Europa Universalis IV

[Leviathan07]

Introducing some variability in key factors (tax, reinforcement...) would force the player to plan more carefully, leave a margin for error and have a plan B, or else go for a big gamble. Let's say, the tax income would vary every +- 25% of the average value due to bad/good harvests. I rather have this than the completely random stab hits by comet sightings (certainly something that can happen once in a while as well).

I agree: Strategy should mean, that you KNOW what the best outcome is going to be, but you ALSO know that other, less favorable outcomes are equally likely. So you plan in such a way, that you do not scream out in anger when the second best outcome happens: You position yourself in such a way, that you know what kind of risks you are taking.

No general goes into battle, without a reserve that he can throw into the battle to cope with unexpected moments. That sort of gameplay is fun! incidentally, when you play against real people, that's exactly what you have to do. You can't throw your entire army into one huge attack and leave the flanks unprotected. ("Why garrison the beaches, he'll never go that way") You can't gamble on exactly one outcome of an event chain, or of the exploration game. You can't rage-quit just because the opponent spoiled your "perfect" borders in north america. You must cope. That almost never happens in EU3 SP, because there's so little randomness, and you can min-max-optimize everything.

[Don_Quigleone]

Europa Universalis is probably my favourite of all the Paradox titles. That said, I think it's reached a stage that to move forward a new iteration is necessary that sheds a lot of the baggage that's been present since EU1 and 2, and brings the focus on what makes Europa Universalis as great a game as it's always been. I hope Paradox will find the ideas in my post of interest. The following stands out to me:

1. Make countries feel like they're being role played. In vanilla EU3 countries felt too similiar to one another, while that improved in subsequent expansions, it never was completely solved. Every country and region in game should have it's own unique character, but most importantly, over the 3-4 hundred year course of the game the player should be able to mold it to exactly what they desire, be it an aggressive theocratic state, a sprawling colonial superpower, a small but very innovative mercantile power, or whatever a player might like. At the same time players should not able to do absolutely everything. They should have to pick their strengths. The national idea/slider system was good, but there were some weaknesses.

2. Play through the ages, each era should feel a little different from the last. While this works well in the early game (For instance you have the reformation throwing a spanner in the works early-mid game), the later parts of the game all feel samey.

3. Change technology, the current system where you just pour in money doesn't feel right at all. Technology should perhaps work more like Crusader Kings, with spreading developments (if one country gets arquebuses, the technology should quickly spread to it's neighbours), rate of development more related to social structure and ingame variables, rather then coded geographical numerical factors. IE China should develop more slowly (or not at all) because of it's it's social factors and isolationist political outlook, and not because it's in an Asian techgroup. Also, it should be possible to move "backwards" under specific circumstances. Perhaps there should be a split between technological innovations (things like the printing press, cannon), practical capabilities (I know about cannon, but do I have the gunsmiths to make them? Do my officer corps have the tactics to use cannon effectively?) and societal factors (Do I have a society where new ideas can flourish? Are the aspirations of my people incompatible with the way my government is organised?)

4. Reduce era bloat: Europa Universalis should focus on one era (roughly the Renaissance, Reformation, Age of Colonialism and Enlightenment) rather then moving into the middle ages on one side, or the napoleonic period on the other. There are now games that more then adequately address those time periods (namely Crusader Kings, and the in-development March of the Eagles).

5. End the "blob" problem: The primary issue with EU, for me anyway, is that I've basically "won" the game by 1550, having grown to such a size that no other country (or coalition of countries) could possibly oppose me. This is a sticky issue, and is a central problem for all grand strategy games. As far as I can see, it can be solved in 2 ways:

5a. Change AI diplomacy, Medium sized AI should band together to defeat large neighbours. So Sweden and France should join together to defeat a blobbing Austria, France should have trouble getting any alliances among it's neighbours, due to how powerful it is. Very powerful countries should be unable to get alliances outside their sphere of influence and vassals.

5b. Change rebels. Rebels are currently a speedbump rather then a real problems. Players should find it increasingly difficult (without being tedious) to control a large state. Large Empires should have to adopt ideas oriented towards stability to even stay together, which may cause them to fall behind other, "leaner" powers. A country could have a variety of approaches from federalism, to an absolutist conservative state ideology, both of which hobble the player in a realistic fashion. In addition, civil wars should be a real threat, and rebels should tend to rise up all at once, rather then peacemeal.

In this way, China, or player led blobs, could be held back without resorting to crude "cheats".

5. Speaking of Diplomacy, end the mystery of diplomacy. Instead of the current "floating" values, switch to the static values Crusader Kings uses, and have each AI response be yes or no (and no "likely"s or "maybe"s), with reasons shown for why or why not the AI responds in a particular way.

6. Trade: One universal market price seems crude, instead the price for spices should be different in Lisbon and Goa, and the profit from trade should be from exploiting those price differences.

7. Piracy: Rather then being units you quash at sea, they should be an issue that exists at the provincial level, and, more importantly, effects trade routes. Tariffs represent this quite nicely already, and could be extended.

8. Revamp colonies: Once a colony reaches 1000 people, it behaves just like any other province, when in reality the colonies took 100 years or more to develop, until they reached a stage whereby they felt they should fight for their independence from the crown. This aspect should be depicted ingame. Also, colonialism was much slower in real life then in game, Jamestown was only established in 1607, by the same date in game most of the US east of the missipi has been colonised.

9. Revamp stability: Stability should be the result of all the myriad factors in game (somewhat like in Vicky), rather then a static number that gets changed by pumping money into a stability bar. Instead, if you're a conservative monarchy ruling a populace filled with liberal revolutionary ideas, the player should be thinking "Maybe I'm due for a revolution...". Likewise, another monarch's heir could have a weak heir, prompting a period of chaos and civil war when he comes to the throne. In addition, foreign powers should be able to involve themselves in the civil wars of larger countries.

10 Reduce the feature creep: EU3 has a lot of disjointed features that need to be tied together more. One previous poster noted that cultural tradition and military tradition were handled on one screen, and could perhaps be integrated together more seamlessly.

11. Address the entire world outside of Europe from the beginning: In particular address the Middle East, India, East Asia and the New World. PDS is a much bigger company then it was back when EU2 was made, or even EU3, and I'm sure you'd be up for the task. And when addressing these regions, make sure that ultimately you're playing by the same rules as European countries. It should be possible(albeit difficult) to guide an asian country to be an innovative and advanced society, while a country in Europe could (particularly under player direction) sink into being a backwards isolationist society. The factors that led to these outcomes should be reflected ingame.

12. More historical immersion: I'd like it if the art and culture of the period was featured more prominently. For instance, much as I like the original music of EU3, the classical music of EU2 (especially as the game went on), gave the game a certain sense of immersion and authenticity. I'm sure there are classical orchestras willing to license out their recordings for cheap.

[scholar]

You just, inadvertently, confirmed there is still Stability in EUIV.
And events.

You never know, it might have revolts instead of stability as a result.

[scholar]

There's already the Civilization games family, they do just that.

I don't know why everyone keeps saying things like this. When you look at it, even from a less than objective stance, its clear that they aren't even remotely similar games.

[Bloodmerchant]

Well I'd like to see a Rome 2 before an EU 4.

[Kerry]

Europa Universalis is probably my favourite of all the Paradox titles. That said, I think it's reached a stage that to move forward a new iteration is necessary that sheds a lot of the baggage that's been present since EU1 and 2, and brings the focus on what makes Europa Universalis as great a game as it's always been. I hope Paradox will find the ideas in my post of interest. The following stands out to me:

~snip

Excellent! Good list, I agree to 95% (there is always some little tidbits, you know... )
Reading this actually makes me want to install EU III again. In spite of its shortcomings, it is still an excellent game.

[murlocmancer]

Same with all paradox games and most grand strategy in general AI just needs to be smarter and big countries should be 10x harder to control. The one thing which I know would be extremly hard to actually pull off is the fact that a country doesn't and really can't mass all their armies together and then attack like people do in the games. LIke maybe if a border has no troops present neighbors are more likely to war the country as it is undefended on that side. That could force players to actually keep soldiers at the border and not send them all to one country to beat them and then do the same to another country afterwards.

[Tongera]

There are several things a new EUIV needs:

1. Difference between time periods, as it feels the same throughout the game, which it shouldn't.

2. Different types of units (archers, horse cavalry, siege artillery etc) that has certain advantages against other units and can be used in certain circumstances.

3. More than one resource per province.

4. Perhaps a council of ministers with different ministers for different stuff (finance, law, theoligan etc).

5. I think a limited type of pops should be used in this game.

6. Resources that is needed to build certain stuff (stone for walls, iron for weapons etc).

7. Create your own laws and punishments for the country you are playing (death for stealing a apple, no hunting etc).

That's all i can think of for now.

[vyshan]

There were a number of good ideas that the MMtG came up with such as factions and the chinese tribuitary system to name two ideas. but the ideas mentioned here are good *nods*

[justin6477]

2. Different types of units (archers, horse cavalry, siege artillery etc) that has certain advantages against other units and can be used in certain circumstances.

5. I think a limited type of pops should be used in this game.

7. Create your own laws and punishments for the country you are playing (death for stealing a apple, no hunting etc).

By limited type of population, do you mean less individual culture groups? If so, I don't agree with that. I like the diversity and wish CK2 had a bit more.

The others I definitely agree with. Perhaps split infantry into light and heavy and do the same with cavalry?

And definitely use laws to influence things like cultural conversions. Language laws and the like.

[Tongera]

By limited type of population, do you mean less individual culture groups? If so, I don't agree with that. I like the diversity and wish CK2 had a bit more.

The others I definitely agree with. Perhaps split infantry into light and heavy and do the same with cavalry?

And definitely use laws to influence things like cultural conversions. Language laws and the like.

With pops, i meant like clergy, tanners, soldiers, farmers, etc.

I like the idea of laws though and hope it will be implemented.

[justin6477]

With pops, i meant like clergy, tanners, soldiers, farmers, etc.

I like the idea of laws though and hope it will be implemented.

Ok, so kind of like Victoria 2's population page, but perhaps simplified a bit? That I'm in favor of.

[vyshan]

Pops could work, though it would be difficult with all the time frame IMO. some ideas of mine

1.) revised religion. This is highly important, as religion played a key part of the time frame. However religion should also feel more diffrent from one another. If for example I am playing as confucian china, the religion should feel far diffrent than if I am playing as catholic spain. Some things should be available to certain religions, like the Jezeriy tax for muslims, while restricting others; for instance wine and acholic resources do not provide as much money as they would for others.

2.) religious minorities: this was really missing from EU3 and it should be in the next version. religious minorities, weather catholics in angelican england or the hugonouts in france and everything else.

3.) more resources per province. someone already mentioned this but a province should be able to provide more resources per province, perhaps specializing in one but still provide an out put of the other, if at a smaller rate.

4.) better internal politics. Internal politics do not really exist in eu3 atm. There are rebels, but little else. I think that there should be some focus on the internal politics of a realm. MM's faction system is one way to help it.

[Don_Quigleone]

More resources per province would add to the complexity of the game, without necessarily adding anything, in my opinion. Provided a sufficient number of provinces exist, all the resources a region produces should be adequately represented.

Now that I think of it, one of the huge flaws of all the EU games has been that they poorly represent Mercenaries. For most of the time period, the vast majority of armies raised in Europe were Mercenaries, not national armies. Making Mercenaries more viable (as in CK2) would be a step in the right direction.

[Zmieczemiogniem]

All I know is that I keep giving Paradox all of my money, so that, coupled with the sales that they have reported to be making, means having an EU4 should be an attainable company goal.

[Kerry]

I think a pop system for EU IV is unnecessary, since social mobility (i.e. farmers, craftsmen, clergy...) was very limited.

The hot item here really is religion, which might be modelled a bit more dynamically, including religious minorities. Also, the influence fo religion should be rather large in the beginning and fade away in the second half of the time line.
Culture is quite interesting in colonial areas, where over the centuries native and colonial cultures amalgated to new cultures, something which is not at all modelled in EU III.

I'm a bit split with respect to multiple trade goods per province. While I think trade goods should be more important over all (not only for making money), I don't think multiple trade goods are necessary. Rather, it would be interesting to see shifts in trade goods over the time span of the game. I.e., who says a province producing wool needs to do this for the entire 400 years? Maybe people start producing cloth from it. Or a province producing wine is conquered by an islamic countrÿ: maybe people start growing grains instead? A Northamerican colony initially producing fur might be more densely populated after a while and people start growing tobacco instead of hunting little furry animals?
I'd like a system where changes like this could occur based on how the game is going.

[Meanmanturbo]

Now that MM is officially dead and buried what I would like to see would be for the whole stability mechanic and government sliders to be thrown out of the window and be replaced with something similar to the faction system that was in MM, with large rapid expansion and such creating more diverging goals and options leading to instability that way. And developments in government technology actually making the different factions easier to handle.

[xGhost4000x]

I do want a EUIV but I'd rather have EU:Rome II

With the success of CK2 another Character focused paradox game could go far. And with the announcement of Total War: Rome II; I already know I'll be in the Roman mood this next year.

[Don_Quigleone]

I'm a bit split with respect to multiple trade goods per province. While I think trade goods should be more important over all (not only for making money), I don't think multiple trade goods are necessary. Rather, it would be interesting to see shifts in trade goods over the time span of the game. I.e., who says a province producing wool needs to do this for the entire 400 years? Maybe people start producing cloth from it. Or a province producing wine is conquered by an islamic countrÿ: maybe people start growing grains instead? A Northamerican colony initially producing fur might be more densely populated after a while and people start growing tobacco instead of hunting little furry animals?
I'd like a system where changes like this could occur based on how the game is going.

I think a good system might be where every good has a price in each CoT, and provinces choose which good to produce based on how much "profit" they can make (IE units of production*price, with different goods having different fertilities based on province terrain and climate). Alternatively, allow players to change production in a province manually, in a limited way.

[siis]

I do want a EUIV but I'd rather have EU:Rome II

With the success of CK2 another Character focused paradox game could go far. And with the announcement of Total War: Rome II; I already know I'll be in the Roman mood this next year.

We have two new character focused games: Sengoku and CK2. I don't whink we need another at the moment.
I want a new nation building game with a bit more focus on warfare than v2 has --> we need an EU4.