• 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 - 21st of May 2019

Hey folks, it's time for another EU4 dev diary! My name's Mike, and like my good colleague @Caligula Caesar I've been part of the EU4 Content Design team since December. We've been working on a solid chunk of Europe, and it's time to start showcasing some of this work. As @neondt has mentioned before, we've had a lot of suggestions and feedback from the community, and through further earnest exchanges we've refined the map further.

But, before we get to the end, let's talk about the process quickly, because I know that's what you truly crave.


image1_smol.png


This image is what was used to pitch the idea of what would end up becoming the revised province layout in northern Italy. As you'll see in a moment, it differs from what we ended up with in a couple of ways- Como was added later, along with a split in another North Italian province. Province 5 was originally conceived as a separate Aquileia province (since the country still exists as a releasable in Friuli, it was tempting to see what could be done with it) but that idea was eventually discarded in favor of a new Trieste province.


image2_smol.png


Southern Italy developed much closer to what the original draft envisioned. The southern half of the Italian Peninsula has only a few additions, Avellino being the one that probably sticks out the most. The island of Sicily received a bit more attention, with the island's three provinces turning into five instead. Its new divisions were guided a little bit more by game design priorities than historical divisions, as historical divisions like Sicily's real province of Trapani had sizes and shapes that would have really stuck out like a sore thumb in EU4.

Unlike the northern Italian proposal, the southern Italian one was nearly implemented as-is. The biggest difference is that “Agrigento” had its name changed to “Girgenti”, which seemed more accurate for the period. Conversely, several proposed name changes to pre-existing provinces were not implemented, as they just didn't seem necessary upon review.


“Show us the new map already!” I can hear you guys politely demanding. Fine, fine!


italy_whole.png


Three new countries were added to the map as independent states. In the far north is the Prince-Bishopric of Trent, an Austrian country in control of an Italian province. To the west lies Saluzzo, nervously wedged between Savoy and France. In Romagna, Bologna is now an independent republic coveted by its neighbors.

Alongside these three countries are a couple new potential revolters. Padua and Verona now have cores on their respective provinces and can break away from Venice if the stars align, and Spoleto now exists as a core in Spoleto province, in case the Papal State's control of Central Italy ever starts to fall apart.

If we zoom in a little, more details reveal themselves.


northern italy.png


As the conversation linked at the start of this post highlights, Como originally was not considered, but after some discussion it became apparent that the inclusion of it (or at least something north of Milan) was called for. Thus, Como's complete contours now complement the comprehensive composition of that corner.

The creation of a separate Bologna province also prompted a revision of the remnant of old Romagna province; the old province's capital is now Ravenna, and Ravenna was taken by Venice in 1440 or 1441, so Romagna now starts off under Venetian rather than Papal control, although the Papacy does retain its core on the province. I'm sure this is fine and will definitely not be a source of tension between the two countries.


southern italy.png


Southern Italy was implemented essentially as described above. Sardinia received some attention and now includes Arborea as its own province on the west side of the island, but other Sardinian giudicati were not included primarily for the sake of balance- Sassari province in northern Sardinia has only 3/3/2 development as it is, and splitting that in two would create provinces with as little development as an Uzbek province in the Steppes.

Aside from the obvious mapwork, there is one other thing we added to southern Italy:

two_sicilies.png



And there you have it! Next week, we'll be talking about missions.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Why don't you show Dalmazia, Cattaro and Ragusa in Italian DD?
 
Why don't you show Dalmazia, Cattaro and Ragusa in Italian DD?
#Balkans

So, either in 2, 4 or 6 weeks.

France and Austria as well as their missions might be first.
 
I'm curious now, mind telling us why?


Canada is essentially non-existant, except in EU4 and HOI4, but that's not my complaint.

HOI4 does a decent job at indicating how the government seized control of industry to dedicate it to the wartime effort. It isn't the best, but few countries can get exactly what they want (we out-produced the combined total of Germany, Japan, and Italy for wheeled-vehicles!). The air-controller meta does some service to the RAF training, RCAF, and vehicle manufacturing there during the war. But, more importantly, half of all allied aluminum, and 90% of nickel, came from Canada. Go Sudbury!

When it comes to EU4, I strongly dislike the colonial mechanics of the game, but that's not specific to Canada or North America.

The fact that there's any incentive to actually colonise most of Canada is already meh. But the role of first nations in development is wrong.

On one hand, many indigenous communities were greatly developed, to the same extent that you could imagine similarly-sized European communities reaching. But that development was not passed over to the Europeans. Patterns of economic development for indigenous people and European immigrants, until really the 1850s, were vastly different. Take Toronto for example. Dozens of villages replaced by the colony of York, a mudpit that would only truly surpass Montreal in the 60s — not just because of the sovereigntist movement, the Toronto exchange had passed Montreal's in the 50s. But Montreal produced 50% of Canada's GDP as late as 1900. The point being, as early as EU4's timeline, there really should be no European development beyond the stretch of Lower Canada between Montreal and Quebec, because there was simply no benefit to developing elsewhere. Much of Upper Canada's population came from Loyalists after the American War of Independence.

But the land wasn't empty. The blank grey of uncolonised provinces in Canada, and most of North America, does a disservice to the vast network of communications, trade, and economy that existed there. The fur-trade was heavily dependent on the First Nations; the French charter collapsed when the Haudenosaunee and the Wendat-Algonquin-Innu were at war. Moreover, the French actually asked permission to trap on First Nations lands — that was denied. These First Nations themselves were only middle-men — other groups in the North and West were the primary hunters. There was a truly massive network of trade that brought furs to the French.

To match the economic power, First Nations also had significant political power within the continent. European monarchs may not have cared much about their colonies in Canada and the Northern United States, but the colonies there surely cared about the First Nations they were in contact with, and the many more, beyond those, on whom their whole economy depended. The loss of Wendake — to disease and conflict with the Haudenosaunee — was a terrible blow to the French in Canada, and other First Nations who depended on the Wendat for agricultural products. EU4 does not represent that the First Nations depended on commercial and supply just as much as any European communities did at the time, perhaps more so than many.

Could you guess how many Frenchmen were in Canada in the 1620s through the 1670s? A few thousand? A couple hundred? No — there were fewer than 100. The Sun King began to create the New France that people remember only in 1663. By 1760, their was 14 000, compared to the 600 000 in America. By contrast, a conservative estimate of indigenous populations in Canada in upon contact is 350 000 — some estimates go as high as 2 million. Memoirs collected by StatCan indicate that perhaps 80 000 indigenous people lived in selected areas of Eastern Canada.

To make this rant shorter, I think the representation of Canada as a grey landscape is a great disservice to the incredible networks of commerce, culture, politics, and warfare that existed amongst the First Nations. It is purely a continuation of the gap in knowledge that so many people have, and the accidental dismissal of so much important history. As Canadian history classes do little to amend, I'm sure those in other countries aren't much better.

The EU4 portrayal of much of Africa is also limited in that regard, but I'm not as familiar with social relations there.


https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/98-187-x/4151278-eng.htm
https://opentextbc.ca/preconfederation/front-matter/about-the-book/

Also, for the historical outlook, look up

Contours of the World Economy

Canada's First Nations by Olive Dickason.

There are many more recent dedications to the social problems infliced on first nations people since the later period of New France, but that doesn't have as much to do with EU4.
 
Last edited:
Canada is essentially non-existant, except in EU4 and HOI4, but that's not my complaint.

HOI4 does a decent job at indicating how the government seized control of industry to dedicate it to the wartime effort. It isn't the best, but few countries can get exactly what they want (we out-produced the combined total of Germany, Japan, and Italy for wheeled-vehicles!). The air-controller meta does some service to the RAF training, RCAF, and vehicle manufacturing there during the war. But, more importantly, half of all allied aluminum, and 90% of nickel, came from Canada. Go Sudbury!

When it comes to EU4, I strongly dislike the colonial mechanics of the game, but that's not specific to Canada or North America.

The fact that there's any incentive to actually colonise most of Canada is already meh. But the role of first nations in development is wrong.

On one hand, many indigenous communities were greatly developed, to the same extent that you could imagine similarly-sized European communities reaching. But that development was not passed over to the Europeans. Patterns of economic development for indigenous people and European immigrants, until really the 1850s, were vastly different. Take Toronto for example. Dozens of villages replaced by the colony of York, a mudpit that would only truly surpass Montreal in the 60s — not just because of the sovereigntist movement, the Toronto exchange had passed Montreal's in the 50s. But Montreal produced 50% of Canada's GDP as late as 1900. The point being, as early as EU4's timeline, there really should be no European development beyond the stretch of Lower Canada between Montreal and Quebec, because there was simply no benefit to developing elsewhere. Much of Upper Canada's population came from Loyalists after the American War of Independence.

But the land wasn't empty. The blank grey of uncolonised provinces in Canada, and most of North America, does a disservice to the vast network of communications, trade, and economy that existed there. The fur-trade was heavily dependent on the First Nations; the French charter collapsed when the Haudenosaunee and the Wendat-Algonquin-Innu were at war. Moreover, the French actually asked permission to trap on First Nations lands — that was denied. These First Nations themselves were only middle-men — other groups in the North and West were the primary hunters. There was a truly massive network of trade that brought furs to the French.

To match the economic power, First Nations also had significant political power within the continent. European monarchs may not have cared much about their colonies in Canada and the Northern United States, but the colonies there surely cared about the First Nations they were in contact with, and the many more, beyond those, on whom their whole economy depended. The loss of Wendake — to disease and conflict with the Haudenosaunee — was a terrible blow to the French in Canada, and other First Nations who depended on the Wendat for agricultural products. EU4 does not represent that the First Nations depended on commercial and supply just as much as any European communities did at the time, perhaps more so than many.

Could you guess how many Frenchmen were in Canada in the 1620s through the 1670s? A few thousand? A couple hundred? No — there were fewer than 100. The Sun King began to create the New France that people remember only in 1663. By 1760, their was 14 000, compared to the 600 000 in America. By contrast, a conservative estimate of indigenous populations in Canada in upon contact is 350 000 — some estimates go as high as 2 million. Memoirs collected by StatCan indicate that perhaps 80 000 indigenous people lived in selected areas of Eastern Canada.

To make this rant shorter, I think the representation of Canada as a grey landscape is a great disservice to the incredible networks of commerce, culture, politics, and warfare that existed amongst the First Nations. It is purely a continuation of the gap in knowledge that so many people have, and the accidental dismissal of so much important history. As Canadian history classes do little to amend, I'm sure those in other countries aren't much better.

The EU4 portrayal of much of Africa is also limited in that regard, but I'm not as familiar with social relations there.


https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/98-187-x/4151278-eng.htm
https://opentextbc.ca/preconfederation/front-matter/about-the-book/

Also, for the historical outlook, look up

Contours of the World Economy

Canada's First Nations by Olive Dickason.

There are many more recent dedications to the social problems infliced on first nations people since the later period of New France, but that doesn't have as much to do with EU4.

Thank you, this will certainly be a very interesting read.
 
You mean this?



I think they just meant Trent it's part of Austria.. whatever Austria ends up to be after this patch. Chance is it is split among the several Habsburg branches of the time, we'll see.

If indeed they mean that Trent primary culture is Austrian as you think... I honestly dunno what to think. The game has to paint things black or white for gameplay reasons, but Trent city was bilingual at the time and prince bishops mostly come from Germanic kingdoms in 1444. The "language issues" are mostly a modern time byproduct of the nationalistic propaganda campaigns of WW1 (and not just in Tirol, everywhere in Europe). That part of Tirol always had multi linguism in its DNA. Personally I would just give Trent tag the culture of its own province to represent this harmony. But the question is what happens if Trent gains land. Historically Trent never expanded and enjoyed large autonomy during EU4 and after EU4 was part of an empire that was similarly multi lingual by vocation. I can't imagine what would have happened to that multi linguism had the Bishops regained control over the Tirol Counts and expanded north in Germany or south in Italy. I guess they would probably choose to switch on the more convenient language. Maybe the devs chose to make Trent Austrian for game balance, to not give "Austria" a vassal to easily expand in northern Italy.
You mean this?



I think they just meant Trent it's part of Austria.. whatever Austria ends up to be after this patch. Chance is it is split among the several Habsburg branches of the time, we'll see.

If indeed they mean that Trent primary culture is Austrian as you think... I honestly dunno what to think. The game has to paint things black or white for gameplay reasons, but Trent city was bilingual at the time and prince bishops mostly come from Germanic kingdoms in 1444. The "language issues" are mostly a modern time byproduct of the nationalistic propaganda campaigns of WW1 (and not just in Tirol, everywhere in Europe). That part of Tirol always had multi linguism in its DNA. Personally I would just give Trent tag the culture of its own province to represent this harmony. But the question is what happens if Trent gains land. Historically Trent never expanded and enjoyed large autonomy during EU4 and after EU4 was part of an empire that was similarly multi lingual by vocation. I can't imagine what would have happened to that multi linguism had the Bishops regained control over the Tirol Counts and expanded north in Germany or south in Italy. I guess they would probably choose to switch on the more convenient language. Maybe the devs chose to make Trent Austrian for game balance, to not give "Austria" a vassal to easily expand in northern Italy.
Considering what the DD says Trent will likely be independent at game start, also it was never ruled by Habsburgs until the napoleonic wars (it will be a prince-bishopry at game start).

Im regards to the lamguage/nationalism problem you brought up I wasn't referring to it: even during ww1 the majority of the population of the province was loyal to the Habsburgs and didn't want to become part of Italy, my point was merely a linguistic one: not only were germanic languages speakers never the majority in the province, german wasn't even the official language or anything like that (read my first comment again, I talked about this there).
 
How much thought do you guys put into the indirect consequences of things like map reworks on balance and game flow? One aspect that has been regularly mentioned by lots of other players is the effect of increased overall development and more tags on AE and coalition management. Some other examples:

- Dividing larger provinces into smaller provinces greatly influences how armies move. Not just in terms of shortening travel times but also in terms of reducing movement lock times, increasing mana cost for forced marching across a region, increasing the number of troops you can keep in a small area while staying under the supply limit, fort ZOC behaviour, etc. Given that much of the testing seems to be multiplayer dev clashes I'm sure you will be aware of how this affects army micro for multiplayer but are you aware of how it affects the AI in singleplayer?

- A similar issue is that more provinces means more sieges in a given war to achieve the same result. This means a change in the pace of wars, the risk of carpet sieging (especially since travel times are shorter) and volume of attrition casualties over the duration of a war. I would hazard a guess that defending the same amount of land becomes much easier when you have more provinces to emergency recruit from than the enemy can feasibly carpet siege.

- Dividing provinces into smaller provinces usually means increasing the overall development of the land it represents but reducing the development of individual provinces. This has a big impact on Institution spread. Provinces go from one fifteen development province to e.g. two provinces with 9 and 8 development. That increases the institution embracement cost (due to higher dev) but cuts the rate at which the institution spreads to that province by over a third. That in turn delays when the institution will spread to provinces further down the line. This is something that was very apparent after Dharma because provinces that were already at 10 or 11 dev were split into 6 to 8 dev provinces and because of all the arid/tropical climate it was very difficult to efficiently develop anywhere outside the Hindi belt.

- Converting land to your religion is mostly dependent on how many provinces there are rather than the development. This has obvious implications for things like One Faith and One Culture runs, but it also matters for more relaxed expansion runs. If you annex a certain bit of land and it's wrong religion you have to convert the provinces to stop rebellions and if you don't raise autonomy you'll have to tank a rebellion anyway. Since the number of missionaries hasn't changed for a long time, this obviously means that converting and pacifying land takes longer (unless you pick a +Tolerance tag and get Humanism) which is perfectly manageable for a human player who plans their conquest but probably a death sentence for AI nations. When you couple this problem with the bigger rebel stacks (from more provinces with more total dev) and the new missionary maintenance system where cost to convert is a function of missionary strength, development and autonomy, the knock on effects are even more noticeable. In short, Humanism gets buffed every time you add a new province

- Warscore cost of provinces changes in a fairly non-linear war. One 15 development province with no COT/Estuary has a base warscore cost of 20.6%. Splitting that into two provinces with e.g. 9 and 8 dev will yield a total base cost of ~27.5%. This then has knock on effects for truce timers, number of wars to fully annex a nation (and delete it's AE), how badly you need to beat them in the war to get the necessary warscore (compounds with the issue of more sieges) and the relative value of peace options like transfer trade power.

- Creating more areas with fewer provinces significantly affects the states & territories mechanic. Edicts are less effective (some of them are already awful), ease of getting prosperity changes, you hit the TMT penalty earlier, etc. etc. other people have talked about this in this thread. When you substantially reduced the number of states from technology in a patch some time ago it was because you thought we had too many state slots, presumably relative to the number of areas on the map. Are you going to increase the number of states we have access to to make up for the increased number of areas on the map?

- Manufactory simulator becomes even more tedious and overpowered. Now instead of one manufactory on a single province to get +1 cloth, there are two manufactories on two provinces for +2 cloth, or +1 cloth and +1 salt or whatever.

There are probably many more parts of the game affected by this that haven't come to mind at the moment. I'm sure you guys have some awareness of how the game changes since you do play dev clashes and run observer games but I'm guessing that you don't notice certain things as much in big multiplayers or when you aren't even playing the game. Things like how difficult it is to get warscore high enough for the AI to accept a peace offer, how easy the AI is to exploit in what should be difficult wars, what the particular challenges of completing a One Faith are, how much speed 5ing you have to do because there are 30 nations on 40 AE with you, etc.

These things don't look to be that much of a problem with Italy since there aren't that many more provinces but the impact is still there. It's a bit frustrating because reading this diary there's no description of how gameplay in the area is different after the map rework. I'm perfectly fine with discovering that on my own but it feels as though the indirect gameplay and balance effects of map reworks are not really considered when these changes are made. And it's very easy to start thinking that way because of how other changes are made, ostensibly for balance purposes, but they end up having a completely unintended effect. Or when, in other dev diaries, you say you want to reduce click fatigue but then encourage things like half stating through other mechanics.
 
Ancona should be a harbor-city; its position has been wrong since it was first included into the game.
 
Considering what the DD says Trent will likely be independent at game start, also it was never ruled by Habsburgs until the napoleonic wars (it will be a prince-bishopry at game start).

Im regards to the lamguage/nationalism problem you brought up I wasn't referring to it: even during ww1 the majority of the population of the province was loyal to the Habsburgs and didn't want to become part of Italy, my point was merely a linguistic one: not only were germanic languages speakers never the majority in the province, german wasn't even the official language or anything like that (read my first comment again, I talked about this there).

As I've said I agree that an Austrian culture Bishopric of Trent in a Venetian Trent province is odd. I'm merely speculating on possible reasons. I gave the balance as one. Another could be in the fact that around the beginning of the game Trent city people was not exactly in love with the bishops and tried again and again to become a commune. Communes are typically Italian, prince bishoprics are typically German.

Imho it would be really strange though if the country was made completely independent. For all serious internal and external crisis I don't think the Bishops ever moved without Tirol support in the EU4 timeline (but I could be proven wrong here). As far as I know the Landlibell might be of 1511 but the document just "regulated" something that was going on since long.

Anyway I wrote this opinion of mine already in other threads. I want to see what they pulled together for Austria before arguing. And possibly HRE as well (in case there might be some unique mechanics for Prince-Bishoprics like for Free cities).
 
Thank you, this will certainly be a very interesting read.

You're welcome!

Sorry that it's so long, but it's a topic that I care deeply about.

When I was a child I was taught that Canada was a young country with no real history, something I believed.
Yet, we struggle to create our own vision, our own being, next to the United States.
I think that recognising the full history of the continent, and embracing the history and culture of indigenous people, could be Canada's unique place in the 21st century.

As Gord Downie said, that's what we're missing when we celebrate doughnuts and hockey.

Secret Path is an incredibly emphatic story about the treatment of indigenous people — paralleled in most countries. It's certainly worth reading.
 
I know I should’ve asked on the German map DD, but would you please, please look into adding a tag for Geneva? It would be so cool to have the birthplace of Rousseau represented, with its unique political (both internal and external) situation, and both Rousseau and Jean Calvin could provide some fantastic flavor through events and ideas and whatnot.

Also, I forgot to do this last week, so I’ll say it twice: Please update Portuguese ideas. Please update Portuguese ideas. Thank you.
 
So it looks like Austria will need to take ~10-13 provinces now in order to stop shadow kingdom. Surely this will be changed some way?
Which I am on a crusade to remove. Areas should be three provinces minimum.
What about isolated areas like Greenland? Pretty hard to make those larger without adding provinces.
 
Map updates are a nice addition. They change up gameplay and usually require one to change things that they always may, or may not due, in a playthrough of their favorite part of the map. I do have one concern though. The update to the British Isles was pretty good, before that we had India and the Middle East. The latter 2 updates compared to Iberia and, so far, Central Europe, seem to be mediocre. Just as an example, why a dozen-ish new provinces in Italy, 1 in Portugal, a decent amount in Germany, but the "Central Indian Culture" nations have MANY additions? I hope I am wrong, but did they cut your funding after Dharma? The detail in the Mid-East and especially India is absolutely amazing. I, for one, can't stop playing from Sindh to Taungoo because of the detail to missions, the map, and the drama that comes along with so many nations/details.


India gets more provinces compared to Italy, Portugal or Germany because india was richer and had a bigger population than these areas while also having less provinces compared to population before the rework.


Missing Rimini and Perugia i think. Provinces for Piombino and Volterra would be welcome too.

Don't understand why we have Spoleto tag, an state that disappeared around 1230 (well, nominally existed as direct domain of the Pope until the XIX century), while we don't have Ravenna, Arezzo and Ancona as releseables.


Any news about dalmatian italians?

I figured the best way to represent Perugia was by having it as a Papal province with high autonomy. Like Bologna, in the 15th century it had an ambitious signoria at the helm, this is true, but its closer proximity to Rome meant that even at the Signoria's height, the Papacy seemed to exert more influence there than they could in Bologna at the same time. While it took Battle Pope Julius II getting militarily involved for Bologna to really come back into the Papal fold, Popes Sixtus IV, Innocent VIII and others were already repeatedly intervening in Perugian politics on their own.

History is never clear-cut and in this period in particular there's a lot of cases of polities that could be read one way or the other. Ultimately, based on the influence of the Popes and how the two cities were ultimately reincorporated into the Papal State, I made the call the way I did.



I was partially motivated by meta-reasons, as I enjoy playing CK2 from time to time and came to this looking at its relation to the Middle Ages as much as I did looking at how things played out during the EU4 period. Plus, with Perugia addressed as a province with high autonomy and and certain surliness, I wanted something else for the other central province in the Papacy's domain. Thus, Spoleto.

Dalmatia will most likely come with the balkan map changes
 
A good step in the right direction. Many years have passed since I imagined something similar.