EU3 Wishlist

[unmerged(13422)]

Governors and administrators

To prevent micromanagement of far off provinces taking too much of your time I think it would be a good idea to be able to appoint governors/administrators that could work much like vassals in CK, except it should be much easier to revoke these titles as the movement towards a centralized government had gone much further by the time of EU.

These governors could handle building province improvements and even defending territory in times of war. You should be able to decide excactly which provinces was to be ruled by one governor and you should be able to take control of armies from these territories if you preferred to.

There should also be a small risk that these governors could turn against you and revolt, but they shouldn't be counted as an independent country until they gained this privilege through peace negotiations. This risk should of course be effected by your political slidebars and international and domestic reputation.

 

[Jayavarman]

Like the above poster, I would want the AI to handle some things for human player to relieve micromanagement issues. Of course, the AI is never really good at these things, but it will demonstrate how the consequences of being a lazy ruler.

 

[unmerged(23437)]

I think Western Christian state religion needs a little reworking. This is how I reckon it should be done.

Reformed provinces
Eliminate all Reformed provinces and make them Protestant. Simply make them convert a little later than the historically "Protestant" provinces. This has a side-benefit in terms of permitting crossover into Victoria.

Reformed state religion
Reformed needs a bit of game-balancing, I think it's presently too weak. Reinstate the morale bonus (even if smaller) and either remove the tax penalty or heave the trade bonus up to 20%. They also need more missionaries.

Forced conversions
Only Reformed and Counter-Reformed can force-convert. They can force-convert Catholic/CRC to Prot and Prot/Ref to Catholic respectively. Ensure that forced conversions stick a bit longer. Give a percentage chance that the convert will receive a random province conversion (that should help it stick).

CRC <=> Reformed
All countries now get an "extremist = yes" or "extremist = no" tag, instead of CRC. That way, extreme Protestants will choose Reformed, extreme Catholics, CRC. The AI's preference should always be to convert to a sensible state religion above its extremism, though. So, extremist countries would be Spain, Austria, Papal States, Netherlands and Dutch minors, Helvetia, Scotland. England and France ought to get opportunities to go down their respective extremist routes, as well as stay moderate and ahistorical.

Miscellaneous
Perhaps a few random events offering countries with large heretical populations the opportunity to convert cheaply? Only to Catholic or Protestant.

Justifications
The most obvious effect is to render Reformed the Protestant equivalent of CRC. I think this is only fair to us Protestants, as we have been lacking a decent Extremist Religio-Nationalist Nutcase grouping and really do deserve one

It also moves forced conversions back down the agenda a little bit, but compensates by making it more likely that they will actually stick. Which I think we can all agree is helpful.

Oh, the other, unrelated improvement is this: an *option* to go strictly historical. In other words, a second event set with only one option in every historical event. Random events will still have choices, where appropriate.

I had another, but it's gone. I'll remember it while I'm playing this evening...

 

[Earl Uhtred]

I'm not sure Reformed should be eliminated as a province religion - it would render Presbyterians indistinguishable from Anglicans once assimilated, frx.

 

[unmerged(23437)]

I'm not sure Reformed should be eliminated as a province religion - it would render Presbyterians indistinguishable from Anglicans once assimilated, frx.

And so? They're both of them presently (in various manners) indistinguishable from Anabaptists, Baptists, Puritans, Lollards, Hussites, Mennonites, Zwinglians, Huguenots, *rambles off a big long list of Protestants, both Reformed and not* and Lutherans, if you want the other major Protestant state church grouping.

There's no reason to distinguish between the two, insofar as there was never a major quarrel between, say, the Church of England and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. They certainly didn't "split" over any issue, they simply arose as separate state churches, brought under one national roof with the Act of Union.

Anyhow, they'd be rendered different by their cultures (at least pre-Union). Post-union, we're reaching the stage where it doesn't make a difference.

Ultimately, I think we need to treat Reformed as the Protestant "CRC". Eliminating Reformed as a provincial religion allows us to do that, so that's why I'm particularly in favour of it.

 

[unmerged(27471)]

1453-1772. Slower gameplay, but smaller era.

And then a revolutions game from 1772-1848

I really like the idea. Let's face it, the EUII GC is already a bear to complete...I've never completed a single one. I think a smaller time frame could work out really well, especially if the game was more complex and indepth.

If you make 1453 the starting date, just make sure the Byzantine Empire is still around, just so I can bring it back from the jaws of oblivion.

 

[unmerged(27471)]

More than anything else (besides the AI that is) I would like to see the trade and econonomic model reworked. I think you could get some great depth in the game if you had some control over what your provinces produce. For example, the ability to switch between cash cropping and grain production (in times of war) would be killer. More varigation in trade goods would be most welcome as well.

More provinces would be sweet, especially in the eastern med. as well as a nicer looking map...like CK.

 

[unmerged(10894)]

If you make 1453 the starting date, just make sure the Byzantine Empire is still around, just so I can bring it back from the jaws of oblivion.

You'd be lucky. By the middle of 1453, the Ottomans had a 100k army as opposed to Byzantium's 8k-15k garrison (partially made up of Venetians and Genoans who were protecting their interests). If you could beat that, then you would definitely deserve to play them.

 

[unmerged(27471)]

You'd be lucky. By the middle of 1453, the Ottomans had a 100k army as opposed to Byzantium's 8k-15k garrison (partially made up of Venetians and Genoans who were protecting their interests). If you could beat that, then you would definitely deserve to play them.

The fact of the matter is that even against those odds, the Greeks almost held back the Ottoman armies.

 

[unmerged(23437)]

Just remember my other one.

What really annoys me about having vassals etc. in my core territory (as, say France) is that relations can drop without may wanting them to. Some option, for each country on whom you have a permanent CB, of being able to "Press Claims" or "Don't Press Claims" would be helpful (perhaps even to "Drop Claims"?) Then, the gradual degeneration of relations due to Casi Belli could be eliminated for countries you want good relations with.

Obviously, if they had a CB against you, they could still choose to press theirs.

 

[Skarion]

National Provinces

Thought this was pretty obvious, but I didnt see anyone post about it?

National provinces are the ones counted as your country, right?

So why not make provinces that have been your provinces under X years (100?) to become national provinces?

 

[the_genius]

So why not make provinces that have been your provinces under X years (100?) to become national provinces?

im supporting this one.... but maybe not 100 but 200 years later... and also no converting them into national provs like in EUII its defined.. maybe a step below that... (i cant come up with a name for that kind of provs)

i mean this, because national provs give so many bonuses and improvements that start making a lot of them will give a player a more insulting advantadge over AI...

 

[unmerged(28727)]

hmmm... I agree with not extending it too much. However I believe that some changes would be nice. Some small changes. Mostly in diplomacy the Papacy should have the option of crusade and excommunication. Also there should be a exchange system where you pay some ducats for an allinace. Another option would be to assinate the country's leader making stability fall or even frame another country.

 

[unmerged(18314)]

Wow, will there ever be a EU3?

 

[unmerged(10894)]

Wow, will there ever be a EU3?

I think a lot of people hope so, I mean, look at this thread, and the Petition for EU3 thread.

 

[unmerged(31065)]

Eu3?

Wow... EU3.. Like I dont spend too much time at the computer already...

What I'd like to see in EU3 is an exanded diplomatic engine, I think that the strength of EU2 lies greatly in how diplomacy is handled. As with Causus Belli's, and above all how peace resolutions / wars are dealt with.

However, something thats always annoyed me is how superficial the diplomacy engine is - its _far_ too easy to modify your relations with other countries if you only have the money / skill to do so.
A sollution to that problem would be to have _two_ relations values. Just because a country is positive to another country, doesent mean that the other country shares the same view. Naturally, they should be dependant of eachother to some extent - IE; if another country hates your guts, but you sort of think they're nice chaps, you'll start to realise over time that they really arent particulary nice chaps after all...

Another thing that would be good would be if you could 'drop' your causus' on other countries, in return for a small improvement in relations. (Or with the new system, they like you more, you are not effected)

Another thing is alliances - make it possible to have them much larger, BUT also make them harder to create - atleast between powerful countries - I've seen France, Spain and Austria in far too many alliances..

And yet another thing that could use an overhaul is how the computer views the world. It seems a bit too oppertunist as things are - far too eager to expand without bothering with seeing if they have a 'claim' or if the expansion makes sense geographically. The maps sort of get ugly after a while

I got alot more, but finally - I'd like to see the 'peace' options being larger. Sometimes I get 'stuck' with provinces that I have been more or less 'forced' to take, and want to get rid of - why not be able to trade them to interested parties, sell them or give them away - trade them against others or such. This option should naturally not be available to core provinces.

 

[Birger]

Wow, will there ever be a EU3?

Yup it sure will be, got that confirmed at the Paradox Con

 

[Mork]

Yup it sure will be, got that confirmed at the Paradox Con

Does the happy-druken-silly-dance.

 

[unmerged(26782)]

I feel an awful temptation to bump this thread up, like the copies are at Vicky and CK forums.

 

[unmerged(4253)]

I would like to see the game be more involved with dynastic afairs. That is to say, what family reins on the throne. Through events or what not, random or historical, i would like to see stability penalties for changing dynasties and/or stability benifits for keeping the same dynasty. Perhaps a dynasty could fall if things go terrbily wrong too. This would help reflect the historical situations that really dominated the politics of most nations, especially the Habsburg Empire and France.