• 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:
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
yeah but you have to take humanist ;)

to be fair, influence + despotic deals decently well with the loss of DV but ... the aggressive expansion still matters.
 
yeah but you have to take humanist ;)

to be fair, influence + despotic deals decently well with the loss of DV but ... the aggressive expansion still matters.
Yea, the way i played that game, it was a must have. There is no way i could have stayed as fetishist and manage to convert all that land without a lot of speed 5 and rebel killing. Even then, i doubt i would have been able to convert most of that land quickly.(inquisitor would be a must have as well)

I went explore. then humanist. Outside of connecting to east africa, exploration could have waited.(i kept it and went for lands i had states in or worked my way towards the cape/west africa) i found going catholic from those events is just too brutal on your RU and corruption. Going religious first after getting a connection to east africa/rwanda may be a good way to go. Depending on when the event fires, you could have at least 4 ideas in religious done + the 2 missionaries from the counter reformation making the conversion faster. Even with that, you still are going to be hurting for a long time.(can easily be decades depending on your luck of doing nothing really) i felt staying fetishist with my current game was just more economical with my time than trying to deal with all the issues of converting.

I actually never bothered with getting out of a tribal gov, in my game.(going catholic does this for you for those who don't know.) i didn't feel like throwing away all that admin +stab. I felt like conquering was a better way to spend it or just trying to keep up with my mil tech.(i did take econ just in case i changed my mind. and with this patch, the extra money is helpful) i had to burn a lot of mil points just to avoid a too high of penalty thanks to corruption(yay, for shooting myself in the foot with mil tech because of corruption)

i did eventually westernize off the other africans and thanks to some good rules, was able to catch up.(and that neighbor bonus really helped.)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
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....
I'm not disagreeing that the old system wasn't great, because it really needed a change. However, the states mechanic is worse in my opinion. They could easily fix this though by making distance from capital affect minimum autonomy. This would avoid the issue of having 0% autonomy in a province on the other side of the globe, while also not penalize Spain too much for conquering nearby North Africa.
 
That is interesting, but I'm not convinced that distance should directly translate into a certain degree of autonomy. Perhaps this is one of those things that should be in the Diplo tech tree, as it stands to reason that the closer we get to the Modern age, the less of an impact distance is going to have.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
I'm personally really enjoying the new expansion. I tried one game with the trade leagues as Venice and managed to make Austria + Hungary + Ottomans mad at me and ultimately run into a few issues. However in my current Portuguese play through the new systems have been pretty fun. States are a great way of being able to expand to somewhere externally from Europe and not suffer the huge autonomy levels.

Given that France conquered Castille and Burgundy in my game, being able to rely on the Phillipines to provide the majority of my countries foundations of production, trade and manpower was great as my colonies haven't inevitably grown larger than me.

Great work with the expansion guys, looking forward to whatever else is next on the agenda! (also Stellaris)
 
@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.
Looks like you made a difference!

Pqvn4Mh.png



Really looking forward to 1.17 now.
 
  • 11
  • 4
Reactions:
I don't post much but I would like to say just a couple of things. I have over 2700 hours so far with this game. I am not good at making large empires unless I'm the Ottomans, Russian, or some other big country. I can not defeat coalitions unless I'm at the point of being unstoppable. I do not understand how to use estates correctly. Sometimes I use cheat codes. I only do normal difficulty. If I am not rich I can not control manpower and resort to cheating. With this new DLC I have played about 2 hours. This last expansion has sucked the fun out of the game for me. One thing for sure, is that I do not need more balancing mechanics put against me. Not every player that plays this game is an unstoppable force. If I can blob into the HRE without cheating, as France, I consider it a great accomplishment for me. But currently I do not even want to try, as I don't have the willpower to deal with the roadblocks that were made to balance really good players.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
  • 2
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.

Yes, but his point is that corruption only becomes noticeable if you expand quickly, not very slowly. That development is more in line if what you'd expect in <100 years as Kilwa, not end-game.

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.

End game with imperialism and client states basically anybody with decent troop count can do it if they're up on tech.

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.

Game-breaking, in the sense that any gameplay necessarily has a long break of doing nothing built into the game. I don't think people realize how bad this makes new world play, not because of European threat but because you just sit there doing nothing.

yeah but you have to take humanist ;)

to be fair, influence + despotic deals decently well with the loss of DV but ... the aggressive expansion still matters.

Having to take humanist sucks, but it's still better than the 5+ religions where even that isn't enough.

Other than border nicety exploration sucks now :/.
 
  • 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.

Well you kind of need something to tackle religious issues if you are conquering entire continents - either Humanism or Religion. I picked up religion in my game.

Actually religion is quite tightly connected with corruption in real world unfortunately. Put 2+ groups of people with different religion and add some bad corrupted religious leaders to manipulate population.These leaders usually represent themselves and their part of believers as threatened in cultural/religious sense and they milk the state for ducats to protect their rights. Good bunch of these ducats than goes missing to someone's pockets. Happens all over the world, tension and law religious unity create ideal fertile terrain for corruption.
 
Yes, but his point is that corruption only becomes noticeable if you expand quickly, not very slowly. That development is more in line if what you'd expect in <100 years as Kilwa, not end-game.



End game with imperialism and client states basically anybody with decent troop count can do it if they're up on tech.



Game-breaking, in the sense that any gameplay necessarily has a long break of doing nothing built into the game. I don't think people realize how bad this makes new world play, not because of European threat but because you just sit there doing nothing.



Having to take humanist sucks, but it's still better than the 5+ religions where even that isn't enough
W.r.t New World issues, its not helped by the fact that all 3 of the usual suspects (Spain, Portugal, England) can end up partitioned even worse than before in this patch version.
 
W.r.t New World issues, its not helped by the fact that all 3 of the usual suspects (Spain, Portugal, England) can end up partitioned even worse than before in this patch version.

That's true, but in reality the biggest problem is the 80-100 year period where you're depending on AI but don't know the result until 1/3 of the way into the game. If they don't touch your continent, in previous patches there is nothing you can do. If they hit both continents late you're screwed without agency basically, and won't be much real gameplay until 1700. That's a long time to wait around.

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.

"You don't get less monarch points, you just get less monarch points in order to get less monarch points".

Wat.
 
I feel while a good patch there is still room for improvement in other areas:

Firstly when will Burgandy be nerfed? It is rather a-historical that a lone burgundy could defeat France in the early start dates. The Historical threat of burgundy was one of encirclement. The KoF was not assured victory against the League of the Public Weal and it was this that represented the threat. Not a 45 thousand man army of low countries vassals tearing through northern France. While not a threat to any reasonable France player it does make playing Burgundy feel rather easy to play as. I think this should be something to address in future patches: Through either raising the liberty desire of the low countries perhaps as a course of calling them into lots of wars (Historically sound), or through the general nerfing of the armies the low countries will have raised. Also as a footnote to this comment I would ask what happened to the burg inheritance event? I haven't seen it fire in ages!

Another thing that I find irritating is that PUs and vassals take up a diplomatic slot. I don't know how feasible it would be, but perhaps instead of all vassals or PUs taking up a diplo slot it should be done on power of the aforementioned vassal. A one province navarre would not take the same diplomatic effort as a large and powerful nation such as hungary or lithuania. Perhaps instead a diplomatic action to secure the loyalty of subjects, thus using diplomats rather than diplomatic relations slots. Perhaps even a financial cost to this, with the various court functions and ambassadorial departments requiring far more money to hold diplomats from a large nation but small nations can be put in a cupboard down the hall. -This is however not a major issue at all just a minor suggestion, and I could see how this could create balancing issues with nations free to have a large amount of PU's Vassals and powerful allies.

Mare nostrum has been a good patch overall and further testament to the good performance of paradox when it comes to DLC. The Corruption element, while attracting some negative feedback i feel has improved multiplayer. And condottieri is a great feature. Naval combat still needs work but the improvements are clear to see. Sorry for the essay :p
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
. Also as a footnote to this comment I would ask what happened to the burg inheritance event? I haven't seen it fire in ages!
It's fired in all three of my MN games, two on 1.16.2, one on 1.16.3. All three times, Castile was the lucky winner.
 
Do such rapid expansion you describe involve diplo-cheesing?

Only if you're willing to arbitrarily and self-inconsistently define something that is strictly within WAD gameplay mechanics as "cheesing", but then not demean alternative strategies that yield higher utility at least sometimes.

Are you willing to do that? If not, then no.