• 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.
And why is that? It's not because people don't like the idea of playing one country as long as possible: when start and end dates were hardcoded in the .exe, people cracked the .exe. It's because EU3 gets easier as your country gets larger, so that after 200 years of play your country has expanded to the point that there is no challenge any more. If it got harder to run your country as your country got larger (in some fun way as opposed to lots and lots of random rebellions), people would continue playing.
I think part of what makes EU3 a bit easy after a while is the lack of attempts at containment on the part of the AI. Historically if a country grew too strong too quickly other countries would band together in order to contain them.
 
I think part of what makes EU3 a bit easy after a while is the lack of attempts at containment on the part of the AI. Historically if a country grew too strong too quickly other countries would band together in order to contain them.
I agree, but it's just part of the problem. Even if this was implemented (the badboy system is a blunt attempt to implement it, and the "coalitions" they are talking about in EU4 should be a better one), a coalition against (the player) of all the other (AI) major powers would just be a like "final boss mob", and once beaten, the player would be stronger than before and the AI coalition weaker: the challenge of the game would have peaked and would be decreasing.

Consider that in vanilla EU3 rebellions never succeed, not only against a well-managed player, but against any large AI. That shouldn't be the case: not only did obscure empires like Mali break up, but the Mughal and Ming Empires did too, and Britain lost her American colonies to revolt while France lost Haiti. This is a problem (although it should be possible to build huge empires as well, see Russia). And size makes it harder for revolts to succeed, while it should make it harder to put them down. One reason for this is that revolts are random, so if you're big you'll have a relatively continuous series of revolts that are small, compared to you, while if you're very small, most of the time you won't have any revolts at all but when you do it'll be relatively large - it's much easier for a 100-province empire to handle one province being in revolt at any given time than it is for a one province country to handle one province being in revolt 1% of the time. So there needs to be some mechanism for synchronization of revolts (other than just -3 stability), and when a big revolt does happen it should be managed through a pseudo-country, since the AI for rebel stacks really isn't up to strategy. It should also be possible for armies to revolt.
 
Wonder if it's gonna be like Civlization 5, better graphic less features.

Oh my god i hope not. Civ5 was a steaming pile of horses.... i mean terrible disappointment. Broken in too many ways to point them out all, just go and read Sulla's review and comments on it.
 
Last edited:
I'm guessing that some got chopped off the end and a lot got chopped off the beginning, so it'll have about the same dates as EU3 did before the first expansion. Since I just about always play Byzantium, that's bad news for me!
I actually hope they cut off the 100 years at the beginning and then add them back as they release expansions. Changed starting situation / dynamics as the game gets older gives it some added longevity. :)

Also I'm a bit curious if they'll add the ability for you to influence your heirs education. I mean you are essentially playing the all powerful invisible ruler of a country yet you have absolutely no influence on what focus the next kings education / training gets? It's allways seemed a bit silly to me. :)

edit:
Great News indeed.
Now only wait to see Comets & Trollhemia in 3D :p
I'm more intrested to see what new choice we get in dealing with comets! :D
 
'Urrah!

A tidbit in the interviews also hints at the fact that Rome 2 is still not outside the realm of possibility.

All is well.
 
I am looking forward to this. EU3 is good but there are many things in it that could be improved. I'm hoping PI tries to improve on the previous game instead of starting from scratch like they did with CK2, although I can see it turning out well either way.
 
I actually hope they cut off the 100 years at the beginning and then add them back as they release expansions. Changed starting situation / dynamics as the game gets older gives it some added longevity. :)
:D

I certainly hope they do not. The early start of 1399 is the best thing in it, and wish CK2 would end there, as a better ending date for the end of the feudal system. I would rather they cut off 100 years at the end, as how many of us in truth can say we play that far.
 
I just hope they don't nerf being able to do WC's
If you are able to do something the coalition idea sounds ok.
But get rid of purenasty events.
Looking foward to EU4 but will have to buy a new computer.
I never play to the end date because I am the only one left by 1725 in most games!!:laugh: