Europa Universalis IV

[oscar]

I do very much like this system of culture-based national ideas.

 

[Kukulkan]

Will they fix it so that nations that go to war don't have cascading call to arms? Its really annoying where when you go to war with a nation and the allies of the allies of the allies of your foes join in as well.

 

[Krash]

I seem to recall some mention of a new coalition system for alliances, robust enough to make ditching badboy possible (which they said they will do).

 

[Kane]

MULTIPLAYER

General mutiplayer stuff
-The multiplayer will include hotjoin (Announcement)
-The game should include cooperative multiplayer where multiple players control a country.
-The multiplayer will include support for stand-alone servers (Announcement)
-Improved match-making
-A chat feature that's not from the eighties.
-"A new matchmaking server will also be created, where you'll be able to see on-going games and possibly join them on the fly (with hotjoin!), and we will also have support for "stand alone servers", which allows a computer to run, let’s say up to 5-10 games continuously, and letting the metaserver know it exists so people can join them as well." (Johan - Interview)

 

[Konjad]

Eh? They should be expanding already existing games even more to make them perfect in par with Dwarf Fortress, instead of making next game with less features (than previous one with all expansions) and just prettier graphic. Seriously, they could make the best games ever with attitude of expanding their games, not with making constant sequels.

Not gonna buy.

 

[oscar]

I wonder if they're going to draw from MM's ideas on how to counter blobbing and the like (Eastern Europe in particular seems to tend a lot towards retarded blobs, with stuff like Austria cutting a path into the Caucasus).

Alternate history event chains based around plausible "what ifs" would also be nice. The depth of forking event chains that the AGCEEP mod went into for EUII was fantastic.

 

[RedScum]

Well Paradoxs Development studio has always made their next games in their different series better then the previous, so i have no real problem buying it. And i also vaguely remember that mostly all of the important content from EUIIIs expansions that has not been redone will be in this next installment.

 

[Malakal]

Eh? They should be expanding already existing games even more to make them perfect in par with Dwarf Fortress, instead of making next game with less features (than previous one with all expansions) and just prettier graphic. Seriously, they could make the best games ever with attitude of expanding their games, not with making constant sequels.

Not gonna buy.

They havent cut any good features tho and there are certainly good improvements already shown, like splitting the economy and technology or stability. I also like national ideas as being more personal now, describing different nations.

 

[Renegen]

Maybe with the multiplayer being friendlier I'll finally take part in some. I always get stuck with some super competitive players that min-max everything and exploit every feature.

 

[Malakal]

Maybe with the multiplayer being friendlier I'll finally take part in some. I always get stuck with some super competitive players that min-max everything and exploit every feature.

The only feature you need to exploit in MP is chat.

 

[Reject_666_6]

And manufactories.

 

[Wise Emperor]

Dev Diary 15 - Milan & Republican Tradition http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...t-tu-Brute&s=08fde2a0cee1482498f46cdfa16a50ce

 

[Wise Emperor]

Well as everybody tries to spam TC news with minor updates and I can't post news so here I will drop something new:

Dev Diary 16 - France

Bonus Detail #1: Harsh Treatment
One of the things we wanted to do with Europa Universalis IV was to have more meaningful choices, including more interaction with rebels that are not just defeating their armies in the field. We have mentioned the issue of rebel demands before, so today I'll introduce “harsh treatments”.
In provinces with revolt risk, you now have the option to spend Military Power Points to reduce the chance of revolt for a time. This will cost 5 power per base tax point, and reduces the revolt risk by 5, including the minimum revolt risk. Think of “harsh treatment” as sending in military police or government goons to round up troublemakers before things get out of hand. It’s not a permanent solution, but if you have the Military power to spare.

Now you can use Military, Diplomacy & Administration power, as well as using missionaries to reduce the chances of revolt, or even eliminate the source of rebels entirely.

Bonus Detail #2: Morale recovery.
Morale now recovers much more slowly than in early Europa Universalis games, though there are ideas that can make it recover more quickly. Running army maintenance at low levels is, of course, a severe risk in that it can now take up to a year for a depleted army to raise its morale to the maximum level. This doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t look at maintenance costs as a place to keep your budget down – just don’t expect your men to be ready as soon as they reach the front.

Dev Diary 17 - About changes in diplomatic features

Dev Diary 18 - Little Brazil

Bonus Detail: Colonization
The colonization system in Europa Universalis IIII worked well, but had one small annoyance; you had to continually send out your colonists. We looked to see what we can do with the sending colonist mechanic to make it less of a chore while at the same time keep the feel of the old system.
Now, when you send out a colonist, you automatically succeed, but only 10 people arrive in this new land. And they take a while to grow; if you leave your colonist envoy there then it will help the colony grow faster – but he can’t be everywhere at once. Every month, the colonist envoy will have a chance to add to the population of the colony, based on the old success formula you are familiar with.

So instead of spamming out colonists as soon as you got a new one, you now place your limited colonial envoys in building up colonies, in a more strategic way. Where do you want to emphasize your growth? When do you relocate your envoy?

 

[Borelli]

Dev Diary 15 - Milan & Republican Tradition http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...t-tu-Brute&s=08fde2a0cee1482498f46cdfa16a50ce

The republican tradition concept looks interesting, republics no longer have a flat +1 tolerance but have to work for it like monarchies do (100% legitimiacy = 1 tolerance), although i don't know if tolerance will be in the sequel. Also no more re-electing that 9/9/9 leader until he dies of old age sounds interesting.

 

[The Brazilian Slaughter]

Say, its me reading it wrong or:

1. EUIV is very much focused on the Great Power Nations (France, England, Portugal, Spain, Austria, Russia, Ottomans, Mamelukes, China, Sweden/Venice/Milan on the borderline)? These exclusive national ideas seem like a easy way to make the Great Powers turn into Great Powers. This looks like Paradox screwing over the Non-GP player once again, like in Vicky 2.

Every country also has something we call National Ideas, with the most important countries having a set of unique national ideas. Major countries including the Mamelukes and England have seven unique ideas granting them specific abilities. These ideas are not something you spend power on to buy, but, instead, you gain one of these ideas for free for every third idea you buy normally from an idea group.
Countries also have what we call “national ambition”, which is a bonus given when you have gained all seven of your national ideas. This bonus is also unique for each country.

Awesome, so now some countries will gain arbitrary power because Paradox thinks they are important instead, of, I don't know, BECOMING IMPORTANT OR ENDING UP UNIMPORTANT OVER THE COURSE OF THE GAME?! EUIV is going to be a GP fest that makes Vicky 2 look tame. Its also major historic determinism.

The Russian idea set is common to all countries that have Russian as their primary culture, as our major goal is to get one united Russia

Why? Why not make the game to allow the possibility of having the nascent Russians swallowed by a Golden Horde renewal? See what I mean?

2. Are historical events back again? That's bullshit. Why should I get 100% arbitrary events out of nowhere? "Oh, you are french and its 1770, time for REVOLUSHUN!!!1111one". That's bullshit. I prefered something like Magna Mundi, where you could get revolutions almost everywhere, or even not at all, for example. Historical Determinism is bullshit, plain and simple, I want to play a game not read a history book where I move the troops. DHE = Bullshit. Combined with National ideas = Ultra Historical Determinism Bullshit.

3. What's wrong with this map?

I'm sure there are lots of things, so I will say about what I know.
For example, their Brazil map still is pure, refined bullshit. Why is a HUGE chunk of South America a "wasteland"? I remember my history and geography books, where I learned a huge chunk of the continent was totally unhabited until the Victorian Times, the city of Manaus being founded at the time. Before that, until 1822, no one lived in these areas and nobody ever colonized them.

No, wait, I didn't. Manáus is not that much newer than Belém. And all that land area WAS colonized. So why the fuck its a wasteland? Are the Paradox devs wanting to have a historically factual Portuguese Colonization of Brazil, but can't do it because they think Spain will simply eat all that land?
Truth is, they will. Why? Because Paradox probably doesn't know why the Portuguese gobbled up most of the Amazon and the Planalt. Its pretty simple really: The Portuguese controlled the mouth of the Amazon, and built forts through the river, forts which controlled acess. Pretty much every city or settlement founded by the Portuguese in Northern Brazil was built around a river fort. The reason was that, until the modern times, going through the Amazon on foot was a slow slog and pretty much suicide for anyone but skilled natives or master bandeirantes. So the main way of deslocation there is through the waterways, until 1950 or so. The forts kept the waterways under portuguese control, so anyone in a boat that wans't called Miguel, Pedro or João got shot with a cannonball. The end.

Also, there's no explanation as to why Amerikwan provinces are smaller than provinces in the rest of the continent. Do I detect some bias towards Kwans? In a bunch of Swedish devs of all places? Its even more hilarious because from 1500 to 1800 the area is much less relevant to world history than South America, or India.

Despite my complaints, I think it has some quite good new features, but I'm still skeptical. I think we will see lots of determinism and wanking of GPs. I do like that they're enhancing some systems well enough to get rid of others; namely Bad Boy/Infamy, which thanks to how diplomacy works may end up obsolete.

The Bandeirantes: +1 Merchant

LOL no. Someone clearly doesn't know what Bandeirantes did. Brotip: They weren't merchants, they were a mix of Conquistador, Prospector, Adventurer and mercenary.

 

[Malakal]

LOL no. Someone clearly doesn't know what Bandeirantes did. Brotip: They weren't merchants, they were a mix of Conquistador, Prospector, Adventurer and mercenary.

So, in short, MERCHANTS? Because you know thats what merchants did - explored, traded, killed. If they saw an opportunity to be gained by piracy they didnt hesitate. Other than that I thought that all nations get bonuses for completing sets of national ideas its just that great powers have them custom made while the rest gets generic. No idea about the balance but there is no reason for there to be none.

 

[Trash]

LOL no. Someone clearly doesn't know what Bandeirantes did. Brotip: They weren't merchants, they were a mix of Conquistador, Prospector, Adventurer and mercenary.

So, in short, MERCHANTS? Because you know thats what merchants did - explored, traded, killed. If they saw an opportunity to be gained by piracy they didnt hesitate. Other than that I thought that all nations get bonuses for completing sets of national ideas its just that great powers have them custom made while the rest gets generic. No idea about the balance but there is no reason for there to be none.

Exactly. He just described the first multinational corporation on earth. You know, merchants.

 

[Malakal]

LOL no. Someone clearly doesn't know what Bandeirantes did. Brotip: They weren't merchants, they were a mix of Conquistador, Prospector, Adventurer and mercenary.

So, in short, MERCHANTS? Because you know thats what merchants did - explored, traded, killed. If they saw an opportunity to be gained by piracy they didnt hesitate. Other than that I thought that all nations get bonuses for completing sets of national ideas its just that great powers have them custom made while the rest gets generic. No idea about the balance but there is no reason for there to be none.

Exactly. He just described the first multinational corporation on earth. You know, merchants.

Established in 1602 first? You have to be kidding me. What about the Knights of Rhodes who were a religious corporation? Or about the church. I am also sure that Athens had some kind of trade association. And Phoenicians too.

 

[Delterius]

LOL no. Someone clearly doesn't know what Bandeirantes did. Brotip: They weren't merchants, they were a mix of Conquistador, Prospector, Adventurer and mercenary.

So, in short, MERCHANTS? Because you know thats what merchants did - explored, traded, killed. If they saw an opportunity to be gained by piracy they didnt hesitate. Other than that I thought that all nations get bonuses for completing sets of national ideas its just that great powers have them custom made while the rest gets generic. No idea about the balance but there is no reason for there to be none.

Exactly. He just described the first multinational corporation on earth. You know, merchants.

Yes, but do the "Merchants" of EU IV fit all those 5 competences? Or are they specialized on Trade? Because Bandeirantes are really remembered for feats of in land exploration, as well as conducting the fight and slavery against indigenous people, as well as the quilombos (community of fleeing slaves/descendants of slaves, as well as minorities of poor whites and natives).

My greatest wonder is if we'll still see entire coasts of America divided between one million different french/dutch minors whenever you don't bother with colonization.

 

[Malakal]

Well seeing how trade is very abstracted in EU series one can assume that merchants are local representatives of commerce that give you income by all means at their disposal. If you trade in slave CoTs you buy sell and transport slaves. If you trade in ivory you hunt and sell elephants. If you trade in iron you secure contracts for it and make sure that it reaches the customer. To reach provinces deeper in land your merchants create caravans, fund expeditions, bribe local rulers and officials. And btw how do you think "competing" with other merchants works? Do you think its buying out their share? Because Im fairly sure a dagger in the back and some privateering is more likely.

 

[Renegen]

Well given that your merchant's competitiveness goes up with research and trade national ideas, I'd say it's just good old fashioned business sense.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Say, its me reading it wrong or:

1. EUIV is very much focused on the Great Power Nations (France, England, Portugal, Spain, Austria, Russia, Ottomans, Mamelukes, China, Sweden/Venice/Milan on the borderline)? These exclusive national ideas seem like a easy way to make the Great Powers turn into Great Powers. This looks like Paradox screwing over the Non-GP player once again, like in Vicky 2.

Every country also has something we call National Ideas, with the most important countries having a set of unique national ideas. Major countries including the Mamelukes and England have seven unique ideas granting them specific abilities. These ideas are not something you spend power on to buy, but, instead, you gain one of these ideas for free for every third idea you buy normally from an idea group.
Countries also have what we call “national ambition”, which is a bonus given when you have gained all seven of your national ideas. This bonus is also unique for each country.

Awesome, so now some countries will gain arbitrary power because Paradox thinks they are important instead, of, I don't know, BECOMING IMPORTANT OR ENDING UP UNIMPORTANT OVER THE COURSE OF THE GAME?! EUIV is going to be a GP fest that makes Vicky 2 look tame. Its also major historic determinism.

The Russian idea set is common to all countries that have Russian as their primary culture, as our major goal is to get one united Russia

Why? Why not make the game to allow the possibility of having the nascent Russians swallowed by a Golden Horde renewal? See what I mean?

2. Are historical events back again? That's bullshit. Why should I get 100% arbitrary events out of nowhere? "Oh, you are french and its 1770, time for REVOLUSHUN!!!1111one". That's bullshit. I prefered something like Magna Mundi, where you could get revolutions almost everywhere, or even not at all, for example. Historical Determinism is bullshit, plain and simple, I want to play a game not read a history book where I move the troops. DHE = Bullshit. Combined with National ideas = Ultra Historical Determinism Bullshit.

100% agreed. In EU, the timescale alone makes it prepostrous to indulge historical determinism. A major issue with all this is that Ottomans, France and other states that begin larger will already have a natural advantage due to the size, since the non-HoI combat model favours numbers and tech instead of actual strategy and troop quality. One thing they would really need to start working on is making minors not "free real estate" like they are currently (this naturally also extends to natives, which is also pretty bollocks seeing how Sioux nations gave Kwans a bloody nose before the Kwans kinda outlasted them), since the game doesn't penalize for excessive concentration of force properly (not just in terms of deadly attrition, but massive prestige hits, stability hits and infamy hits due to being humiliated so and fighting like a pussy). Less roflstomps, moar "let them come if they dare"/"THIS. IS. SPARTA".

A less specific thing that needs work in EU4 is that they need to make the tech progression for Land and Naval work more fluidly. The way it was before, one level could be an immense advantage due to unit techs meaning a massive power increase.

 

[pan]

A major issue with all this is that Ottomans, France and other states that begin larger will already have a natural advantage due to the size, since the non-HoI combat model favours numbers and tech instead of actual strategy and troop quality.

Contrary to what you say, highly disciplined troops, defending a mountain and with high morale are able to defeat many times their number of low quality attackers. And with the help of attrition, the human player is realiably able to gain the advantage against an AI country many, many times larger than his own, without engaging in a single battle. Hence why so many people consider the game overly easy. So it is indeed a game where strategy and quality trump size.

One thing they would really need to start working on is making minors not "free real estate" like they are currently (this naturally also extends to natives, which is also pretty bollocks seeing how Sioux nations gave Kwans a bloody nose before the Kwans kinda outlasted them), since the game doesn't penalize for excessive concentration of force properly (not just in terms of deadly attrition, but massive prestige hits, stability hits and infamy hits due to being humiliated so and fighting like a pussy). Less roflstomps, moar "let them come if they dare"/"THIS. IS. SPARTA".

Minors were in fact free real estate. A theme from the fall of the Roman Empire up until, say, the late 19th century or so was the consolidation of land under ever-growing states.

While I don't know anything about the Sioux, I'd assume that Kwanzas inability to defeat them was due more to the logistical difficulties that maintaining large armies on the frontier and hunting them down posed, rather than hypothetical punitive effects raising those armies may have had on their prestige/stability/infamy. Furthermore I'd assume that the Sioux occupied a unique position of their time and that the advantages they had in resisting Kwan invasion wouldn't have been applicable to any tiny European minor.

 

[The Brazilian Slaughter]

Say, its me reading it wrong or:

1. EUIV is very much focused on the Great Power Nations (France, England, Portugal, Spain, Austria, Russia, Ottomans, Mamelukes, China, Sweden/Venice/Milan on the borderline)? These exclusive national ideas seem like a easy way to make the Great Powers turn into Great Powers. This looks like Paradox screwing over the Non-GP player once again, like in Vicky 2.

Every country also has something we call National Ideas, with the most important countries having a set of unique national ideas. Major countries including the Mamelukes and England have seven unique ideas granting them specific abilities. These ideas are not something you spend power on to buy, but, instead, you gain one of these ideas for free for every third idea you buy normally from an idea group.
Countries also have what we call “national ambition”, which is a bonus given when you have gained all seven of your national ideas. This bonus is also unique for each country.

Awesome, so now some countries will gain arbitrary power because Paradox thinks they are important instead, of, I don't know, BECOMING IMPORTANT OR ENDING UP UNIMPORTANT OVER THE COURSE OF THE GAME?! EUIV is going to be a GP fest that makes Vicky 2 look tame. Its also major historic determinism.

The Russian idea set is common to all countries that have Russian as their primary culture, as our major goal is to get one united Russia

Why? Why not make the game to allow the possibility of having the nascent Russians swallowed by a Golden Horde renewal? See what I mean?

2. Are historical events back again? That's bullshit. Why should I get 100% arbitrary events out of nowhere? "Oh, you are french and its 1770, time for REVOLUSHUN!!!1111one". That's bullshit. I prefered something like Magna Mundi, where you could get revolutions almost everywhere, or even not at all, for example. Historical Determinism is bullshit, plain and simple, I want to play a game not read a history book where I move the troops. DHE = Bullshit. Combined with National ideas = Ultra Historical Determinism Bullshit.

100% agreed. In EU, the timescale alone makes it prepostrous to indulge historical determinism. A major issue with all this is that Ottomans, France and other states that begin larger will already have a natural advantage due to the size, since the non-HoI combat model favours numbers and tech instead of actual strategy and troop quality. One thing they would really need to start working on is making minors not "free real estate" like they are currently (this naturally also extends to natives, which is also pretty bollocks seeing how Sioux nations gave Kwans a bloody nose before the Kwans kinda outlasted them), since the game doesn't penalize for excessive concentration of force properly (not just in terms of deadly attrition, but massive prestige hits, stability hits and infamy hits due to being humiliated so and fighting like a pussy). Less roflstomps, moar "let them come if they dare"/"THIS. IS. SPARTA".

A less specific thing that needs work in EU4 is that they need to make the tech progression for Land and Naval work more fluidly. The way it was before, one level could be an immense advantage due to unit techs meaning a massive power increase.

Yes, the timescale makes it a huge problem. 1453/1400 to 1822 is A LOT of time, time enough for Great Powers to rise and fall.
For example, Russia. Why should Russia eventually unite? Why not a fragmented Russia, with each Russian polity going its way (Expansion into Eastern Europe, Scandinavia, East of Urals, Caucasus, etc)? Hell, why should there even be Russia instead of a resurgent Golden Horde that manages to re-unite local nomads and create a Gengishid Revival?

France is same thing. France being curb-stomped by a England-Castille-Burgundy gang-bang and never being a nation of importance in the game, ever, should be possible. Or Ottomans being deeply screwed by Timurids and other invaders until resurgent ERE revolters appear and declare a new ERE under the Whatsername dinasty.

I'm not saying that the Big 12 (France, England, Castille, Portugal, Austria, Veneza, Russia, Ottomans, Mamluks, Sweden, Milan, China) aren't special (they are), but we think they're special because they manage to ascend. If we lived in a alternate univese where France was turned into a Burgundian-English condominium forever, Castille was taken by a combined Portuguese-Aragonese alliance, Austria was hacked apart by Bavarians, Veneza was roflstomped by Ottomans and the Ottomans turned into pathetic Timurid vassals along with Mamluks while Sweden was destroyed by the Danish and China was re-conquered by Mongols, should we give extra super-bonuses to those nations that alternatively managed to thrive?

So the game should't give magical bonuses to nations that could simply be reduced to nothingness and patheticism. In fact, I hate historical determinism. For example, I hated how in EU3 I never saw Scotland conquer England, ever, or France finally put a end to England.

EDIT:
Yes, the game needs to have its combat rebalanced to rely less on mass and sheer numbers. Hell, those 160.000 troops France can casually thrown around in freaking 1500 are mega-unrealistic. The greatest number of troops France managed to recruit at the same period pre-French Revolution was around that number, two centuries after 1500, and the King essentially had to go around every other big french city and ask for troops from the local nobles. Its not as easy as "lol I will just use some insignificant jewgoldz from my ultra-jewgold cashe to make a army to take over the world. If they die I will just make twice the number from some of the money I use to tip waitressess."

The fact troops take a ridiculously fast time to recruit is also ludicrous, especially pre-gunpowder when these guys used Swords, spears and BOWS, FFS. EU3 needs different troop types to reflect the difference between miltia and professionals. Also, something that turns mercenaries into REAL entities ala CK2 would be awesome for any Thirty-Years War equivalent. (We won the war! Yeah! But why are my provinces being sacked by roving bands of mercs? NOOOOOO WHATIMFIGHTINGFOOOOOOOOOR)

 

[Borelli]

EU series desperately needs something to represent the "every man is a warrior" cultures which would give small and/or primitive nations that still used it in the game's timeframe larger armies (at least when defending) than normal.

 

[Malakal]

Since manpower numbers are arbitrary it could simply increase manpower of certain provinces. Also sliders did that but now they are gone.