EU3 Wishlist
- Thread starter unmerged(5910)
- Start date
-
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.
bagoj said:
Yeah, but the issue here is that as a player you are typically 100% focused on your economic development. Check out the AI, they are never fully bult by 1600. And historically that is far more accurate. If anything, I think the current province improvements need to be spaced out MORE.
I've got one wish, in matter that is, be me extremely important, cruitial for realism of the game: ANNEXATIONS. In real history it didnt work like this - just to click "annex" button. Absolutely not. This is more important than all the rest of this list.
PaxMondo said:
You would not believe how agressive expansionistic I am.
...or would be without this beautifully implemented BB system. I just go with this old strategy that worked in many other games: to build up the economy first and then focus on military.I like it too what you proposed. What really bothers me is that I can not improve my old cities any further in the second half of the game.
I would like....
Some way to stop 1 province minors declaring war agaist their +10tech lvl 20 provinces neighbour thus draging all the alliance into certain defeat.
Maybe with the new alliance leadership rules you could actualy make it so all DoWs must be allowed by the leader, and if they're not, the declarer would have the option to go on with it (and the alliance would not help him), or just do nothing.
Some way to stop 1 province minors declaring war agaist their +10tech lvl 20 provinces neighbour thus draging all the alliance into certain defeat.
Maybe with the new alliance leadership rules you could actualy make it so all DoWs must be allowed by the leader, and if they're not, the declarer would have the option to go on with it (and the alliance would not help him), or just do nothing.
Take away the entire horrible leader-in-alliance-is-leader-in-war-thing. It's ahistorically as well. There's many examples where the "not-leader" (Maybe a "leader" never existed, but at least the major power in the alliance) made peace when the leader didn't want it to happen, or wasn't involved.
I would also like...
the end of Shock combat phases where one side suffers no casualities... I mean, wtf?
the end of Shock combat phases where one side suffers no casualities... I mean, wtf?
Give Poland possibility to stay in latin tech group in the The Act of Union-'Rzeczpospolita Polska event - this event has two options - first ( Enact the Union ) gives cores, lithuanian culture, Poland is annexing Lithuania and it falls to orthodox tech group - second - Keep it a loose structure - doesn't change anything in the relationship between Lithuania and Poland ( at least not too much...), Poland decides to not unite with Lithuania, but it's stil falling to the orthodox tech group ( altough I don't know why really...).
Second option is suggesting that Poland is still concentrated on the eastern policy, but it doesn't want to unite with Lithuania - but falling to the orthodox tech group is really weird - I don't see a reason for it - without eastern prov's, Poland would be still "western" type of country. That's why I suggest making third option, where Poland can maintain latin tech group, or redesigning second one ( similar to AGC-EEP ).
Second option is suggesting that Poland is still concentrated on the eastern policy, but it doesn't want to unite with Lithuania - but falling to the orthodox tech group is really weird - I don't see a reason for it - without eastern prov's, Poland would be still "western" type of country. That's why I suggest making third option, where Poland can maintain latin tech group, or redesigning second one ( similar to AGC-EEP ).
Faello said:
You could edit the event yourself it wouldn't be hard at all. If you haven't already that is.
I do not wish to offend no one, but with or without Lithuania Poland belongs to the East. I would even argue to put Austria and the easternmost german minors in the orthodox techgroup around 1600. (Some of them could be put back later on though.) The game is correct about recognizing that IRH Poland did not benefit as much from the highly lucrative transatlantic trade and colonization as Western European powers did, so it could not compete them on equal terms.
I like playing Poland and I really enjoy being in the orthodox group, otherwise the western dogs would get a huge neighbor bonus.
Some players exploit the game by annexing Lithuania before the event and thus remaining in the latin group. I think this exploit is to stopped by for example making a separate event to shift to orthodox (or incorporate the event in the 'Pact Conventa' and remove its triggers).
I like playing Poland and I really enjoy being in the orthodox group, otherwise the western dogs would get a huge neighbor bonus.
Some players exploit the game by annexing Lithuania before the event and thus remaining in the latin group. I think this exploit is to stopped by for example making a separate event to shift to orthodox (or incorporate the event in the 'Pact Conventa' and remove its triggers).
don't know if this has been mentioned already but eu3 should have a dynastic component like ck...sooooo awesome
A dynastic RPG element would not be implemented well in this time period, nor be appropriate, especially considering the scope of Europa Universalis. EU II should not be that revolutionary.el_dude said:
City symbols and images shouldn't be connected to the country but to region.
More types of troops that change over the time would also be great. Would give the game a little more - not too much - combat deapth.
As I already said, a peace command. Various ethnicities/religions in one province, an improved trading system.
A highly detailed map based on satellite imagery with many provinces and the opportunity to represent a lot of the small principalities in the HRE for example would be great.
More types of troops that change over the time would also be great. Would give the game a little more - not too much - combat deapth.
As I already said, a peace command. Various ethnicities/religions in one province, an improved trading system.
A highly detailed map based on satellite imagery with many provinces and the opportunity to represent a lot of the small principalities in the HRE for example would be great.
Jayavarman said:Woot. Found my old suggestions. I still stand by them.
The fortress garrison and dismantling is a good Idea. I support it wholeheartly.
1.Most inportent, do not make the game too complicated.
2.AI functions fore less importent tings so newbeis can lern the inportent tings first.
3.More pagan religions.
4.Someting about germany and minors there. If you make the provinces to small you have a hard time see them. Maybe someting so that there can be several minors in every province.
5.Make it possible for a contry to controll only a city just like some german minors. Maybe make so it is a city part and a contyside part of every province or someting like that
6.Do someting about the relations funtion. Countries always get -200 in relations after a while. To get -200 you should have been in war many times and beside that should many badboy points be involved. And contries didn't chose allied due to relations but who it was wise to ally with at the moment.
7.Make Portugal mostly not discover america before spain.
8.The religion sliders should not be as free as it is. e.g. If I'm sweden I shouldn't be able to set any religion lower than protestant and not be able to put pagan higher than catolic.
9.Shorten the time frame to 1453-1789 as Jayavarman said. Nappy should have his own game.
2.AI functions fore less importent tings so newbeis can lern the inportent tings first.
3.More pagan religions.
4.Someting about germany and minors there. If you make the provinces to small you have a hard time see them. Maybe someting so that there can be several minors in every province.
5.Make it possible for a contry to controll only a city just like some german minors. Maybe make so it is a city part and a contyside part of every province or someting like that
6.Do someting about the relations funtion. Countries always get -200 in relations after a while. To get -200 you should have been in war many times and beside that should many badboy points be involved. And contries didn't chose allied due to relations but who it was wise to ally with at the moment.
7.Make Portugal mostly not discover america before spain.
8.The religion sliders should not be as free as it is. e.g. If I'm sweden I shouldn't be able to set any religion lower than protestant and not be able to put pagan higher than catolic.
9.Shorten the time frame to 1453-1789 as Jayavarman said. Nappy should have his own game.
Snake IV said:
It is less a matter of complexity than it is a matter of transparency- especially in financials. EUII does a great job of making a lot of things a mystery. It isn't readily apparent what the relationship between province income and tax revenue is for example and when you get that. The whole monthly and annual thing also adds a layer of complexity that isn't apparent right off the bat especially how the merchants feed into it as monthly revenue.
Complex is good, the game is and should be deep. Inpenetratable is another thing entirely.