Help us improve Europa Universalis!

[CPU Taro]

I think most people fit into one of three camps though, roleplayers (who generally love history and want to explore alternate history)(My camp), multiplayer competitors, and "optimizers" (people who want to exploit mechanics to the fullest and do WC speed runs and such)

I understand multiplayer, but I don't understand minmaxing outside achievements. It's just not something PDX games live up to (how could they with the ongoing AI bug cycle?).

PDX GSGs are actually amazing as RPGs, which is something they discovered near by accident with CK2. It's something they should lean into heavier.

 

[Brynjar]

I was feeling bad having to select Vic2 as best in every category except diplomacy

On the contrary, you should feel bad about not ranking Vic 2 as the best in diplomacy! (They are all pretty bad at it)

 

[Alyosha]

Filled out the survey but only thought of my additional suggestion after:

I would love fewer bookmarks in the later game, perhaps just one per “Age.” Considering I rarely play into the 1700s (much less the 1800s) the ability to play in a - this is key - supported and updated later bookmark to try our say Revolutionary France would be much appreciated.

 

[Grzegorz Grzybek]

Feel free to add any additional comments you might have regarding Europa Universalis 4.

The end game screen should show - "see you in Victoria 3"

 

[Dragonquack]

I still think it’s way too early for EU5, mainly because there are entire continents with barely any flavor or missions (Americas, Africa, Central Asia, Middle East), critical features that could be improved upon without needing a brand new engine (colonization, more accurate diplomacy, military development), tons of flavor features that could be added and tinkered for more immersion without needing a new engine either (Government reforms and unique mechanics, internal state development, etc.)

Not to mention there’s an entire region of the world (which was pretty historically important) without a single tag (Oceania)

If EU5 were to come out, it should be only after EU4 is the best it can be within the current framework of the game. EU5 would likely overhaul core mechanics, such as warfare, monarch points system, trade, and colonization, and possibly add new features like pops and such so it feels less like a board game (of course if that’s what the community wants)

Then again, I don’t work for Paradox nor am I affiliated with them in any way, so don’t think too much about this. Just my opinion

 

[WindingArc]

I understand multiplayer, but I don't understand minmaxing outside achievements. It's just not something PDX games live up to (how could they with the ongoing AI bug cycle?).

PDX GSGs are actually amazing as RPGs, which is something they discovered near by accident with CK2. It's something they should lean into heavier.

I agree, but there is definitely a subset of players that focuses on squeezing every applicable bonus out of the game for any particular action.

I once saw a guy on these forums say Paradox had "ruined" EU4 for him by adding too many sources of development cost reduction, for example. He was upset at the number of places he had to remember to click to minimize his development costs, and the feeling that he'd played sub-optimally when he forget to take advantage of any development cost reduction.

 

[The Byzantion]

I would be okay with never seeing another update or dlc again if the ai was completely flawless. Imo flavor or map changes is something modders can always add-in, while ai is often hardcoded and more difficult to deal with. It's extremely important to get the ai to handle the features as well as it can. Especially because paradox games are often singleplayer games first.

 

[Don_Quigleone]

I still think it’s way too early for EU5, mainly because there are entire continents with barely any flavor or missions (Americas, Africa, Central Asia, Middle East), critical features that could be improved upon without needing a brand new engine (colonization, more accurate diplomacy, military development), tons of flavor features that could be added and tinkered for more immersion without needing a new engine either (Government reforms and unique mechanics, internal state development, etc.)

Not to mention there’s an entire region of the world (which was pretty historically important) without a single tag (Oceania)

If EU5 were to come out, it should be only after EU4 is the best it can be within the current framework of the game. EU5 would likely overhaul core mechanics, such as warfare, monarch points system, trade, and colonization, and possibly add new features like pops and such so it feels less like a board game (of course if that’s what the community wants)

Then again, I don’t work for Paradox nor am I affiliated with them in any way, so don’t think too much about this. Just my opinion

On the contrary, I think EU5 is long overdue. The game is almost a decade old at this stage, and there have been so many dlcs and updates that:
A) The cost is prohibitive for new players
B) There are many mechanics and features that were added that simply are not that good, and should be cut.
C) Many mechanics stand too much on their own and don't tie into one another.

While there are regions that need improvements, certainly, this is much better done from a new better foundation. For example, if South East Asia gets new mechanics, they should tie heavily into the trade system, and the trade system doesn't allow for a very interesting interaction there.

 

[Steel_atlas]

Diplomacy, Colonizing, Naval and institutions are the weakest aspects of Eu4.

Diplomacy needs to be way more granular.

Naval works fine locally but Naval on a global scale is a mess. I'm including cross continental land warfare in this. Fighting the Europeans outside of Europe is way to easy as the player.

Colonizing has too much opportunity cost, IMO colonies should be profitable to start and the downside should be that they become rebellious and can drag you into unexpected wars.

Instiutions are far to easy to spread and de facto you never see a meaningful tech difference between Europe and the Rotw

 

[Zaddy]

I understand multiplayer, but I don't understand minmaxing outside achievements. It's just not something PDX games live up to (how could they with the ongoing AI bug cycle?).

PDX GSGs are actually amazing as RPGs, which is something they discovered near by accident with CK2. It's something they should lean into heavier.

Hence why most of the great min/maxers (marco antonio, etc) have stopped playing the game. The AI is a pushover. Previously, the skill cap for this game is INSANELY high, regardless of some RNG elements. It was a good min/max game.

 

[Steel_atlas]

On the contrary, I think EU5 is long overdue. The game is almost a decade old at this stage, and there have been so many dlcs and updates that:
A) The cost is prohibitive for new players
B) There are many mechanics and features that were added that simply are not that good, and should be cut.
C) Many mechanics stand too much on their own and don't tie into one another.

While there are regions that need improvements, certainly, this is much better done from a new better foundation. For example, if South East Asia gets new mechanics, they should tie heavily into the trade system, and the trade system doesn't allow for a very interesting interaction there.

On the topic of trade I think local trade power needs to be reworked.

As end game PLC in Krakow I can own every province and have every trade boost going but unless I just take out every nation in Europe the node is a bad one since 20% will get diverted away because every nation will apply some trade pressure.

The answer with trade now is just conquer everyone

 

[master_kong]

Phew, that was hard. Also, I mostly love to role play but not "relaxed" or "casual". I also like to play optimal and min-max to some extent though not hardcore.

 

[Sapa Inca]

My preferred part is reliving history and trying diverge from history, but how someone already explained before in this topic:

I love doing "what if?" type scenarios like that. That doesn't mean I don't value historic integrity though, changing a historic outcome loses value massively when every AI is incapable of sticking to the rails either, which isn't to say I don't want the AI also doing odd things, but having some semblance of railroads isn't bad.

It's a really hard mark to hit, not going to pretend otherwise. One of my favorite things is looking at Europe if I'm playing as a ROTW nation that doesn't have visibility and seeing what's happened - have the Ottomans spread everywhere? Are the Teutons still alive? What's going on in Iberia?
I think having a general semblance of history that nations mostly adhere to but having the potential for things to go massively off track is the ideal, but no doubt hard to hit mark.

I agree completely with this opinion and I recognize that it is a hard mark to hit, but it is so satisfactory when you for example, playing like Venice and making a "what if" scenario where Venice becomes a global potency see Netherlands form and compete with you in Indonesia or when you playing in Europe finally gain a foothold in east Asia and encounter in 1600's a falling Ming and a emerging Qing.

 

[danielgue]

Put more work towards the AI to keep the things challenging as is the only way to keep players interested

Yes, please, please, please.

 

[Siddy00]

I forgot to add this in the survey, but I like the passive, more natural development growth in mods such as Common Universalis, or in CK3

 

[klingonadmiral]

As end game PLC in Krakow I can own every province and have every trade boost going but unless I just take out every nation in Europe the node is a bad one since 20% will get diverted away because every nation will apply some trade pressure.

Likewise, pre-1.30 Asian countries could control 1000s of kilometers of coastline and see zero trade benefits because they didn't have enough guys with the right kind of hat.

Regarding the survey, somehow I felt that it asked a lot of questions, but most of the questions were pointless.

 

[yerm]

You must wait a day before you can make another suggestion.

 

[bestbrian]

"Favorite expansion". After all these years, and thousands of hours, they've all kind of melted together. I can't even remember what mechanics came with which expansion.

 

[Steel_atlas]

Likewise, pre-1.30 Asian countries could control 1000s of kilometers of coastline and see zero trade benefits because they didn't have enough guys with the right kind of hat.

Regarding the survey, somehow I felt that it asked a lot of questions, but most of the questions were pointless.

Yeah and the survey doesnt help.

I think the trade system on a macro level its fine.

But you cant control it well.

And it makes you play ahistorically.

As the British I should be able to control the Bengal Trade hub with a few provinces.

But in game you need to control the whole trade region.

 

[Ylang]

I have no idea what type of game is tall or wide, or what is min/max and relaxed. Please, next time rephrase what are you exactly asking for.

The one thing that bothers me the most is the bottom right corner, tab called "history of a nation" I wrote a lot about it*, with many bugs, error that appear, what causes them, etc. so I hope it will either get fixed, or completely removed from the game, as it's current exist serves no purpose at all.

* In the last page of the survey, where was the place to add something from myself.