• 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
The most important question is: Should it add another option to the Comet sighted event or start over with 1?

The event should fire for multiple countries. The game will have to calculate the path of the comet (where the path angle distribution observed in our solar system is taken into account) according to the position of the Earth in the solar system at the moment of passing by. Then, it should be calculated how visible this comet is, depending on its proximity, size, and altitude above the horizon (when observed from the various places on Earth of course). Subsequently, the country's specifics such as the population density in the provinces where the comet is visible, the amount of sky observers the country has, etc etc, as well as how scary the comet looks to the locals (where there cultural specifics are taken into account), should be taken into account to determine the loss of stability associated with the comet.

There should of course also a possibility for the comet actually hitting Earth, thus inducing another ice age and plummeting human civilization back into another stone age.
 
The most important question is: Should it add another option to the Comet sighted event or start over with 1?
Yes, and please add a full scale 25 event spanning event chain for it!
x)

PS: "I love the sight of comet in the morning!"
 
A 5 year old game is a five year old game (pun intended). I had seen the same declarations regarding Civ IV: graphics don't play role, release more mods and mechanics as patches and we will be happy, etc.

You can't honestly believe Paradox will win new customers with such old recipes. I am a latecomer myself, late 2011, and already see the "age" of EU3 in respect to newer iterations such as V2/HOI3. Let's not talk about Sengoku and its completely rotateable map.

The time is ripe for a EU4. And I agree that the time span should be shorter to better abstract concepts and stories...
 
A list of what I think:
  • Graphics are not important to me. I love the EU3 gameplay, keep that up! (When I remember the horrible game that was Sim City Socities)
  • I do not like Victoria II, I played it, it's far inferior to EU3 in my opinion. I want a game that makes it very very hard to unite Germany as Ulm, but still possible.
  • Keep the content rich. There are so many events, countries, provinces, missions and the game is pretty awesome with the latest expansion. (I couldn't go back to without expansions)
  • The AI is a bit predictable by now, but I have played EU3 for hundreds of hours, so it might be that.
  • Important: You can expand the timelife, but imo EU3 games are far less fun if you start after 1500 because by then Europe is already blobbed. Start a game with Napoleonic France and you will see how much the game will suck! There are million troops by all countries and all countries will have 20+ war exhaustion 2-3 years in the war and never accept peace. 1399 was a great start date, although bigger timeline is always better of course.
  • For me, I am a EU3-addict and would love to see a new expansion pack or EU4, but it's better to wait another 12 months with EU4 than to bring out a bad game.
 
I think EU3 hands on itself pretty fine now. The graphics are somewhat outdated (DW solved the map ones) but anyway that's not the most important. I would say a new EU is not needed yet.
However the big cycle is over with CK2, so the next Paradox games should be EU and EU:Rome, so time itself may say it's time for another EU. Paradox may however develop another "Rome" while EU gets a long development cycle. This "Rome" will be a new game focused on something that didn't exist before, I would say a first sketch of a new Cycle title - just like I think Rome was. In this case maybe a Dark Ages/post-WWII game (or Rome II before this one, or both).

Anyway, I think Paradox will make EU IV have a big developmente time to iron out everything and I think it's the correct thing, EU is one of the best selling/important titles and Paradox isn't allowed to fail, so they'll polish it beyond awesomeness.


Now, what I do think EU IV should have?
1) More content outside Europe. Yes, the famous ROTW :p It's a shame such a wonder all-world game is so shallow outside Europe. Being allowed to play with minor random useless countries in the middle of nowhere are one of my favourite things about EU. It is not the "Play the big 5!" of general market. Replayability skyrockets. So please give us a ROTW where we can have e.g. a very funny campaign in Africa with only African countries (the number of provinces and countries is important, too few and it will become quasi-unreplayabale). But don't add Wastelands, all useful provinces. Make it tie to tech.
2) Production is fine I think, but trade should be improved. In this age the big trade routes like the sea spice route were very important. I think some implementation of trade routes and their efficiency would be good. And of course regional prices, to make extremely interesting for the european countries to trade back to europe the spices/chinaware.
3) Some mini-dynasty thing, with royal marriages. Forget faces, let just have a genealogical tree+text interface of the royal family and the available royal marriages to make, and to antecipate PUs.
4) A pie chart for religion and culture for provinces for gradual convertions.

That's what I remember right now.
 
EUIV can't start to early because irt won't accurately represent feudal society, that's what CK is there for.

Now if they could add mechanics from CKII into EUIV... after all, titles and nobility were still somewhat important...

Yeah, that's what I was thinking actually. Playing as say Louis XIV and having all the court complexity, marriage alliances, all those sons vying for power, balancing four mistresses and the queen. That sort of thing. Or playing the Ottoman Empire and dealing with your harem, janissary revolts, and of course giving the order (or breaking with tradition for a -1stab) to have all your brothers killed on the same night with silken cords, but one runs away from Venice.

A major problem already mentioned I suppose is that outside the core countries (like France, England, the German principalities) everything feels a bit out of place or just generic. But this is a problem with any grand strategy game that lets you play any of say 500 nations.
 
The most important question is: Should it add another option to the Comet sighted event or start over with 1?
It should start with one option and each expansion should include one more.
 
No please! no more EU please!! im tired of this game, focus on Rome or so!
 
I hope that EUIV will be a radical redesign. With simplified gameplay and console and tablet friendly controls. Preferably running on the new Bitsquid engine.

I shouldn't quit my day job...
 
We should re-image it into an FPS IMO.

Yay! EUIV - The MMOFPS with comets (5 of them)!

ObOnTopic: I think my feeling with EUIV is that I've come to cherish EU3, being the first paradox series I've extensively played. So whilst I still like Vicky, CK2 and Sengoku (never got the hang on HoI), I will probably always come back to EU. EU4 may or may not disappoint me, if it's too different or not different enough.

I do feel there's a point about shorter timespans. I've never been able to reach 1821, but have finished Vicky2. If you'd ask me what game I'd like to see next I'd start by taking EU, focus on the HRE between say 1517-1701, and work a bit more on especially the microstates in Hesse and Thuringia. Throw in a bit (not too much) of CK2, decisions/research á lá Vicky2, missions, comets, peasants and arts, and I'd spend my money....
 
Yay! EUIV - The MMOFPS with comets (5 of them)!

ObOnTopic: I think my feeling with EUIV is that I've come to cherish EU3, being the first paradox series I've extensively played. So whilst I still like Vicky, CK2 and Sengoku (never got the hang on HoI), I will probably always come back to EU. EU4 may or may not disappoint me, if it's too different or not different enough.

I do feel there's a point about shorter timespans. I've never been able to reach 1821, but have finished Vicky2. If you'd ask me what game I'd like to see next I'd start by taking EU, focus on the HRE between say 1517-1701, and work a bit more on especially the microstates in Hesse and Thuringia. Throw in a bit (not too much) of CK2, decisions/research á lá Vicky2, missions, comets, peasants and arts, and I'd spend my money....

Oh no, leave the timespan alone! One of the things I like the most about EU it's the big timespan, you have time to setup your country AND enjoy the benefits of this. In Victoria II when I get what I wanted it's already endgame. In EU when I'm in the 1700s I start to stress because time is ending. Pushing that earlier would stress me a lot more :)
 
Oh no, leave the timespan alone! One of the things I like the most about EU it's the big timespan, you have time to setup your country AND enjoy the benefits of this. In Victoria II when I get what I wanted it's already endgame. In EU when I'm in the 1700s I start to stress because time is ending. Pushing that earlier would stress me a lot more :)

I can certainly sympathize, reading lots of AARs. From a personal standpoint I've found it a stretch to continue to find goals once the early-game goals have been reached and the 'mmm, what shall/can I do next' phasse comes in. To some extent, missions help here, but getting 'build bigger navies than x' missions don't really help.

Ah well, perhaps I should just stop complaining and keep playing <g>.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.