonsense.

I hate being dependent on them in order to do ANYTHING and then the 'reform at 18 techs' thing, did whoever make that decision not realize how utterly useless that is.
 
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
I conquered whole Africa fighting wars from the beginning up to late 1700s, mostly taking 90%+ overextension and had no problem with corruption. I even colonized and converted zillion of fetishist and sunni provinces to catholicism which drained lots of gold. Most of my rulers were below average. I got stuck twice in stupid long regencies (14 years and 6 years) with 0-1-3 councils and heirs were not mouch better than that.

In late 1700s i started having stupid amount of money so i built Training fields (300-310g each) everywhere to see if i can reach 1 million manpower.
85 years to conquer east africa late game is very slow(all of europe takes less than that), and that land development is very low. Catholic nations actually can convert stuff, if you were playing a fetishist nation well welcome to 100 corruption land.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
That's because you expanded very slowly, so it didn't cripple you. But if you had been stuck at adm tech 3(ex: 0/x/x rulers that everyone loves) for the first 150 years, well then you would understand how broken of a mechanic it is. Outside of europe the amount of corruption that you get dependent on the RNG, how is that is not problematic.

I had a lot of really crap kings but due to monarch focus and advisor prioritising (+3 or +2 admin advisor and none or +1 for the others) I still found room to expand. And it ain't cheap as east African, techs are costing about 1000 points now in late game due to time penalties.

My point is that you can still blob, even as RTW, but if you want to do a world conquest then I guess you would face some troubles. Never really tried so I can't really comment on that tbh.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I had a lot of really crap kings but due to monarch focus and advisor prioritising (+3 or +2 admin advisor and none or +1 for the others) I still found room to expand. And it ain't cheap as east African, techs are costing about 1000 points now in late game due to time penalties.

My point is that you can still blob, even as RTW, but if you want to do a world conquest then I guess you would face some troubles. Never really tried so I can't really comment on that tbh.
It doesn't stop world conquest, it's just 100% core creation cost after some time and no ideas.
Actually no, world conquest becomes easier thanks to corruption as WC involves mass vassal feeding and management. As your vassals sit at 100% corruption(if you're doing your job) they have no army to rebel against you(too much autonomy) and they can't dip tech(+100% tech cost) meaning 100% of your dip points can be used to annex them :p. Sitting at 100% religious unity is not hard to at a WC game even with nations that get no bonuses RU.
What annoys me about corruption is rather than adding anything interesting it just breaks the game and cripples nations for just existing, and turn some interesting starts into either unplayable or boring as hell. Don't free forts already serve enough as a stall player into staring at the screen mechanic :(.
 
  • 2
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
85 years to conquer east africa late game is very slow(all of europe takes less than that), and that land development is very low. Catholic nations actually can convert stuff, if you were playing a fetishist nation well welcome to 100 corruption land.
How do you conquer all of Europe in less than 85 years? Is this as a horde or something? I'm assuming this isn't some kind of thing feasible by a poor OPM in the HRE, of course.
 
How do you conquer all of Europe in less than 85 years? Is this as a horde or something? I'm assuming this isn't some kind of thing feasible by a poor OPM in the HRE, of course.
Read the link in my signature did in less than that, it resumes to vassal feeding and adm efficiency. HRE OPM is possible, but if you didn't expand the whole game it's quite hard.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
85 years to conquer east africa late game is very slow(all of europe takes less than that), and that land development is very low. Catholic nations actually can convert stuff, if you were playing a fetishist nation well welcome to 100 corruption land.
Not necessarily. Humanist goes well with fetishist. You will just end up 1 below your TTF and if you take exploration, you can get another +1 from a policy should you want it,

F31C91FCC1B74F883E6E3BBD84280564FAB600DD


C82DC852DB4D90E52ACCD59AE01C696ABA5220C5
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Well, I finally caved in and bought the DLC. I'm not really satisfied with corruption and think that the improvements are minor, but hell, without your games my life would be far more boring, so take it as an encouragement prize:)
 
Last edited:
@Johan

Respectfully, please realize that Espionage ideas will never be popular or even useful. They offer so little compared to every other idea group. Apart from the 2 Colonizing ideas, which unlock a huge gameplay mechanic, every other idea group offers exclusively direct benefits to your nation and rarely rely on the player constantly micromanaging their diplomats. Espionage just let's you unlock some extra gameplay that is rarely useful. Because Espionage ideas sucked in the past, every player has learned to play the game without those diplomatic actions. So you have conditioned the player to never pick Espionage because on one hand they see some seemingly unnecessary diplomatic interactions, and on the other hand they see a bunch of bonuses that will make them stronger.

Make the diplomatic actions contained in Espionage to be part of Diplomatic Technology instead. And then convert the Espionage group to be a more aggressive version of the Diplomatic ideas. Have it give Dip Rep and extra diplomats, improve spy defense/offense efficiency and the impact of spy actions, improve siege ability, reduce or eliminate time to send spies after being caught, give extra diplomatic slots, reduce unrest (since internal agents keep an eye on population) and increase loyalty of subject nations (since external agents keep an eye on them). Also the finisher would be to gain one province extra vision on yours and your subject's borders, as well as vision of the capital province and its surrounding provinces of every nation you currently have a diplomat assigned or sent a diplomat recently. Suddenly Espionage is a lot more appealing and you revitalize the interest in Espionage actions.

Actually, that is some valid points.
 
  • 44
  • 6
Reactions:
1. Corruption is good for lategame EU4 gameplay. In old patches after some time, not too long, you have inifinite ducats and game is just too easy. Nothing matters, manpower is irrelevant, you can buy infinite mercs, you can use money for +2/+3 advisors and half of the ideas, idea groups and policies, mechanics are made unimportant - because you have money, why would you want more. Its safe to say, inifinte ducats were ruining eu4 - nobody played much after 1600s. This is big plus in my opinion.

You can still have infinite mercs and more money than you can possibly do anything with. Hundreds and hundreds of mercenaries and revenue in the thousands of ducats a month with every province stuffed with buildings.
 
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.


But that's going to be much rarer than the problem it fixed - being near a continental border and not being ever able to lower nearby provinces to below 75% autonomy. It was immensely frustrating playing as, say, one of the Iberian states and not having a way to fix this in the only slightly further North African provinces you conquered (other than to conquer a land connection completely around the Mediterranean of course).

States give players agency they didn't have before. In my book, player agency > no player agency. Yes, periodically you can have some wacky results, but the rare occurrences of such are far outweighed by the benefits the system provides. At most, the system may need a minor tweak to make the cost of such distant states a bit higher, but it shouldn't outright punish players for doing so....
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Having Espionage go the way of forced march will be an improvement(ideas unlocked with dip tech) with adding an a new idea group in it's place. ornlu gave some good ideas.

@Johan what are your thoughts on moving admirals into their own dip leaders category rather than taking up a mil leader slot? It would make them more viable imo. generals are almost always worth having over admirals currently. In one of your last DDs a lot of people posted this or agreed with said posts but they never got a response.
 
  • 4
Reactions: