• 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.
Fix rebels so that they don't pop up ever few seconds during an extended war.
Rather unrealistic (most peasants would probably be unaware of a war if it's carried abroad, why would they revolt against it?)
 
Fix rebels so that they don't pop up ever few seconds during an extended war.
Rather unrealistic (most peasants would probably be unaware of a war if it's carried abroad, why would they revolt against it?)

Most wars peasants would know about, especially since they were often the source of manpower and money (i.e. taxes) for them.
 
Diplomacy needs to changed. Not just vassals and sphere of influence as it is now. If a country is in your influence sphere, you should be able to arrange its diplomacy and to some extend internal policies (think about what Poland was doing in Lithuania, or what Russia was doing in Poland in XVIII century). So the sphere is really your sphere ;) Then, on the other hnad, make it more difficult just to grab and annex provinces. So instead of blobs, large countries with minions ;_
 
What would you like to have in it if it were released soon?

Personally I would like to see a deeper and more detailed dynastic system, not as deep as CK of course but you would still be able to see how each ruler in the dynasty is related to each other.
 
These threads seem to come up near constantly, there are many of them in the history, just look there rather then starting a new one.

But as to the thread itself, my stock answer? Why would I want EUIV? The only thing that I feel would really need a whole new iteration of the game is dual core support and frankly, that isn't enough of a reason for me to want to toss out the highly evolved EUIII we have for going back to something that is more like EUIII was at release. Anything else that I would like to see in the game is something that feels like it could be done via a patch or an expansion, which is what I would far rather have.
 
Threads merged
 
I like EU3 because it is more simple than HoI3 or Victoria 2. It is a relaxing game, easy to learn and play that offers tons of fun. This is why I like it and i would HATE to see EU4 transforming into an combination off ALL Paradox Games. If you want dynasties , play EU:Rome or CK. If you want advanced battle mechanics play HoI. If you want advanced economy play Victoria 2. But don't mess with this EU so simple and so entertaining game.
 
EU3 is deceptively easy but once you try and play it is not easy at all. It has a sheer cliff-side as a learning curve. HoI3 is a simpler game by far. EU3 requires a lot of knowledge about how it works before you can play and the interface is a mess. Most mechanics of the game are not explained anywhere except on the separate wiki which you therefore need to have open if you are still learning the game. And there is an incredible amount of mechanics to learn. This makes EU3 also a very rewarding game to play but never call it simple.

As I said before my most anticipated feature would be a better distinction in settlement colonies and trading posts.
 
EU3 is deceptively easy but once you try and play it is not easy at all. It has a sheer cliff-side as a learning curve. HoI3 is a simpler game by far. EU3 requires a lot of knowledge about how it works before you can play and the interface is a mess.

See I thought the exact opposite. I thought it was rather easy to figure out the EU3 interface and could never decipher the interface for HOI3.
 
Military-wise, I don't want a wargame, but I do want a few more options.
1. A couple more troops and the ability to have mixed groups of troops without different cores. rather than a universal switchover. Perhaps 'heavy' and 'light' or 'front-line' and 'ranged'
2. Speed as a troop stat. Do you want fast-moving weaker infantry or slower, more solid infantry?
3. Recruiting different sizes. Cavalry should be say 500, and artillery around 200. Without getting them slaughtered by the large infantry groups.
4. Shore support. It would make the navy more relevant.
5. Modifiers that directly affect troop pips rather than just general's stats.
6. Some sort of auto-general feature or possibly a general 'leveling-up' system.

General
Navigable rivers (only major rivers) and river navies that can block crossing armies. Smaller ships should have huge advantages here.
Bridges that can allow aforementioned armies to cross anyway.
More uses for the special people. Spies and merchants at least should have internal uses and missionaries should have external.
A more complicated step-by-step colonization process.
More provinces, possibly borrowing the state system used by Vicky 2.
More frequent changes to province stats (taxes, trade goods, manpower, etc) as well as changes in both directions.

Some of this is doable by mod or expansion, of course.
 
See I thought the exact opposite. I thought it was rather easy to figure out the EU3 interface and could never decipher the interface for HOI3.

It is opposite. I learnt to play EU3 in a few weeks :) Now i practice one hour each day to try and learn some HoI :) But i am as noob as i was in the first day.
 
i would to see a new pop system, how population is growing is quite stupid, also the limit is lame in some cites. also the culture system should be improved. and ofc the hordes
 
EU3 is deceptively easy but once you try and play it is not easy at all. It has a sheer cliff-side as a learning curve. HoI3 is a simpler game by far. EU3 requires a lot of knowledge about how it works before you can play and the interface is a mess. Most mechanics of the game are not explained anywhere except on the separate wiki which you therefore need to have open if you are still learning the game. And there is an incredible amount of mechanics to learn. This makes EU3 also a very rewarding game to play but never call it simple.

As I said before my most anticipated feature would be a better distinction in settlement colonies and trading posts.
HOI3 makes my EU3 mind go WUT WHY ARENT MY TROOPS WINNING, THEY HAVE BETTER EQUIEMENT AND MORALE! AND NUMBERS!
 
+1 to the "hoi3 is harder" camp. That game seriously tested my determination when I saw just how much micromanagement would be needed to keep my fronts in line (Operation Barbarossa anyone?). I thanked the FSM when they introduced working AI theatres, to take some of the workload off. And I never did figure out which units to use for what.
 
1) Allow diplomatic intercession in wars between neighbors. If you have a high enough relation with both parties, you can help negotiate a truce. Or, if you have sufficient forces that you intimidate one of the nations, you might get them to back off.

2) Allow "Armistice" as a war settlement offer. Allows for the temporary cessation of hostilities, say, 1-12 months, without requiring a full five-year White Peace.

3) Fix the escalating costs of refineries, universities, etc. Why in the world should it be increasingly expensive to establish facilities?

4) Create local militias that would serve to defend home provinces, but they would not want to leave their homelands to fight foreign wars. If you take them outside your borders, they'd suffer huge attrition. That way you could really play a "defensive" (militia-heavy) or "offensive" (standing-army-heavy) game.

5) Allow creation of administrative regions. One huge sprawling empire should become inefficient to manage from a single global capital. There should be a way to create smaller subdivisions of a large sprawling state which would be necessary to manage a large empire. You might need to pay to build regional capitals, but it would help with stability, and so on.

6) Overhaul Reputation. If you are a large global empire, why is your annexation of parts of China alarming people in Bavaria? Shouldn't there be "reputation" towards Christian nations, "reputation" towards Muslim nations, etc., i.e., based on religion, or couldn't there be "regional" reputation, so that you might be seen as a hero in Europe, and a villain in Africa? Doesn't this actually reflect more of the truth, when a nation might have different pluses and minuses depending on the demographic audiences you're talking about?

7) Allow for cultural and religious mixes of provinces. Places rarely tend to go from 100% Catholic to 100% Protestant, even after years (or decades or centuries) of proselytizing. Similarly, there are often cultural minorities amongst populations. Allow for this by letting each province keep track of the percentage of minorities. There can be "splashing" from nearby provinces, modeling the migration of ideas and peoples over time. Narrowminded cultures would have less mingling, etc.

8) Control large empires more by "management span" rather than by "reputation." Right now, the thing that keeps the world empires from expanding is their concern for their "reputation" more than anything else. They have large enough armies to crush any uprisings. Those do sometimes succeed. But really what should limit their global growth is their ability to administrate large spans of territory, especially as it could take years for word to travel from one end of their empire to another. That's why I am suggesting the concept of regional administration. To put more focus on how to create centralized or decentralized states, and how to rule a global empire, rather than just stopping your conquests because you are afraid that Luxemburg might think you're a bully.

9) Allow for more than 3 advisors based on an investment in your Ministry.

10) Allow the hiring/appointment of foreign ambassadors.

11) Make the province decisions less idiotic so people might actually implement them more often.

12) Fix the "build" tab; don't show me that I can build refineries in more than 3 provinces, if you can't also show me the provinces where I can build them, and where I can build them for the 2x bonus.
 
PeterCorless, that is an amazingly comprehensive list of minor but significant changes which I agree would be great to see. (Some are more complex but generally speaking)

With *regional capitals* I'd like to see one of those reduce the distant overseas penalty to 40%. You still suffer it, but you can lessen it. I'd suggest that logically your upper centralisation limit would decrease by 1 for each regional capital though...

also, number 12!
 
PeterCorless, that is an amazingly comprehensive list of minor but significant changes which I agree would be great to see. (Some are more complex but generally speaking)

With *regional capitals* I'd like to see one of those reduce the distant overseas penalty to 40%. You still suffer it, but you can lessen it. I'd suggest that logically your upper centralisation limit would decrease by 1 for each regional capital though...

also, number 12!

Those aren't exactly minor, you'd need some serious overhaul to get most of those in action. They are good though.

I especially like relativistic reputation buildup.
 
Has someone heard the smallest and insignificant rumor of Paradox creating EU IV ? (please link me to it if you did)
This whole topic seems to much SF for me to feel confortable.
 
Has someone heard the smallest and insignificant rumor of Paradox creating EU IV ? (please link me to it if you did)
This whole topic seems to much SF for me to feel confortable.
No rumors that I've heard of. People have been making suggestions for "EU 4" almost since EU3 was released though.