• 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.

nett40

Captain
16 Badges
Jun 28, 2009
320
9
  • Hearts of Iron Anthology
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Rome Gold
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
The Divine Wind expansion has firmly put the EU-series back in front.

With the new graphics (VicII-style) and exiting new features (minor bugs must be rooted out...) the game is once again my favourite game alongside, maybe even a bit ahead of, HoI-III.

Furthermore it has given me great hopes for the next version of Europa Universalis (number IV). Victoria II has been somewhat of a dissappointment, because of the many bugs and missing scenarios. Although the era of Vic2 is exiting, something is missing when playing it.

If Europa Universalis IV added a simplefied version of the POP system from the Victoria-series, extended the gameplay to last 500 years (1380-1880) and made the opening up of wastelands for colonization, once reaching certain technology levels. These changes would really enhance the game-experience and playability. Furthermore this would allow a multitude of new scenarios, like: The US-Mexican War; The American Civil War; The Crimean War: The German Unification and much more.

The enddate around 1880 is to avoid the Great War era with its dreadnoughts, submarines, aeroplanes etc. The Ironclads should be the top navy tech and early-machineguns should be the top land tech.

The era from around 1900 and upwards could then be nicely portrayed in version IV of the Hearts of Iron-series (a 20th Century Game). The Russo-Japanese War in 1905 and the build up to the Great War in 1914, the Russian Revolution in 1917, The Chino-Japanese Wars during the mid-war era, Germany at the Nazi-takeover in 1933-34, 2nd World War in 1939, the Korean War in 1950 and finally a possible doomsday-scenario in 1961 with the Cold War turning over Cuba...

I know these ideas are too far-reaching to some, but the next versions of EU and HoI should be much larger games - Divine Wind has shown the way...
 
Last edited:
Europa Universalis IV will be a major dissapointment because there will be features missing
that we had in EU3-NA-IN-HttT-DW (What a long name ^^).

If EU4 would have all previous features and a "give-take"-diplomatic/peace-screen and peace-talks with more than
two nations involved it would be a must buy (and of course also multicore support but no new game-engine today hasn't).

Also, I believe there's an existing "wishlist"-thread ...
 
I dislike all of your propositions. For the following reasons:

If Europa Universalis IV added a simplefied version of the POP system from the Victoria-series, extended the gameplay to last 500 years (1380-1880) and made the opening up of wastelands for colonization, once reaching certain technology levels. These changes would really enhance the game-experience and playability. Furthermore this would allow a multitude of new scenarios, like: The US-Mexican War; The American Civil War; The Crimean War: The German Unification and much more.

These changes would turn EUIII into Vicky: the Prequel. Politics and society in 1400 are already too different from those in 1800 to expand the timeline even more. Right now, the period 1400-1500 is poorly represented, because it would deserve a mix between EUIII and Crusader Kings to be done properly. The same for the late period. 1820 in EUIII mechanics? It's not really a good choice.

I would have left the timeline 1453-1820. Not that I don't like playing the XIVth Century, and with HttT and DW, many features can represent that period more according to what it was. But it's still not enough.

For the record, I hate the POP system in Vicky.

The enddate around 1880 is to avoid the Great War era with its dreadnoughts, submarines, aeroplanes etc. The Ironclads should be the top navy tech and early-machineguns should be the top land tech.

Again, you already have Viky for that.


The era from around 1900 and upwards could then be nicely portrayed in version IV of the Hearts of Iron-series (a 20th Century Game). The Russo-Japanese War in 1905 and the build up to the Great War in 1914, the Russian Revolution in 1917, The Chino-Japanese Wars during the mid-war era, Germany at the Nazi-takeover in 1933-34, 2nd World War in 1939, the Korean War in 1950 and finally a possible doomsday-scenario in 1961 with the Cold War turning over Cuba...

Hmmm... do you realise that HoI is made to portray only one World War properly? The reason for which WWI in Vicky sucks is because the AI is not prepared to endure long wars like those. The AI is more a "let's save what we can" kind of mentality, rather than the "victory or death" that actually was.

A HoI covering the entire 20th Century? Failure, if you ask me. It wouldn't probably be able to represent world wars properly. Besides, the entire society and economy in HoI is war-oriented. And in the 20th Century, you don't have this all the time. Not even half the time for most of the countries in the world.
 
From what Ive been hearing ive stuck with EU3HTTT, it's just about perfect for me to play solo- So I'd want more MP improvements in the series. Although an awesome super cool AI would always be welcomed with hugs and free booze.
 
EU3 is still too fresh, so I wouldn't prepare the funneral yet. EU3.5 (MMtG) for hardcore gamers will be released in less than a year. I don't see a market for EU4 for at least a couple of years.

EU 3.5? MMtG?

I just got into the EU loop. Could someone enlighten me as to what he is talking about?
 
These changes would turn EUIII into Vicky: the Prequel. Politics and society in 1400 are already too different from those in 1800 to expand the timeline even more. Right now, the period 1400-1500 is poorly represented, because it would deserve a mix between EUIII and Crusader Kings to be done properly. The same for the late period. 1820 in EUIII mechanics? It's not really a good choice.
The EU games always were the Victoria prequels, even before Victoria was released. It's like Paradox has divided the last millennium or so into 5 eras and made game franchises for 4 of them; CK for the (high-late) medieval period, EU for the post-medieval period, Victoria for the industrialization or Victorian era, and HOI for the WWII "era". The post-WWII era hasn't been addressed yet AFAIK, while periods before AD 1066 have not been covered as systematically.

It probably wouldn't make business sense for the next EU game to impinge on Victorian "territory", which could squeeze out one of Paradox' franchises. I'm also sceptical for gameplay reasons, as you are.
 
Politics and society in 1400 are already too different from those in 1800 to expand the timeline even more. Right now, the period 1400-1500 is poorly represented,

Vary the gameplay mechanics :D

Sure, it'd be a lot of work, but we're not talking an expansion pack here.
 
EU 3.5? MMtG?

I just got into the EU loop. Could someone enlighten me as to what he is talking about?

Magna Mundi started as a mod for EU3. I haven't deepened myself in the matter, but I thought Magna mundi is a more 'expert' version of EU3.
But as EU3 got more expansions, and MM got more and more features, the mod-team of MM and Paradox decided to create a new game altogether.

http://www.paradoxplaza.com/games/magna-mundi
 
Vary the gameplay mechanics :D

Sure, it'd be a lot of work, but we're not talking an expansion pack here.
I'd rather see that variation implemented in different games. There are fundamental differences between how eg. EU3, Victoria 2 and HOI3 model nations, and that's because the world was drastically different in their respective periods. Cramming such changes into one game would be impractical, if you ask me.
 
Sure, I've got a request for EU4: don't make it. Paradox has a terrible track record with sequels and EU4 is going to disappoint a lot of people who will go back to playing EU3+expansions anyway. It's best just to keep polishing what's already shining instead of throwing it out of the window for the sake of increasing a single number. Or if you really want, consider EU3 + 4 expansions = EU4.
 
Aaarrgghhh EuIII just got an expansion and of course theres already wishlist for EuIV topic up cmon can't you even little bit let them rest... I have nothing against idea of having EuIV but still...
 
I would like to see EU IV

With 64-bit computing there is likely to be a lot that could be done.

But it should NOT be a Victoria prequel. That game should be improved separately.

Go the other way. Move the start date earlier, and get more into the special dynamics that were improved in IN/HTTT/DW--religion, special regional issues, etc. How about:

-Full treatment of pre-Reformation heresies and schisms, the Crusades, and the Byzantines;
-Major and minor Islamic schisms;
-More detail and variety on colonial rebellions (what if South America had rebelled earlier)?
-As far as possible, give India and (parts of) the Americas and Africa more detail on governance.
-How about steppe barbarians that are actually (or at least feel) mobile?
 
Oh look, it's this thread again!

I'm fine with playing eu3 for the next 10 years or so.. would rather see paradox do a new game, sayyyyy, highly detailed pirate simulator? :D