Europa Universalis IV

Fishman786 said:

What? Spheres of Influence are hugely useful. As well as the magistrate gain, having a Sphere companion is sort of like having a vassal. They won't fight for you in war, but you get a permanent guarrantee on them and other people have to keep out of their business. And the National focus is really great as well, especially when you want a quick boost to colonial growth or missionary chance.

Click to expand...

SoI is one of my favorite parts of EU3 with all expansions. It helps me think about which countries are under my influence without becoming a huge blob.

Magistrates at first aggravated me, but I got used to the idea over time and found I liked it.

The tribute system that came with hordes in DW is a good feature, too.

I was a bit disappointed with CK2 the first time that I played because I expected many of the EU3 DW features to be implemented from the start, like those I listed above. So of course there will be hordes, and spheres of influence, and all that cool stuff.

I think that there is a feeling that the wheel has to be reinvented with each new Paradox release, but a lot of the technical issues that I had with earlier games just aren't in CK2, so I'll be patient. So, I fear that there may be a letdown if EU4 is developed (and I would like for the record to say that I want to see the vision of CK2 fulfilled before starting the next big thing), because it will not be like Divine Wind++ but more like EU3 base game^2.

Darkrenown said:

Magistrates are one of your main limiters in building up, and all buildings built in the NF area refund half their magistrate cost, so it's pretty useful IMO. They also may cause border friction CBs, and help with colonising or converting provinces. I am always using my NF when I play.

Click to expand...

When's the last time that hapened? NF only returns 0,25 magistrate since quite a long while.

Note: I'm just being nitpicky, not commenting on any issue.
Edit: and by the way Johan's comment on Twitter seems to imply that EU4 is already in the works.

There's one feature I would like in EU4... random or selectable winning conditions (optional). I know for many people they just like sandbox play, but we're not all like that. It'd be like the achievement system they added at the end, but this would be in-game and game-dependant (not account-dependant).

wolfing said:

There's one feature I would like in EU4... random or selectable winning conditions (optional). I know for many people they just like sandbox play, but we're not all like that. It'd be like the achievement system they added at the end, but this would be in-game and game-dependant (not account-dependant).

Click to expand...

Very variable challenge. "Take over the world" is very different task for France and Bar. And very different task for France in 1399 and France in 1600. So in the end you get your challenge from your own goasl OR get several scenarious. Which will be just the same as achievements.

Well, you could have something like 'set national objective': alright, it's a five-year-plan but it might be a way to do it. So you announce to your people that in ten years that Burgundy will be a Kingdom. If you succeed, you get a lot of prestige and other goodies, if you fail you can abandon the goal or adjust it (for a small penalty than failing and then announce that you now aim to control the wool trade).

RedRooster81 said:

Well, you could have something like 'set national objective': alright, it's a five-year-plan but it might be a way to do it. So you announce to your people that in ten years that Burgundy will be a Kingdom. If you succeed, you get a lot of prestige and other goodies, if you fail you can abandon the goal or adjust it (for a small penalty than failing and then announce that you now aim to control the wool trade).

Click to expand...

So basically you want to make missions time-limited. And selectable. Like in EU2. Not so different from current missions, isn't it?

I don't see Paradox releasing something like "EUIV" anytime near or soon after the release of "Magna Mundi", do you?

steveh11 said:

I don't see Paradox releasing something like "EUIV" anytime near or soon after the release of "Magna Mundi", do you?

Click to expand...

Agreed! A re-do on EU Rome would be more practical and great with all the bells and whistles associated with CK2!!!!

Buladelu said:

So basically you want to make missions time-limited. And selectable. Like in EU2. Not so different from current missions, isn't it?

Click to expand...

Not quite. This would be game ending and long term goals. Like 'unify Europe' if you start as something in Europe, or 'convert Europe to Protestant' or 'conquer Europe' if you're a horde, or 'conquer Spain' if you start as something in America, or 'Conquer China' if you start as Japan, etc. etc. You get a 'you win! you rock!' screen with fireworks and all (kidding about the fireworks)
And again, this would be optional. You can still play sandbox if you want, but there's a whole lot of people who are more goal oriented, but still like the grand strategy approach of Paradox games.
And before you say 'Set your own goal in your mind', that just doesn't work. It's like telling your girlfriend "imagine we're married", she probably won't accept it

1. Do you want a EU IV?
Sure in a few years, closer to the end of the decade.

2. What should it include?
In a few years? Hmm jetpacks and hovercars

3. Do you think we need one?
Need one what?

4. Suggestions
Instead of an EUIV how about we do some other eras or support already made games like EU:Rome?

Buladelu said:

Not my point. They're useful, but not connected to other game aspects. Compare to V2 where NF was planned from the beginning - it's essential and versatile element of gameplay. It's affected by population, research. It affects migration, industry, promotion and colonization. In EU3 it isn't affected by anything. It affects many things, but you can perfectly live without it and never now it's there. You can't build strategy on it, there's nothing you couldn't achieve without it, it just slightly helps. I'm not saying it's a bad game design but it may be much better.

Click to expand...

National Focus is incredibly important. Try playing a game on Very Hard as Russia and take your cores back from the GH and converting all of those provinces without using the NF. If anything the only issue with the NF is that you should be able to change it a bit more often.

wolfing said:

Not quite. This would be game ending and long term goals. Like 'unify Europe' if you start as something in Europe, or 'convert Europe to Protestant' or 'conquer Europe' if you're a horde, or 'conquer Spain' if you start as something in America, or 'Conquer China' if you start as Japan, etc. etc. You get a 'you win! you rock!' screen with fireworks and all (kidding about the fireworks)
And again, this would be optional. You can still play sandbox if you want, but there's a whole lot of people who are more goal oriented, but still like the grand strategy approach of Paradox games.
And before you say 'Set your own goal in your mind', that just doesn't work. It's like telling your girlfriend "imagine we're married", she probably won't accept it

Click to expand...

Do you really need a game mechanic to tell you what your goal is? I know when I start a game that I want to do x. Whether it is form Byzantium, or survive till 1800 with Cherokee, or to conquer China. They have also partially done this with the achievements.

Nerga said:

National Focus is incredibly important. Try playing a game on Very Hard as Russia and take your cores back from the GH and converting all of those provinces without using the NF. If anything the only issue with the NF is that you should be able to change it a bit more often.

Click to expand...

I think government technology should improve it. Like it's 40 years lag between NF change in the beginning and you lower lag by a year each government technology or two.

And everyone is missing a point: the problem is not the usefullness of NF but that it looks like it's added to game by mod or something. Nothing affects it. Nothing at all, it works the same for every country. In a game where value of a trade good depends on national policies, technologies, stability, prestige, buildings, religion, decisions etc you've got that thing with static bonuses you can throw around and you don't even get a reminder about possibility of moving it. Weird!

Nerga said:

Do you really need a game mechanic to tell you what your goal is? I know when I start a game that I want to do x. Whether it is form Byzantium, or survive till 1800 with Cherokee, or to conquer China. They have also partially done this with the achievements.

Click to expand...

I definitely do. It's why I play games, to 'beat' them. Setting imaginary goals just doesn't cut it. Like I said, it would be a step further after achievements. Something in-game and that doesn't tie to your account, but to the game you're playing.
I was actually trying to convince someone to try these games. He told me 'but does it have goals? I don't like "sandbox" games!' and knowing how good EU3 was, I told him I was just like him, and I really tried to sell him that EU3 was almost like that, with the missions and the achievements, but he was still hesitant (don't know if he finally bought it or not, I hope he did), but that tells you that not everybody is contempt to play just to play, we need in-game specific goals (to finish).
As an anecdote, I've played EU3 for hundreds of hours since I started playing it, but I haven't finished one game yet. I usually lose interest in the 1600s as it just feels like work with nothing to drive me.
In any case, to each his own. I've read some of the suggestions here and to me they are totally 'meh' but hey, if they add them to EU4, that's fine with me (as long as they add mine too!)

Is the world ready for an EU4?

Ooooh where can I start....

Characters
One thing thats kinda bothered me about this game is the lack of player connection with the characters. I never really get attached to any king/general/anyone in this game. They either die too quickly or lack interactivity that would help the player connect with them. I've seen playthroughs of CK 2 and although that game improves this a bit, I still feel like characters die far too quickly for players to really get attached to them.

I'm not sure if any of you have played a game called Romance of the Three Kingdoms 2. It was one of my first strategy games and it was very fun. The characters were interesting and you really grew to care for them. They would still die, but it would take a very long time for that to happen. All actions in the game were done using those characters (as opposed to anonymous agents in eu3). Each character had stats for intelligence, war, and charisma and their ability to perform various tasks were affected by these.

The recruitment of great characters was a huge part of the game. For example, if you could recruit a character named Zhuge Liang, you would have the best advisor in the game. Unlike eu 3, you didn't know the outcome of a diplomatic or other action before you did it, although your advisor would "guess" the outcome based on their intelligence, and Zhuge Liang was rarely wrong, which helped tremendously.

I'd like to bring some of that into EU. How to do this? I have a few suggestions with options for each:

Suggestion 1: Dramatically reduce character churn due to death. Here are some options:
- Reduce the scope. Instead of the entire earth, we could have just the british isles, or some other area, broken down into a lot of smaller pieces, and time would pass in hours instead of days. Characters would live a lot longer in terms of game time.
or
- Allow us to set as an option the life expectancy of characters, up to even ridiculous number or even immortality
or
- Instead of individuals, focus on families. Using families, you can be effectively "immortal" and eliminate churn and still allow for player attachment. Family stats should remain static over time, not change from generation to generation. I'm not entirely sure if this would build the same player connection as individuals, but I'd try it out. This would be the option that would maintain a somewhat realistic feel without drastic scope changes

Suggestion 2:
Instead of anonymous agents, all tasks must be performed using a character that you own. The amount of time to complete and success chance can be based on the character's stats.

Suggestion 3:
Have a large number of pre-made characters that are not randomly generated. The player can learn about these and covet them across games. You can also include randomly generated characters, but it should be a nice mix. I want to search out that amazing advisor that I know is somewhere out there and appears in 1488.

Suggestion 4:
Rulers should be able to recruit unloyal Characters/Generals from other rulers. This also allows for some cool spying options, e.g. offer character x to defect and join you or forge documents to reduce general loyalty.


Research
The problems I have with research is that you never really feel like you're making a good number of choices and that a lot of the benefits seem too similar. Your only choices are how much to allocate in each slider. I'd like research to be a bit more involved and diverse. Here are my suggestions for that:

Suggestion 5:
Tech trees. Many games have them and they do bring a degree of customization and player choice to a game. As suggested above you would assign a character to handle a particular research item.

Suggestion 6:
A lot of the researched buildings/items seem a bit redundant in their benefits. Research items should be expanded to include other benefits such as unit movement speed boosts, view distance (affects your unit or provinces' fog of war viewing radius), diplomacy bonuses, loyalty boosts, ect... I rather have fewer but more meaningful research items.


Province Improvements
The province improvements is another aspect that I'd like to see improved. The problem with this part of the game is that the buildings are not diverse enough to really get me to care. As far as I'm concerned. You could have just simplified province improvements to a menu choice to improve trade efficiency, production efficiency, ect.. without even using buildings. Research could have just controlled the max improvement level. It really wouldn't have been much different in my eyes given the repetitiveness and redundancy of most of the current building benefits. Here are my suggestion:

Suggestion 7:
Just as mentioned above, replace most building construction with general "improve production" or "improve trade efficiency" menu items. Of course you would rename them to something sexier but you get the point. You should still have buildings, but they should be more specialized with special benefits like the embassy or some other unique bonuses.


Diplomacy
Diplomacy is one of the strengths of EU. The only problem I have is that it is too difficult to maintain a good alliance with any country, especially the small ones because eventually, they will go to war, you won't be able to join for some reason or another, and your alliance would be shattered because of it.

Suggestion 8:
Allow options to answer a call to arms without using military combat. For example, you could provide some war funds without officially going to war. You may take a small hit to your relationship but the alliance would remain and you would still be in good terms. Using the character-based tasked suggestion above. You could "loan" generals to your ally for a limited period of time without officially going to war.


UI
A bunch of improvements here. I've mentioned them before in another thread. I just want to improve a few reppetitive tasks.

Suggestion 9:
Allow us to select an army instead of a province when moving/attacking with our troops. This would allow our army to auto-chase an army after a win and save us a lot of time and annoyance manually chasing armies around the map.

Suggestion 10:
For those who've played Starcraft 2, you're probably used to the ability to hotkey control groups. I'd like to be able to do that in EU as well.

Suggestion 11:
I'd like to be able to "pin" certain countries or provinces to the top of the ledger for comparison.

Suggestion 12:
Ability to search by nation/province name in the ledger.

Suggestion 13:
There must be an easier way to raise armies. I like the quick levy system used in CK. Clicking one province at a time to create an army is annoying.

Speaking from the point of view of art rather then mechanics, I'd really like to see a much, much stronger focus on making the different time periods in the game feel different. Right now your little troop figure changes as time advances, but that's about it. 1811 looks very much like 1399.

I'd like to see the game split into three or four eras, determined by year or tech level. In addition, I'd like to see event pictures added like Victoria or CK2. Then you could vary event pictures based off 'era'. So in the early era a naval event might show an image of a tiny caraval on a storm-tossed sea, in the late era the same event would show a picture of huge Napoleonic ship of the line.

Similarly, I'd like to see our kings/advisors/generals have faces like CK2. I think having human characters to make a little emotional connection to helps the game a LOT even if it's not a character driven game like CK2. These faces could also be used to reinforce a feeling of the passage of time, changing clothes through the eras. Early era characters would dress in a medieval style (hell, recycle the CK2 sprites), middle era characters would wear big neck ruffs of poofy lace, and late era characters would have powdered wigs and too much makeup.

Finally, bring back the music changing across eras like in EUII. That was a great 'background' feature that helped reinforce moving through the centuries.


---

From a gameplay point of view, I don't want to throw out mechanics suggestions, but I would like to suggest a bit of a stronger focus on the late game. With a lot of Paradox games I always feel like the early game has gotten more love and 'cool' features. I understand that it's harder to test and polish the end game when it takes so long to get through a game, but EUIV could really use more love for the end game. The social and political changes taking place in the end of the period barely feel like they even exist in EUIII. Personally, if you can't give the late game the polish and extra content it really needs, I'd rather see you guys end the game around 1750 or so, rather then have an Age of Revolutions and Napoleonics that doesn't really work and is just there to tick off a bullet point or because people 'expect' it.

---

I'd also like to see a 'lite' pop system more similar to Rome then Victoria. Having a richer simulation of social class, culture, and religion would really help the game, without having to go into the crazy detail of V2.

Fintilgin said:

Speaking from the point of view of art rather then mechanics, I'd really like to see a much, much stronger focus on making the different time periods in the game feel different. Right now your little troop figure changes as time advances, but that's about it. 1811 looks very much like 1399.

Click to expand...

You are right. You don't really feel spirit of era through art in EU3. This 15th century merchant in trade center doesn't help.

Buladelu said:

You are right. You don't really feel spirit of era through art in EU3. This 15th century merchant in trade center doesn't help.

Click to expand...

That's right. I'd even say, that EU2 was better at it than EU 3: we had different soundtrack for each century, and nice sprites in vanilla version, we were even informed, which technology is from renaissance or baroque