Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Europa Universalis IV

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Europa Universalis III 46143 EU3 - After Action Reports (AAR)
chrispenny1995 said:
Theres a few things i would want PI to consider with an EU IV.

1. I think it would be cool to have family trees, with your dynasties. You could see exactly how your royal marriages are. This would also make it a little clearer about who would inherit who and so on and so forth. I also think picking your heir would be nice. Overall kind of like Rome total war except more in depth.

2. More provinces, much like the MEIOU map, except more. More is always good.

3.maybe an even earlier time line. I cant see paradox shrinking the time line from what they have now since they know it works, i kind of would be disappointed if they made it shorter. Thats why i bought EU III over HoI, there was more playtime.

These are just a few ideas, but i would wait in line to get this.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the forums! Anyway, dynastic trees would be a good addition, but being able to pick one's heir doesn't really fit the timeline unless you adding succession laws that could be changed. That however is a little too complicated for what this game should have and the entire gameplay of Crusader Kings is based around huge family trees. I don't think EU3 should encroach on CK territory. The other two suggestions I don't really like. More provinces means a more powerful country and should be used to represent densely populated countries. MEIOU does that; any more provinces would have to be added across the board and would be largely unnecessary. The timeline for EU3 is stretched as it is, and doesn't represent the beginning and the end of its timeline very well. Besides extending to 1836 just to link with Victoria, I wouldn’t support any timeline extensions in the official game. Besides, mods for EU3 can do it already.
 
airpirate said:
Welcome to the forums! Anyway, dynastic trees would be a good addition, but being able to pick one's heir doesn't really fit the timeline unless you adding succession laws that could be changed. That however is a little too complicated for what this game should have and the entire gameplay of Crusader Kings is based around huge family trees. I don't think EU3 should encroach on CK territory. The other two suggestions I don't really like. More provinces means a more powerful country and should be used to represent densely populated countries. MEIOU does that; any more provinces would have to be added across the board and would be largely unnecessary. The timeline for EU3 is stretched as it is, and doesn't represent the beginning and the end of its timeline very well. Besides extending to 1836 just to link with Victoria, I wouldn’t support any timeline extensions in the official game. Besides, mods for EU3 can do it already.
Click to expand...

Even an extension to 1836 would be weird (if you were going to link to Vick II) because the AI doesm not handle separatist movements very well. Especially without any sort of Monroe Doctrine to tell the Spanish to stay out.
 
That makes sense, thats why i like PIs games, they let you mod. I want the dynastic trees most of all beacause they would add another little pip of realism, which is always good in my opinion. Just another way to get you into the game and time period, you know?
 
My ideal game would be the best bits of EU3, Total war and civilization. Not going to happen for a while yet and it wouldn’t be reasonable or realistic to expect something on that scale. But i do agree with a lot of the suggestions, particularly regarding the technology investment and family trees. The current system is too simplistic. I would like to see it based on resources and how well connected your country is. For example if you’re Ming and you trade a lot with England and France you should receive benefits from that along with having universities etc. A country like Japan on the other hand, that stays isolated should receive penalties for not trading. Hopefully this would stop some of the tech imbalances that can occur and make trading and tech development more interesting.

In regards to building I’m not a fan of seeing universities being built in places that have a less than 10k people living in them. What I would like to see are ways for cities and towns to develop and build themselves, and the players job should be to attract the right people like artisans and scholars to come to your country as well as provide a the basic infrastructure. For example a country that is innovative, rarely at war with a sound economy and good facilities should attract intellectuals, along with refugees from countries that have unstable economies, and are often at war. Of course refugees should be a double edge sword. While we benefit from an increase of manpower, and economically there would be ethnic tensions.

Colonising is currently tedious, boring and too easy. It’s nothing more than a land grab at times. You go in with half a dozen soldiers, kill natives send colonist, then move on to the next province. Colonising the American and African continent was never that easy. We had to develop medicine for all sorts of weird of wonderful diseases. We had to figure out how to feed ourselves not just on the long voyage, but also once we reached there. It took time, money, resources people willing to take the risk, and a lot of trial and error. I just wish the game in some way would reflect what a monumental achievement it was in the 16th and 17th century to take people who where risking everything to go half way around the world to basically build a new country.

One last thing, give me the option to decide not to trade in slaves, so I don’t feel so damn guilty every time I see the message joyfully announcing that I am a player in the slave trade.
 
1. Religion and culture in provinces depicted as percentages instead of the simplistic way it is shown now, missionaries would convert a percentage of the province every year instead of the all or nothing approach we have right now. Also percentages would force players to consider building harmonious societies out of conquered lands instead of just treating foreign elements poorly just because the religion can instantly change 100 percent at some point. Also this would better represent the diverse religious minorities of the Middle-East and India, making for more realistic dynamics.

2. Perhaps race can also be introduced at some point in a similar vein as above, I know this would be controversial so I don't expect it but it was very important in the independence of Haiti and social unrest of Latin America.

3. A more historically accurate India, many glaring errors as is, flags, leaders, provinces that haven't existed yet ie Chandigarh.

4. Sikhism and Judaism would be a nice addition but I won't hold my breath.

5. The ability to offer to buy provinces or colonies via diplomacy as well as sell.

6. When asking an ally to war, it's annoying when they occupy territory that you want, there should be some kind of special invitation to war, or an additional option in peace negotiations to retrieve the territory you want, assuming you are leading the alliance of course. I'd imagine this should hurt relations with the actual occupier and give them a CB.

7. Wastelands should be owned by the most dominant nation next to it, the grey on the maps look really lame in the middle of huge empires.

8. Successor states should be able to claim cores on territories that their predecessor claimed ie I've played as Spain after absorbing mainland Aragon so I should be able to claim her old cores elsewhere. Modern day PRC and ROC do this, I'd imagine that other countries have too.

9. Elections in democracies shouldn't be so straight forward, I'd rather it be like Tropico ideally but a probability mechanism should be workable whereby unrest and instability make it harder to retain an incumbent leader. We could even perhaps get petitions from the populace to change the course of the country or even grant plebiscites to minorities, whereupon ignoring would cause strife. I'm aware some random events cover these but those aren't necessaryily tied to democratic governments.

That's all I can think of right now. I'm sure paradox will implement some awesome changes either way.
 
I was just thinking about how in Victoria II, when you change government the nations name changes. For example: A fascist USA becomes The American Empire. I dont think that this sort of thing would quite work with EU, mainly because of the timeline, but i think that the flags/coat of arms could change. Especially if a country has a new dynasty, would the coat of arms change? I dont know as much about this time period as i would like but i think that would be interesting to see.
 
Extended timeline

Extending the timeline to 1871 or even 1889 would really open up the endgame. The EUiii-engine would be able to handle this time-period much better than the vic-ii engine does.

The forming of nation-states (union-tags; such as Germany, Spain, Britain, Russia, Scandinavia, Italy and China) should be one of the main goals of EU-iv.
 
What if there were more regional dividers, like Continent, Sub-Continent, Region, Sub-Region, etc. You could form certain nations based on regional or cultural areas.

I think there should be more nations overall. More is always better, and a lot is never enough to me. Although thats more of my own job and not that of a game developer. They could simplify the process a bit so that you dont have to edit so many files. To create a country you have to make a country folder, add it to localisation, add its history as a nation, edit it into the provincial history, etc. etc. If that could be simplified that would be awesome.
 
nett40 said:
Extending the timeline to 1871 or even 1889 would really open up the endgame. The EUiii-engine would be able to handle this time-period much better than the vic-ii engine does.
Click to expand...
I don't know Victoria II, but the EU 3 battle mechanism (Shock phase) would look quite weird in 1871 (bayonet charges were levelled by breech-loading rifle fire). This needs some rewriting to extend EU4 towards 1900, but not too radical changes.

On the other hand, I'd love to see EU4 extend backwards to ~900, a lot of interesting stuff happened since that date (before 1399). Like:
  • Rollo and vikings settle Normandy in 911
  • Arabs roam all over Iberia
  • Charlemagnian Empire, and its fall to pieces
  • Steppe nomad Hungarian invasion, raiding in the German Region, Westernization
  • Crusades
  • Battle of Hastings
  • Angevin Empire (England, Maine-Anjou, Aquitanian coast)
  • France without cores all over the place, swimming in independent minors
  • More Crusades, TO's arrival to the Baltic
  • The ascent of Hapsburgs to the throne of Austria (and forging of Privilegium Maius)
  • Ottomans' rise to power
  • Most of the Reconquista - take a look at the second point in the list!
nett40 said:
The forming of nation-states (union-tags; such as Germany, Spain, Britain, Russia, Scandinavia, Italy and China) should be one of the main goals of EU-iv.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
There is going to be a Paradox game covering the 1066-1453 timeframe. Crusader Kings II.
 
More importantly, that era had very different dynamics compared to the EU III time period - the position of Kings was much less secure as the "institution" of kingship hadn't really formed in a reliable way. Moreover, it'd probably be hard to incorporate the Islamic dominance and fading away in a satisfactory way. As it stands, EU III starts at the time when Western Europe stopped having an experience almost like a colonial periphery and started acting like the big boys.
 
I would love to see more visual stimulation. Like seeing a picture of the preferred units in instead of text.

Also, i liked the CK way of describing the battles. With the slides and stuff. It's more immersive.
 
I think it would be great to have some sort of way to threaten countries in the diplomacy interface. For instance, it can be a little silly when an extremely weak AI country refuses to become your vassal when it would be obvious to any real person that refusal could be met with violence
 
Maybe it is time to add this to the FAQ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back