Europa Universalis IV
- Thread starter Madmonkey24
- Start date
-
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.
I hope threads like these will nudge the developers to move the creation of EU4 up on their priority list.
I would like to see the game go from 1337 [beginning of 100 years war] to 1830 [when the first industrial revolution tentatively began with railroads starting to appear].
Would perfectly encapsulate the time period between the middle ages and the industrial revolution.
I would like to see more emphasis on the renaissance in Italy, and the Enlightenment era of Europe.
I would also like to see more restrictive conquests. Taking land without a proper claim was a Big no-no among the nobility of these times, and thusly created much ire.
Would perfectly encapsulate the time period between the middle ages and the industrial revolution.
I would like to see more emphasis on the renaissance in Italy, and the Enlightenment era of Europe.
I would also like to see more restrictive conquests. Taking land without a proper claim was a Big no-no among the nobility of these times, and thusly created much ire.
Not a bad idea, although this would give about a 100 year overlap with CKII, and the game would need some careful work to make sure it was still relevant and capable at both ends of the timeline.
The renaissance and enlightenment could be handled with event/decision based boosts to teching up, possibly with incentives to move towards "modern" and "democratic" establishments.
The counter to illegal land grabs is already there to a certain extent, as infamy increases enormously if you try to grab a lot of land without relevant CB, but I suppose it could be made harsher. The only problem would be getting the AI to weigh it up correctly as to whether it can afford to soak some more infamy to break an enemy nation.
It could also be made so that taking provinces during war itself was harder. Carpet seiging is just neither realistic nor fun. With each province/city during the time period, considerable resources and manpower were required to capture each city. Some, less loyal towns surrendered quickly, but some sieges lasted FOREVER. "Big" armies of the time consisted of 5-6k troops. In our games, I'll bet most of us are wandering around with ~15k stacks - an unheard of army at that time. And we all kill off enemy stacks and scurry our 1000 man armies to carpet siege entire nations.
Also, during the 100 years war, there was not constant fighting the entire time (there was actually quite sparse fighting). France refused to sign a peace deal while much of the country was under English control. There should be a truce peace treaty that does not end a war, but stalls it for a while. As in the case with the hundred years war, the English kept possession/occupation of much of France even though technically they were still at war, but had signed a few truces. There are examples like the HYW all throughout the time period even up to modern times (Korean war comes to mind).
Also, during the 100 years war, there was not constant fighting the entire time (there was actually quite sparse fighting). France refused to sign a peace deal while much of the country was under English control. There should be a truce peace treaty that does not end a war, but stalls it for a while. As in the case with the hundred years war, the English kept possession/occupation of much of France even though technically they were still at war, but had signed a few truces. There are examples like the HYW all throughout the time period even up to modern times (Korean war comes to mind).
The game already does a poor job trying to represent 1399-1821 (it should really be 1492-1821 to cut out the first part of the game's time span that is still decidedly medieval), so I don't understand why people would want it expanded even more.
EUIV?
1. 100x more provinces. Where is provinces split to big cities, small towns, village type or empty space. Where as ruler you must colonize some in-kingdom lands to have booster economy. Like was german colonization on Silesia, where native people have rich land but dont have so many hands to work.
2. CK2 mechanic with vassals, because "crown lands" was only small part of the kingdom even in EU game time. This give more fantastic in-kingdom politicy. Rebels, pretenders. And more, for example nobles uprise for old rights, or town states dont want do crown duty and criple kingdom trade economy.
3. More, more, more dynasty stuff diplomacy stuff spy stuff intruge stuff.
4. Powerfull AI who use all mechanic aspects.
1. 100x more provinces. Where is provinces split to big cities, small towns, village type or empty space. Where as ruler you must colonize some in-kingdom lands to have booster economy. Like was german colonization on Silesia, where native people have rich land but dont have so many hands to work.
2. CK2 mechanic with vassals, because "crown lands" was only small part of the kingdom even in EU game time. This give more fantastic in-kingdom politicy. Rebels, pretenders. And more, for example nobles uprise for old rights, or town states dont want do crown duty and criple kingdom trade economy.
3. More, more, more dynasty stuff diplomacy stuff spy stuff intruge stuff.
4. Powerfull AI who use all mechanic aspects.
For EU4, make a super-slow running world-wide game free to play in the style of a MM-browser game, just to advertise the faster more private and costly version.
Well, last night, i had visited a buddy and he is playing ´travian´ (dont know if it´s a german only thing, but i doubt it), a WWW-MMOG. In the game he is playing some 18,000 players are active (and another 10,000 or so inactive). The game is amazingly complex. Yet, somehow, it still is this popular. Which is startling, because i am always having a hard time getting just a handfull of players to play something comparatively complex and the usual reason why people shy away is the complexity. Anyways, i immediately thought, that with 18,000 active players (in germany alone in a single game!), you could actually have that super-WW2-game with players as commanders on the various levels - to give just an example. Something similiar could be done with CK2, for example. I think this is a corner of the market to which paradox could make a successful entry with synergies for their entire current (and future) product palette. You´d have to pay for AI and faster game speeds basically.
Every browser game look same way. They may have 2-3 things that diffrent from other title but in basic they same schema mechanic. And this mechanic after week, month, year just boring. Specialy if someone already start game earlier so old server get empty, and new are always crowd with people "to own this server now". And again get empty than someone already get best score. In old days I play this games much time, but now than I look at this it was just same every title from Travian, Ogame, Lord of Ultima etc etc and many other clones. EU mechanic is just to big for simple www game.
Ofc if Paradox some day could make simple www medieval type game, where players are not crush by stronger only force vassalage them. So game look more like some feudalism it could be fun. But playing in game that guy with 1000 villages destroy to ground everything on one single newbie village just for fun I see no sense.
Hey, you wouldnt be supposed to stick with it! See, as it would be free, you are supposed to get bored by it (after a couple of weeks/months), but still want something like that, that would do without war-mongering powergamers and long boring wait times, e.g. the ´pay-for-home-version´ with AI and faster gamespeeds (among other stuff, possibly) for single player or (W)LAN games with true life friends.
Like: Imagine a slightly simplyfied HoI3 (stripped off AI-control-delegation, for example) running on a speed of around 1:6 starting in, say, early 39. A full game would take more than an entire year, but who cares, when you can control just a corps or an army for a couple of weeks, for the heck of it, cause, you know, it´s free to play with no hooks attached. Maybe you´d start wishing to play an entire major country for the entire war, but alas, that would take a real commitment from your side, which you arent (understandably) able or willing to give. Maybe shell out 40 bucks for the ´play at home at your leisure´-version? It´s sort of an ongoing online-mega-demo.
Well, the idea is just that and not fleshed out, but i think there is something to it all, somehow...
Like: Imagine a slightly simplyfied HoI3 (stripped off AI-control-delegation, for example) running on a speed of around 1:6 starting in, say, early 39. A full game would take more than an entire year, but who cares, when you can control just a corps or an army for a couple of weeks, for the heck of it, cause, you know, it´s free to play with no hooks attached. Maybe you´d start wishing to play an entire major country for the entire war, but alas, that would take a real commitment from your side, which you arent (understandably) able or willing to give. Maybe shell out 40 bucks for the ´play at home at your leisure´-version? It´s sort of an ongoing online-mega-demo.
Well, the idea is just that and not fleshed out, but i think there is something to it all, somehow...
Last edited:
Well, I think, that there is plenty of games, where you have to wait few hours to get some action points. Where your buildings take 8 hours to build, you get resources after 30 minutes or every calculation is done at midnight.
If I should play something, I wanna something different. To log in and play, not just wait for resources.
If I should play something, I wanna something different. To log in and play, not just wait for resources.
For myself, I am sceptical about getting EUIV, given that DW is so disappointing. I'd want to see DW -- that is, DW 5.2, not a 6.0, not an EUIV -- fixed first.
It is clearly true that the patches to EUII were much better handled than in EUIII. They were numerous, usually real improvements, and, when they weren't, they continued until new bugs were fixed.
I suppose money has much to do with that.
It is clearly true that the patches to EUII were much better handled than in EUIII. They were numerous, usually real improvements, and, when they weren't, they continued until new bugs were fixed.
I suppose money has much to do with that.
Well, if you have any bugs that you want fixing they are still collecting them in the bug forum...
They do apparently intend to test and release more patch, otherwise they wouldn't be collecting them.
Seriously though, any EU IV would inevitably be a step backwards in some ways, as they would have to rewrite almost from scratch to make it sufficiently different from EU III to be worthwhile. We'd probably lose a bunch of features, at least until a couple of expansions came along.
They do apparently intend to test and release more patch, otherwise they wouldn't be collecting them.
Seriously though, any EU IV would inevitably be a step backwards in some ways, as they would have to rewrite almost from scratch to make it sufficiently different from EU III to be worthwhile. We'd probably lose a bunch of features, at least until a couple of expansions came along.
That does not necessarily follow. I doubt they've actually made any 'yes' or 'no' decision on it.