Are we talking about what we want, or trying to predict what they'll do? Because what they'll do is what makes money, but what I want is probably not what their average customer wants.
The setting of EU (Europe's Early Modern period) is extremely interesting and varied. In an attempt to cover all of the variety, the games have to use abstraction and general systems. Sometimes, the combination of these general systems leads to the sandbox playing nothing like history, which I think is quite sad. I don't mean things have to happen the same way they did in history! That in itself is boring, as then I would have no influence and should not be playing a game. I mean the same themes that pervaded this period of history, this setting, should be present in the gameplay. I'm going to list some of the ones that are important to me, and then maybe I'll write some suggestions for ways to do them some other time.
- Shifting Alliances (evolving to Great Powers and balance-of-power politics by the endgame)
- Change in Government (feudalism -> bureaucracy/centralization -> revolution)
- Religious conflicts (catholicism vs protestantism, relations with Pope, ruler religion vs common religion)
- Exploration (uncertainty, trade as primary motivation)
- Colonization (resource-rich lands, colonial wars, overpopulated homeland, class mobility, independence)
- Rise and Fall of Empires (Stagnation/Decay vs Innovation, talented/incompetent rulers)
- Internal Conflict (factions in government, foreign sympathies, inheritance concerns)
- Spread of knowledge (renaissance, enlightenment, global trade, missions, westernization)
Some of these don't work as well outside Europe, and there's a reason why this game has the name it does. I hope there is more effort put toward making the game feel right to play as a European major or secondary power, with less focus on the ability to play every random minor and non-European country (or even those that aren't countries). This historical period is significant because of the meteoric rise of Europe on a global scale and the theme that ties the timeframe together is the creation of the modern nation-state. Trying to make not-that experience enjoyable is inefficient for this game, and would work better in its own game.
But most important to me is that the game not be a map painter. I know we spend a lot of time looking at the map and so it is inherently satisfying to see the change over time, and inherently boring to not change the map. But I think that means the game needs to add interesting mechanics that don't involve the map! Government, factions, and internal development could be more interesting. I don't think an in-depth dynastic or character system like CK or Imperator make sense here, but providing something worth spending time on other than the map is crucial.
Also relevant is that decline of your empire not feel like losing. Constant victory and expansion is boring, but decline often feels like defeat, and players will quit. Giving a win condition or making the game more amenable to playing with other humans (real competition) could help, in tandem with making decline still worth fighting against (lasting longer is worth more points, for example). This might mean changing the game to be simultaneous turns rather than real-time pauseable, though I don't see them doing that.
But that brings me to my last point, which is that this game really has 2 different modes of play. One is a sandbox vs the AI, where you can try over and over again to abuse whatever weird thing you want and create zany achievements. This is certainly fun for a lot of people, but the fact that the options are endless means to me that they lack all meaning. If I *can* do anything, that means everything is too easy. That means I'm spending more time looking for a loophole in the game rules than strategizing in a balanced action ecosystem.
If not strategy, then at least I can appreciate this mode for the story I create through play. However, the generic-ness of the systems so that any country in the world is enjoyable to play really hampers the ability of the game to tell an interesting story, especially when coupled with the lack of difficulty. There's no ebb and flow, just expansion and more expansion. If they want to focus on this aspect of the game, I hope they do more to make the story feel like it has meaning.
The other mode of play is a diplomatic game vs other people. This is where I think EU's setting would shine, and I think EU should move more toward this style of gameplay (even if ultimately single-player). The thematic elements I listed (shifting alliances, rise and fall of empires, taking advantage of others' internal conflicts, direct religious/revolution conflicts, indirect colonization/exploration races) are an excellent breeding ground for interactive gameplay. There's a reason why EU was originally a board game! My hope is that there is more focus placed on making multiplayer really work well. I don't mean lack of bugs, but rather that the game is conducive to getting a bunch of people together to play a good chunk of campaign.
