Because there is already vic2 which is perfect game for 1836 to 1936. There is no reason to expanding timeline to longer than 1836. There would almost 400 to play it is more than enough.
Europa Universalis IV
- Thread starter Takeo92
- 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.
- Status
Because there is already vic2 which is perfect game for 1836 to 1936. There is no reason to expanding timeline to longer than 1836. There would almost 400 to play it is more than enough.
I was simply trying to think out of the box, and by doing so, I thought of merging the best parts of these two games (EU3 & Vic2). Thus enabling a new gaming experience...
Expanding the timeline isn't really thinking outside the box, tbh - and merging the main features of V2 and EU3 would probably be beyond the capacity of the technology. EU doesn't do a good job of the first 100 years or so, or the last 50, and V2's economy shakes itself to pieces if you run it for much over 100 years (arguably less than that, depending on the events of the game).
Besides, a game which stretches from the 1400s to the 1900s is most likely just going to do a very poor job of both. Pre-and-post industrial revolution are just too different; it'd be like trying to do a war game which covered stone clubs to atom bombs (and yes, I know Empire Earth did that. It did it badly). PArt of the skill in game design is knowing how to limit yourself, rather than just throwing everything in.
If anything the timeline should be shorter so the defined period can be better simulated.
There would have to be a lot of save-game converters if the timeline of EU3 was cut up into multiple games with shorter timelines. Playing the 420 years from 1399 to 1821 in EU3 is still fun to me. When I reach 1821 I usually wish that there was a little more time to do this or that.
Having to convert a save-game every 100 years would be the wrong way to go.
A timeline from 1453 to 1905 is only 32 years longer than the timeline in EU3 (1399-1821). There would still be no clubs, no chariots, no tanks, no dreadnoughts, no planes, no carriers nor any nukes involved within this timeline either. The simple military system of EU3 could be kept, with efforts put into developing new sprites for the different periods (both cavalry and infantry sprites). No need for a complicated brigade system, like in Vic2.
But getting the best parts of EU3 and Vic2 to fit together in a grand strategy game spanning centuries would of course take time to develop. However, if you keep many things simple like in EU3, then an extended timeline wouldn't break the game. I wasn't saying that they should copy paste the economic system from Vic2 into EU4. They would have to develop something new (based on experience from Vic2 and EU3), merging the political constructs of Vic2 with EU3 could be another of these new features.
Last edited:
A 3D rotatable globe. X-Com (a real-time grand strategy game) had one, and that was 18 years ago - surely it's time EU got one? Yes, the curvature of the map might make things harder to make out at the corners at maximum zoom-out, but the problems with map distortion would be solved, the map would be far more attractive, and you would finally no-longer be playing on a map which was essentially ring-shaped.
I wish they'd do this for the East vs West game! I want to see my ICBMs fly over the North pole, and my strategic bombers make the East Coast - Europe trip across Newfoundland, Greenland and Iceland.
How would the bitmap province files work though? A map based on square units cannot be turned into a proper globe.
The bitmap input file could use any projection. The last couple of degrees of latitude until you get to the north and south poles would not be defined through the input file (due to projection distortion) but would simply be inserted by the map engine, as a province that is impassable for land (N+S) and sea (S) units while passable for air units.
Some examples from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projections
You would still end up with the 'pixels' becoming smaller and smaller as you reach the poles. The pixels are used to represent distances. If there are 100 pixels between locations A and B, then it will take (for example) two months to move between them, no matter the size of the pixels on the globe. Siberia and Canada would just look smaller, the distances and travel times between the locations would remain the same.
True, pixels (or straight lines formed by rows or columns of them) would become "twisted" regardless of what kind of projection you use. Are you sayinng that it's a bad thing?
Latitude and longitude is pretty much the same as pixels when you draw the map files a cylindrical coordinates. But obviously the distance calculation would require you to punch them into some kind of sine/cosine/tangens formula.
You could still use the pixel coordinates to specify e.g. where certain stuff on the map appears. As in, province buildings, unit positions, and all that stuff that the Clausewitz engine uses.
The real answer here is that you would no longer be using a map based on square units, but another shape like hexes. EUIV will be using a new system whatever, and a true-3D system woul be a great idea for that new system.
Last edited:
But that would basically make map modding impossible. Plus it would require a new engine.
Two things I would like to see in EUIV are the two best things from the Total War series (and the only such things that I think are better.)
- Religious conversions based on percentage values rather than everyone being one religion or the other. That would mean missionaries convert a certain percentage on average each year, more for heretics, less for those outside your religious group. This wouldn't need to be overly complex since doing percentages for every province would be hard and subjective. Simply having the two largest would allow you to simulate a sliding scale of shifting religious loyalties rather than being able to get a lucky conversion on Rome or Mecca in the first year. This also allows for greater depth with events, decisions and so on.
- Redoing the economy. One thing that ETW actually did right (one of the few) was the concept of province 'wealth'. In that way you have the tax, production and tariffs rolled into a pool of potential assets. You then choose how much of this total to tax. The more you tax the more angry people get, the higher your stability, and the slower your growth while increasing inflation. Tax would probably be set at the region or continent level to save endless micromanagement. What this would do is spare us the frankly weird system EU3 has at the moment with production, monthly tax and trade income servicing stability and technology, and requiring minting to turn it into cash. This system has never really made much sense and anything which can replace it has to be better!
- Religious conversions based on percentage values rather than everyone being one religion or the other. That would mean missionaries convert a certain percentage on average each year, more for heretics, less for those outside your religious group. This wouldn't need to be overly complex since doing percentages for every province would be hard and subjective. Simply having the two largest would allow you to simulate a sliding scale of shifting religious loyalties rather than being able to get a lucky conversion on Rome or Mecca in the first year. This also allows for greater depth with events, decisions and so on.
- Redoing the economy. One thing that ETW actually did right (one of the few) was the concept of province 'wealth'. In that way you have the tax, production and tariffs rolled into a pool of potential assets. You then choose how much of this total to tax. The more you tax the more angry people get, the higher your stability, and the slower your growth while increasing inflation. Tax would probably be set at the region or continent level to save endless micromanagement. What this would do is spare us the frankly weird system EU3 has at the moment with production, monthly tax and trade income servicing stability and technology, and requiring minting to turn it into cash. This system has never really made much sense and anything which can replace it has to be better!
I approve of these suggestions. I also suggest something similar to the religion one, culture percentages. Nothing so complex as Vicky2 with individual people, but just some percentages on the province. This would help in areas such as Anatolia since they have greek, turkish, armenian, kurd etc all in one area, and to say a province is 100% of one culture one day is silly when it was something else the previous day.
Yes, cultural and religious percentages in provinces would be a good idea. A simplified pop-system might be the solution, cause this would simulate populations moving into new territories (ie. the colonization of the Americas) and leaving other territories. However, the pops should be hidden from the player, only the percentage should be shown.
Furthermore, it would be great if the countries have different national flag-designs, depending on the historical time-period or whether they are republics or monarchies. Many countries would need only one flag-design (ie. Denmark and Russia). But quite a few would need some very different looking flags (ie. France, Germany, USA and Spain). I think this would add another nice historical touch to the game.
Furthermore, it would be great if the countries have different national flag-designs, depending on the historical time-period or whether they are republics or monarchies. Many countries would need only one flag-design (ie. Denmark and Russia). But quite a few would need some very different looking flags (ie. France, Germany, USA and Spain). I think this would add another nice historical touch to the game.
I disagree strongly that EU should have a longer time period. It should focus on the core events of the period, IE:
The (late) renaissance
Reformation
Wars of Religion
Colonization
Mercantilism
The transition from feudalism to more modern nation states.
All of those elements ceased to be particularly important at some point in the 1700s, and didn't really come into being until around 1453, I think the logical place to begin is ~1453 and it should end in the 1700s (maybe before the US war of independence). A different game should link the EU period with Victoria.
I think the focus should be on getting right the core of the period, economics and mercantilism.
I think Ashantai is right in that there should be a difference between what you as a state earn, and what your country earns. For your country to do well, your people need to be prosperous, not just you, and you need to have motive for actually not taxing the wazoo out of them. On the flipside, this period saw a lot state led economic development (it's what mercantilism was all about!), so the player shouldn't be taking a hands off approach a la victoria.
The (late) renaissance
Reformation
Wars of Religion
Colonization
Mercantilism
The transition from feudalism to more modern nation states.
All of those elements ceased to be particularly important at some point in the 1700s, and didn't really come into being until around 1453, I think the logical place to begin is ~1453 and it should end in the 1700s (maybe before the US war of independence). A different game should link the EU period with Victoria.
I think the focus should be on getting right the core of the period, economics and mercantilism.
I think Ashantai is right in that there should be a difference between what you as a state earn, and what your country earns. For your country to do well, your people need to be prosperous, not just you, and you need to have motive for actually not taxing the wazoo out of them. On the flipside, this period saw a lot state led economic development (it's what mercantilism was all about!), so the player shouldn't be taking a hands off approach a la victoria.
- Status