EU3 Wishlist

[unmerged(485)]

Re: Re: Re: Inflation

Originally posted by Kaigon
Are you suggesting that the inflation should be lowered by a percentage of the inflation. (Like 2% -> 50 governours = no inflation (for a while)) Or should governours be totally of picture when it comes to inflation?

Actually, I am not really suggesting anything, but your idea has some merit if governors are to be used to control inflation. When you expand from a 4 province country to a 5 province country (in the example given above) would you then have an increase in your inflation? Haven't really thought it through, just know that as it currently stands it is not a very good system.

 

[unmerged(11821)]

Hi,
I hope these haven't been said before (I only had time to read the first few pages), but here are some of my ideas:

1. When you use your core provinces as an excuse to declare war on someone, and then wind up not taking any of those provinces, the game should punish you in some way, e.g. through decreased stability, increased revolt risk, or a worsened reputation.

2. If your monarch dies in battle, the one on the throne should die too, to be replaced by a regency government (represented with “average” stats). It just makes more sense that way (and it'll hopefully discourage people from sending their leaders to clear out vicious natives or something equally foolish).

3. Religious tolerance should be done like domestic policy sliders, with steps you get to move through events or after a certain period of time. It just doesn’t make sense for the government to be totally intolerant towards a religion one day and the exact opposite the next, with no stability change or anything.

4. Make the higher-level fortresses much more expensive. Spontaneous fortress-building events shouldn’t give you defenses beyond your tech level, nor would it make sense for a city’s inhabitants to build a huge Lv.6 fortress on a whim.

5. Gold shouldn’t cause inflation with Native Americans.

6. If you’re sending colonists halfway across the world, there should be a chance for them to land at the wrong spot and set up their colony there. Or if the place is already occupied, it'll just take time for the colonists to find their original destination. And colonies shouldn't be an all-or-nothing thing; maybe you could end up with a colony of only 50 people, or even a trading post.

7. More realistic war exhaustion, and negotiation with rebels.

8. Mediation between two other countries.

9. The opportunity to pressure other countries into, say, embargoing a certain nation (if you have a casus belli).

10. If the map could be changed (which it probably can't, but oh well), peace treaties could involve a redrawing of borders.

 

[unmerged(9384)]

I like the colonies being in the wrong spot suggestion best

 

[unmerged(11002)]

I list of all suggestion is on the last two pages. Look at the realy long post by me.

 

[Kaigon]

Originally posted by Sunflare
1. When you use your core provinces as an excuse to declare war on someone, and then wind up not taking any of those provinces, the game should punish you in some way, e.g. through decreased stability, increased revolt risk, or a worsened reputation.

2. If your monarch dies in battle, the one on the throne should die too, to be replaced by a regency government (represented with “average” stats). It just makes more sense that way (and it'll hopefully discourage people from sending their leaders to clear out vicious natives or something equally foolish).

3. Religious tolerance should be done like domestic policy sliders, with steps you get to move through events or after a certain period of time. It just doesn’t make sense for the government to be totally intolerant towards a religion one day and the exact opposite the next, with no stability change or anything.

The 1st could be like:
You can't demand a non-core province if you haven't already demanded all core provinces. Since you always can demand core provinces (double "price" if you don't control them), there shouldn't be a problem...

About the 2nd:
A monarch can be severly injured during combat, but still well enough to rule. This could rather be another thing -> Now, there's only "X has died", it could also be "X has been injured" and he will be gone for some time and come back to the former army (or navy). He could also be severly injured, but still be able to rule.
If the "former" army don't exist, the leader will die if it's on enemy land otherwise he will be transfered to closest army or perhaps gain 1000 infantry (since it could be silly if a conquistador travels across the atlantic to the nearest army). (All leaders should be equal in about this thing)

I'd like to add some to the 3rd:
You should be able to change tolerance against all known religions and when a new religion comes (explored or gained by event, like protestantism), that specific slider should be able to be changed more than "a step", perhaps 2 or 3 steps (if there's a ten step slider).

 

[unmerged(6788)]

Originally posted by Kaigon
The 1st could be like:

About the 2nd:
A monarch can be severly injured during combat, but still well enough to rule. This could rather be another thing -> Now, there's only "X has died", it could also be "X has been injured" and he will be gone for some time and come back to the former army (or navy). He could also be severly injured, but still be able to rule.

Not only that, some monarchs entered some campaings and them they opted not to enter in any others, even without being injured

 

[unmerged(10423)]

Leaders with bad stats: there is a couple of them already. I personally think of any leader with 2-2-2 as of a bad one.

Religion change (by Sunflare): that's a good idea. It is a kind of cheat that you can change such an important feature of your country just overnight.

Monarchs injured in battle: I cannot think of any monarch of the period who was injured in a battle this seriuosly that he couldn't go on campaining anymore in life, but remained on throne anyway... I would rather suggest putting a regency in such a case. As for monarchs taking part in just one battle, I would just get rid of them (such as Sigismundus III for Poland) for simplicity.

 

[Kaigon]

Ok, it might be historically wrong, but what the heck, it was only an idea which struck me.

 

[unmerged(11627)]

I hope I´´m not reurgitating old ideas here.

Tie war exhaustion to a continous decrease in stability thereby simulating a growing shortage of labor,malcontent in the populace and even more violent uprisings during long wars.

Occupied/Plunderd provinces should generate less trade.

Simma lugnt

 

[unmerged(8022)]

If you take a province you should get a bit of the enemys money because you have plundered it. That would be great

 

[Earl Uhtred]

Negotiating with rebels - like it. Also perhaps subsidies to temporarily reduce the revolt risk in critical provinces.

Actually, there should be more variation when rebellions occur. Right now all rebels appear as piss-poor irregulars, which means that events like the English Civil War which should split the country in two are commonly over in weeks as the enemy faction is steamrollered by superior government forces...

Perhaps the revolt risk for each province could be split between gentry and commoners - perhaps commoners split further between townsfolk and country - each group's revolt risk affected by different factors, with a happy aristocracy giving a bonus to cavalry recruitment and stability, a happy peasantry a bonus to taxation and possibly manpower, happy townsfolk boosting production and trade, and so forth. Each 'faction' would have different priorities, for example, declining the 'nobles demand old rights' event would affect only the aristocratic party, whereas maintaining armies and fleets beyond your means would hurt the peasantry.

Revolts could come in types depending on the prime cause...

Peasant revolts, as now; poor levies
Ethnic/religious revolts; better morale
Burgher revolts: some artillery, better chance provincial city revolts with rebels
Aristocratic revolts: some cavalry, artillery, morale and tech equal to mother country, better AI leads rebels to strike out with a view to toppling government

 

[unmerged(11002)]

Taxation slider. On for the enter country. On for each individual province. Of course there should be side effects like higher revolt risk, more coast for improving stability, etc.

I think they should add social classes like there are going to have for CK. But it would be nice if it was sby percent (Ex: El De France Aristocratics 15% 15,346, Burghers 35% 35,823, Peasants 60% 60,153). Say you recruit 1,000 cavalry say -250 are subtracted from the Aristocratic (many would pay for others to replace them, or just the Aristocratic and there retainers, and many cavalry would be farmers from the Country.

 

[unmerged(10894)]

Originally posted by Sunflare

10. If the map could be changed (which it probably can't, but oh well), peace treaties could involve a redrawing of borders. [/B]

Have them made into little provinces which u can number, and then quote certain numbers in peace and split the province, maybe?

 

[unmerged(10423)]

Originally posted by snuggs
...Also perhaps subsidies to temporarily reduce the revolt risk in critical provinces.

...like you exempt the province from tax. But then the revoltrisk should skyrocket when you (re)introduce it (see Catalunia) - in game terms you pay a little money now to reduce revoltrisk for, eee..., 1 year, but after that you get, eee..., +3 revoltrisk for 3 month, and only then it returns to normality.

Actually, there should be more variation when rebellions occur. Right now all rebels appear as piss-poor irregulars, which means that events like the English Civil War which should split the country in two are commonly over in weeks as the enemy faction is steamrollered by superior government forces...

Perhaps the revolt risk for each province could be split between gentry and commoners - perhaps commoners split further between townsfolk and country - each group's revolt risk affected by different factors, with a happy aristocracy giving a bonus to cavalry recruitment and stability, a happy peasantry a bonus to taxation and possibly manpower, happy townsfolk boosting production and trade, and so forth. Each 'faction' would have different priorities, for example, declining the 'nobles demand old rights' event would affect only the aristocratic party, whereas maintaining armies and fleets beyond your means would hurt the peasantry.

Revolts could come in types depending on the prime cause...

Peasant revolts, as now; poor levies
Ethnic/religious revolts; better morale
Burgher revolts: some artillery, better chance provincial city revolts with rebels
Aristocratic revolts: some cavalry, artillery, morale and tech equal to mother country, better AI leads rebels to strike out with a view to toppling government

I disagree with cannons (unhistorical) and better AI (how to implement this?), the rest is great. Plus I strongly recommend adding the possibility that your army dissolves or goes over to the enemy or to the rebels. IMHO this was a single reason why Europe could not be united by a single warmonger.

 

[Dunlaing]

I'd like to see a little less determinism in the event system.

It seems to me that if, for instance, Hannover were to annex Brandenburg, that Hannover would likely end up forging a powerful German state with many of the advantages granted by Brandenburg's later events. But in the EUII engine, those events go only to Brandenburg, no matter what the situation.

I like the way France is handled, for instance. Any suitable minor which rises to power in France will get the opportunity to receive the French events (by becoming France)

Maybe if certain events were triggered by some sort of "Dominance" variable? Later Brandenburg events could be triggered by any of several german minors who are Dominant in germany, for instance.


Also, the leaders in EUII die in battle both historically and randomly. This makes for a lower leader lifespan than historically. Leaders should either die in battle historically or randomly, not both. (If you want to give the leaders a chance to die in battle, you should take the leaders who died in battle in real life and extend their deathdates to the date they likely would have retired if they were not killed)

 

[Earl Uhtred]

Hmmm. How old was Gustavus Adolphus when he bought it? Imagine if Sweden had the use of him for a decade or two more...

 

[unmerged(11862)]

IN Eu3 i don't think more time would be a good idea i almost never finishis my games it would be better with more andvanced diplomacy like in the real world

 

[Kaeso]

I like the idea to link events/leaders with provinces.

 

[Pwyll]

I find leaders tied to provinces highly unworkable
In reality the ability to find just one leader brought up in the exact same society, customs, econmic environment...and political conditions...saying that his parents followed exactly the path that they did IRL ( were married, had the same children , lived in same area, etc. )

Its truly silly...I still believe having a random leader become available dependant on an algorithm of location, size and economic, political conditions of a nation is a better way to go.
In times of great peace, with no religious turmoil you rarely have the rise of a great military leader...conversely a smallish nation always at war with massive religous upheaval may have an abundance of great military leaders over a span of one hundred years. Things like this can be influenced by sliders. How many times we as players have been playing to have our best military leaders arrive exactly when we are in a golden age of peace..never to use them...or an ahistorically large empire built on steel and blood but because it had such humble beginings never had much if any leader file at all.

 

[unmerged(11879)]

Parliament

I guess this has already been discussed before but...
I think the king vs parliament struggle over power and taxes in many countries (think of England especially) should be implemented... I may be mistaken but I don't think I've seen it in EU I nor in II.
Also, the aristocracy could play a greater part in the game, I mean not only allying with foreign powers and demanding old rights or whatever (well not only through events...)
BTW Mercenary units shouldn't = regular army. They're much less reliable... could turn against you etc.

Does it make sense ?
hope so