+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 11 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 217

Thread: What EU4 Will Need (and Not Need)

  1. #1
    Κατεπάνω Καλιφορνίας Zenith Darksea's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIEuropa Universalis 3Divine WindHearts of Iron IIIHeir to the Throne
    Semper FiVictoria 2Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of Darkness

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    702

    Thumbs up What EU4 Will Need (and Not Need)

    I've been thinking lately about ways that the concept of EU3 could be improved - perhaps a sign of how much it has come to dominate my life. It's certainly one of the best games that I've ever played, and I absolutely love it. Divine Wind is an excellent expansion, but, considering the popularity of the franchise, I imagine that an EU4 will be needed. Here are my thoughts on what should be in (and out):

    Things to Do
    • Make it more of a challenge for the player to maintain a country's internal stability and coherence. I have ideas for this, but I don't want to get bogged down in writing an essay. Rather than one simple stability figure, I would split it up into political, economic and social stability. I would make rebellions more threatening and more frequent, with the possibility of your generals and their armies defecting or rebelling against you. Something to really make the player spend more time thinking about how to keep his own country together, rather than simply thinking about how to annex other countries.
    • Better AI prioritisation. Easier said than done, I know. But the AI countries need to have a clearer idea of their goals and strategy so that they don't end up taking senseless bits of land etc., over-extending themselves and collapsing. I would especially like to see Castille concentrating more on New World colonisation than on conquering dirt-poor desert provinces in the Sahara.
    • A more interesting and involved colonial game. I think that the steppe horde feature introduced in Divine Wind works very well with the North-American tribes (I've modded it into my own game), and far better than it does with the actual steppe hordes (see below). I'd like to see a few more important tribes (though not too many), and I'd like to see them play a more meaningful role in diplomacy between the colonial powers.
    • A more sophisticated system of international commerce. Nothing like Victoria 2, obviously, but something a little more involved than simply placing six merchants in a CoT. Something that would involve protecting actual convoy routes, etc.
    • Countries that manage to hold themselves together better. It's always annoying to see a successful AI France lose just one war and then splinter into every single one of its constituent nations. One suggestion that I have is to turn the 'Promote Cultural Unity' decision into an event with a MTTH that would fire for same-culture provinces where you have a core. That way over time countries like France would gradually lose their minor cores and become much harder to shatter.
    • Maybe some native tribes in South Africa and Australia?
    • I would really like to see penalties for armies that are fighting outside of their native region/climate against armies that are within their native region/climate. Right now it's possible for European countries to easily annex West-African countries, for example, at the beginning of the 16th century, whereas in reality it would have been impossible for Europeans to send armies to these places because of disease and attrition. Or say you send an army to India - the local Indian armies should be granted combat bonuses against you to simulate the fact that you're outside your natural environment and would have accompanying supply and logistics problems. Naturally the penalties should decrease as your technology improves.

    Things Not to Do
    • Get rid of the steppe horde system, at least for the steppe hordes (see above). It's not historically accurate and it doesn't work well in gameplay terms. It's an interesting idea, but not appropriate for central Asia. Maybe for North America.
    • West-African colonisation. In EU3 we see Portugal, Spain and England colonising West Africa and the Congo before they even get around to the Americas. These are places that weren't even colonised until half-way-through the Victoria 2 period. Frankly I would be tempted just to get rid of these provinces entirely.
    • Omniscient AI. I know that there is a reason for the AI knowing all about where my fleets are, since it's not smart enough to cope in any other way, but this needs to be worked on. I find it rather irritating that the English know exactly when I move a fleet into the Black Sea and then send their own mega-death-fleet into the Mediterranean instantly in order to hunt it down.
    • Don't penalise Indian, Middle-Eastern or even Sub-Saharan countries as much as EU3 currently does. They weren't that backwards, and many of them were even capable of inflicting defeats on Europeans.
    • Crusades and Holy Wars. Interesting idea, but even in 1399 the crusading movement was pretty much at an end. I support the idea of allowing Holy Wars against your immediate neighbours, but I don't like the idea of the Pope picking a crusade target that every Catholic country can go after. It just means that North Africa gets annexed by England and Castille (and occasionally some less intuitive countries like Sweden) in the opening 10 or 15 years of the game.

  2. #2
    No for EU4 project. I like better addon system, what refresh all time EU3 gameplay with new ideas. Give us only Crusader Kings II to Europa Universalis III save converter please!

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Zenith Darksea View Post
    [*]Don't penalise Indian, Middle-Eastern or even Sub-Saharan countries as much as EU3 currently does. They weren't that backwards, and many of them were even capable of inflicting defeats on Europeans.[/LIST]
    This "higher advance" of muslim countries is in start of game in 1399. Than they have stronger units, and small technology boost. But like in history, they loose they "advance" during technology race with Europe. Because only in Europe could start new ideas, phylosophy, humanism, and strong will to get rich. What push Europe to colonization and searching wealth. European mentality was "that gold age will come". In east, most strong for example in China or Japan in that time people think "gold age was already".

    Second part, Indians. Maybe Indians have good calendar, and some society advance - but in time than European sails start showing on shores of America. Indian live all time in stone age. They dont know metalurgy, no wheel, and they rituals was in European mentality and today morality - barbaric.

    Edit: Sorry for double post. I quote and forgett to paste in edit of last post. If someone can merge Il be thankfull.
    Last edited by Drattius; 24-05-2011 at 21:25.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Drattius View Post
    This "higher advance" of muslim countries is in start of game in 1399. Than they have stronger units, and small technology boost. But like in history, they loose they "advance" during technology race with Europe. Because only in Europe could start new ideas, phylosophy, humanism, and strong will to get rich. What push Europe to colonization and searching wealth. European mentality was "that gold age will come". In east, most strong for example in China or Japan in that time people, like you can read about think "gold age was already".
    I don't think that it was only or any kind of philosophical difference. In my opignon (no facts just opignon) Europe advanced faster because of the wars waged on the continent, when people need to think about surviving they are quite more innovent. Climate may have halped too, in an agricultural way europe is more friendly, and so permeted a bigger population, wich lead to conflicts, wars and so to advancement.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Zenith Darksea View Post

    Make it more of a challenge for the player to maintain a country's internal stability and coherence. I have ideas for this, but I don't want to get bogged down in writing an essay. Rather than one simple stability figure, I would split it up into political, economic and social stability. I would make rebellions more threatening and more frequent, with the possibility of your generals and their armies defecting or rebelling against you. Something to really make the player spend more time thinking about how to keep his own country together, rather than simply thinking about how to annex other countries.

    I would really like to see penalties for armies that are fighting outside of their native region/climate against armies that are within their native region/climate. Right now it's possible for European countries to easily annex West-African countries, for example, at the beginning of the 16th century, whereas in reality it would have been impossible for Europeans to send armies to these places because of disease and attrition. Or say you send an army to India - the local Indian armies should be granted combat bonuses against you to simulate the fact that you're outside your natural environment and would have accompanying supply and logistics problems. Naturally the penalties should decrease as your technology improves.

    I also believe the game needs some adjustements. Even if paradox games are some of the best games I ever played, (particularly HoI), they are not perfect.

    I totally disagree with 2 suggestions you made.

    First. A stability hit of 1 or 2 points , in the middle/late game, hurts more than 5 lost wars. The stability penalty is already the greatest pain. Absolutely no need to increase the difficulty of that. As for the rebels, if your empire is not perfectly shaped, the rebels alone can destroy you. If they don't destroy you in game terms, they will destroy your patience, they will annoy you to the point where you will press end game even if you could beat them. No need for more rebels either.

    Second.

    It is already difficult to wage wars far a way from home. Even if you are England and can afford to move large armies without fear of enemy fleets, the attrition, especially in Tropical and russian provinces, will kill a lot of your armies before they enter combat. And even if you have the manpower to afford that, you will not afford the rebels that appears constantly in far away provinces, separated from your homeland by oceans of sea or indigens. Maintaining large armies kills your economy. No matter how big it is. Only if you are England , France or Spain. If you are, let's say Cyprus, Serbia or Sicily, waging war in Asia is a extremely costly business.

    Your other points are good. Particularly the need for more american tribes. They are very useless now. I would say that maybe the colonization areas should have cores for some tribes, so they could have the option to expand at some level before the conquerors appear. They are so weak. They were definitely not that weak.

    Also, I would like to see no more white spots on the map. Maybe some technology tree for colonization, complementary to naval tech, could give a player the ability to establih colonies in white areas. Maybe not rich colonies, maybe colonies that will give a tech or prestige gain, if established.Or to increase the player's colonist available number.

    Also, I want Tansylvania to have romanian culture, and, if not possible, at least I want to see hungarian and romanian culture out of the slavic group. I don't care some will say it will reduce their chances. Because, in every game I played, neither Hungary nor any romanian country does not expand and after a while... they disappear or become insignificant. SO I can say that being slavic culture does not help them that much. On the other hand If Hungary would have her own culture, and her own cavalry units, or some special mercenaries - they actually did have "the black army" - that would make them better, and more prowd, too. If Romania would have latin culture, even without having latin units, that would make them better, too. And it would be true.
    Forget about the army units... I just want appropiate culture for these 2 countries. I don't like them being slavic, no matter for what reason they were put there.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Drattius View Post
    Second part, Indians. Maybe Indians have good calendar, and some society advance - but in time than European sails start showing on shores of America. Indian live all time in stone age. They dont know metalurgy, no wheel, and they rituals was in European mentality and today morality - barbaric.
    I am reasonably sure that (s)he was referring to the Indians of, y'know, India, as opposed to Native Americans.

    Either way, as for the OP's points:

    The things you want in the game generally seem to be additional detail and generally more plausible gameplay. The problem is that, first of all, there is a limit to the level of detail that can be had in a game of this scope, and secondly, it may just not be the feel they're aiming for. A big draw for many EU3 players seems, at least to me, to be the ability to embark on a quest to conquer the entire world. While this is far from plausible, it is alluring, and as such a good feature for an appealing game. If, on the other hand, you want something 'tougher', I might recommend Magna Mundi. I am aware that it is frequently suggested, but it really is quite well made, and contains most of the features you seem to want. Even better, they're making an actual game based on the mod, now, which should be even closer to the EU4 you want.

    Long story short; I agree with many of your wishes (Though I must disagree on the issue of tech penalties), but I fear that these are not suitable for a game like EU3.

  7. #7
    By me game in shape of Europa Universalis III with last addon is almoust perfect. People want "hardcore" game, but not everyone like such games. The best way to play hard is not use save-load than you do something bad - lose battle, to many ally of your enemy join to war, anex dont work etc.

  8. #8
    Major Dathon's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIDeus VultEuropa Universalis 3EU3 CompleteDivine Wind
    Heir to the ThroneSword of the StarsMount & Blade: WarbandMount & Blade: With Fire and SwordEU Rome Collectors Edition
    500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    onboard of the USS Thunderchild as Captain
    Posts
    550
    "Omniscient AI. I know that there is a reason for the AI knowing all about where my fleets are, since it's not smart enough to cope in any other way, but this needs to be worked on. I find it rather irritating that the English know exactly when I move a fleet into the Black Sea and then send their own mega-death-fleet into the Mediterranean instantly in order to hunt it down."

    That, and the ai's ability to navigate the entire world without docking in between and still not loosing ships

    What i would like to see(maybe it makes the game too big) is the option to enable historical events as in EU1 (or disable) and the option to randomize the world just like the EU2 scenario generator, perhaps even with an option for a all new world not like this one, but the last may be more for a civilization-game.
    "Even when struck down, I will again rise.
    I will not be defeated, nor will I demise.
    I will strike my foes with a vengeance so hard,
    they will be the ones left scarred."

  9. #9
    I think removing african porovinces is a bit unnecessary. If I am a massive HRE BBB owning all of Europe + N Africa I should be able to use lots of people and money to colonise Africa. So don't remove them but make them a lot harder. I very much like the idea of changing the American tribes to a steppe nomad setup, it would make a lot more sense.
    Aztec Death and taxes AAR (ended)

    http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...in-A-Roman-AAR - The Principality of Vidin - A Roman CK1 AAR. (Ended)

    Noobs - Duke of Holland in the noobs multiplayer for CK2 (ended)

    France-Allemagne in 'At Civilisation's End' mega campaign (Currently in Victoria II)

    Jewlania in 'A Game if Crowns' mega campaign (Currently in CKII

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Dathon View Post
    What i would like to see(maybe it makes the game too big) is the option to enable historical events as in EU1 (or disable) and the option to randomize the world just like the EU2 scenario generator, perhaps even with an option for a all new world not like this one, but the last may be more for a civilization-game.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperia...of_Exploration <-- Before EU first part show up, I loved this game. Its all like you say about random start.

  11. #11
    Anadolu beylerbeyi Korsan82's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIEuropa Universalis 3Divine WindHeir to the ThroneEuropa Universalis III: In Nomine
    MagickaEU3 Napoleon's AmbitionMount & Blade: Warband500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    711
    Quote Originally Posted by Drattius View Post
    This "higher advance" of muslim countries is in start of game in 1399. Than they have stronger units, and small technology boost. But like in history, they loose they "advance" during technology race with Europe. Because only in Europe could start new ideas, phylosophy, humanism, and strong will to get rich. What push Europe to colonization and searching wealth. European mentality was "that gold age will come". In east, most strong for example in China or Japan in that time people think "gold age was already".

    Second part, Indians. Maybe Indians have good calendar, and some society advance - but in time than European sails start showing on shores of America. Indian live all time in stone age. They dont know metalurgy, no wheel, and they rituals was in European mentality and today morality - barbaric.

    Edit: Sorry for double post. I quote and forgett to paste in edit of last post. If someone can merge Il be thankfull.
    I'm sorry bro but your talking about Europe is wrong. Europe didn't outscore the rest of the world by humanism or any friendly ideas but with pure greed and all what comes with it, including colonialism, slavery, rasicm. all these beautiful things are originated in Europe.
    The pure greed and ruthlessness made Europe defeat all its enemies. Every country European nations ever invaded were horribly exploited and the local people got nothing from that. See all African ex colonies or India, were the local people were considered as 2nd class humans.

    So sorry again for turning this into a political debate but your fluffy nice ideology about Europe is not true even if YOUR history books tell you other.

  12. #12
    Major Dathon's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIDeus VultEuropa Universalis 3EU3 CompleteDivine Wind
    Heir to the ThroneSword of the StarsMount & Blade: WarbandMount & Blade: With Fire and SwordEU Rome Collectors Edition
    500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    onboard of the USS Thunderchild as Captain
    Posts
    550
    Quote Originally Posted by Drattius View Post
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperia...of_Exploration <-- Before EU first part show up, I loved this game. Its all like you say about random start.
    heh, aye...got them both, thou i like part 1 more as in part 2 the ai goes to the unknown area straight in the beginning instead of "building" up the nation first.
    "Even when struck down, I will again rise.
    I will not be defeated, nor will I demise.
    I will strike my foes with a vengeance so hard,
    they will be the ones left scarred."

  13. #13
    Field Marshal spl's Avatar
    Hearts of Iron 2: ArmageddonCrusader Kings IIEuropa Universalis 3Divine WindHearts of Iron III Collection
    Heir to the ThroneEuropa Universalis III: In NomineMajesty 2March of the EaglesEU3 Napoleon's Ambition
    Europa Universalis: RomeSengokuVictoria 2Victoria II: A House Divided

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,945
    I'd like to ask people to not turn this thread into what many of the suggestion threads become. Meaning, just because the OP suggests that sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East were not as technologically backwards as the game portrays does not mean we should start tossing out constant links to every decisive battle between a European country and a African/Asian country out there.

    That said, I would absolutely love it if Castille stopped conquered the Sahara every single game. I really hope Paradox waits some time until starting a EU IV though, hopefully Victoria II's probable expansion (?), CK II, and Sengoku will keep them busy for a few years. I feel like EU IV would need a major step-up in the resources used (i.e. most having better computers) and a cleaned up engine for the game to be worthwhile. (Oh yeah, and mid-game joining in MP!)

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Korsan82 View Post
    I'm sorry bro but your talking about Europe is wrong. Europe didn't outscore the rest of the world by humanism or any friendly ideas but with pure greed and all what comes with it, including colonialism, slavery, rasicm. all these beautiful things are originated in Europe.
    The pure greed and ruthlessness made Europe defeat all its enemies. Every country European nations ever invaded were horribly exploited and the local people got nothing from that. See all African ex colonies or India, were the local people were considered as 2nd class humans.

    So sorry again for turning this into a political debate but your fluffy nice ideology about Europe is not true even if YOUR history books tell you other.
    I dont want to offence anyone, but history is not only black and white. Its gray, because all time can find good and bad aspects. Where potential bad, could be also good. Fact is that Europe conqure world, dominate world for ages in technology and military. Its fact that other part of world cant stop them. And in many place where European put foot, start local technology boost, in places where people dont even dream about such things. To today in many of post colonial countries work this advances, and many times it was the only thing keep this countries to do anything. In XIX century strong minds declear, that Africa could chace and pass Europe because they high resorces and workforce. But it seems not enought.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Drattius View Post
    This "higher advance" of muslim countries is in start of game in 1399. Than they have stronger units, and small technology boost. But like in history, they loose they "advance" during technology race with Europe. Because only in Europe could start new ideas, phylosophy, humanism, and strong will to get rich. What push Europe to colonization and searching wealth. European mentality was "that gold age will come". In east, most strong for example in China or Japan in that time people think "gold age was already".

    Second part, Indians. Maybe Indians have good calendar, and some society advance - but in time than European sails start showing on shores of America. Indian live all time in stone age. They dont know metalurgy, no wheel, and they rituals was in European mentality and today morality - barbaric.

    Edit: Sorry for double post. I quote and forgett to paste in edit of last post. If someone can merge Il be thankfull.
    Your information, is to be perfectly honest, terrible. Philosophy is hardly European in origin, or in terms of major advancement. The church CRUSHED innovations in philosophy if it contradicted church doctrine. The people of Asia continued to think, to write, and to explore thought through religion and independent thought as well. A strong desire to get rich is called greed. It's universal to all people. The Chinese explored as far as East Africa in search of wealth as well, and merchants of all countries traded abroad in search of wealth. There was no 'golden age' mentality in Europe. In addition, Japan in a golden age? Japan was divided, feudal, and in constant states of conflict between daimyos. Yes, historically, the rest of the world is outpaced by Europe, but your reasons are wrong. If Philosophy meant advancement, we would see a super Gupta Empire owning all of the world by now.

    Now, Indians. Use Native Americans when talking about both the people of India and of the Americas, or else it can get messy. Mesoamerica had metallurgy. Not the kind you're probably thinking about, it was minor, but it did. The Andeans, specifically, the Chimu, had FORGES. They definetly had metallurgy and metal working, and Chimu art was very extensive in it's use of metal working in copper. The Native Americans did not live in the stone age. Mesoamerica had a society complex enough to make feudal Europe look straightforward. The Andes had kingdoms, bureaucracies, organized religions, both mesoamerica and the andes knew of the wheel, but had no use for it. No large animals to pull stuff, after all. Andean, or even Mesoamerican religion was in no way barbaric. All religion sounds nice in concept, but in practice, gets twisted by people for their own uses. The Crusades being a good example of that, the Aztec sacrificing of enemies also being that. From what I've read about mesoamerican faith, the ones who get sacrificed are usually willing and by consent, if one stuck to what was actually SUPPOSED to happen, and not the corruption of it that the Aztecs used.

    All of the above is neither here nor there, but if you're going to argue for keeping other parts of the world backwards, you're going to have to come up with much better reasons.

  16. #16
    But this still not enought potential to crush Europe domination. Dont forgett that Europe many times crush with its innovation anything, and put new civilization what is now root of every post colonial country. In law, technology etc.

    Medieval times in Europe was stagnation, but after stagnation come times than people start search. Search about self, about far lands, about diffrent cultures, and addaption of good things from other cultures. For example muslim advance was addapted to new european humanism thinking and research. And what about such China for example? China send also in some time huge ships for explore. There was even expedition who get to Africa! But history show that the hardheads in emperor court dont think as future style - only in past. Like I say, Europe belive in mentality "gold age will come", for example far east "gold age was already". The best example is diffrence between Europe and such Japan, many years lay in stagnation in "old world" and there come time that "new one" must boom. And by many years was people who block innovation and addaption to new technology. Today world is global village and people exchange technology and addapt faster. And many countires speed up "old mother" Europe. But on they milk they rise. :P

    About India and Indians. Many times I meet such rule, that at Native Americans call Indians, and on people of India - Hindu. For such mistakes. Its propably about english diffrence like in US and UK version.
    Last edited by Drattius; 24-05-2011 at 22:45.

  17. #17
    People, we have a history forum for such discussions. Can we please return to actually debating possible features of an EU4, and whether or not increased detail is viable for such a game?

  18. #18
    True Moonstruck. Im off in this disscusion to not offtopic anymore. Thanks for debate.

  19. #19
    Major ruckel's Avatar
    Darkest Hour

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Schweden
    Posts
    656
    Someone wrote that slavery was a European invention, and that Europeans were evil because they had slaves. Don't forget that slavery was widespread all over the world, as a matter of fact the Ottoman empire and states in its surroundings in the middle east and Africa had about 8-9 times more slaves taken from their homes in east and central Africa. This doesn't justify that Europeans also took slaves but I'm tired of the constant slavery debate, and people should know that we were not the only ones that bought them, which history lessons in school nowadays basically teaches us.

  20. #20
    To fix the idiotic AI and their absolutely senseless expansion.

    I am not going to buy EU4 if I have to deal with Castillian Africa, Aragonese Ottomans, and English Novgorod in 1406 again

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 11 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts