Europa Universalis IV

[Tommy4ever]

I wouldn't buy a [EU] game that only allowed for six points of play. Part of the fun of EU3 is hitting the day button and watching events unfold differently, the ability to play as any faction at any time. Suggested start dates for EU3 being 1453, sure, that's fine. But don't force it on the player. That's just stupid. The gap between 1071 and 1453 is huge, and the stuff inside it is similarly huge. 1071 we don't even have a united Mongolia, The Byzantines are in decline but are still a huge fighting force. 1453 we have the Byzantine's gone for good and Austria, France, and England as growing powers. And the Mongolian Hordes have come and gone. There's nothing fun about that. It's just six scenarios of play instead of a whole world of possibilities. I think anyone opting for that is a bit crazy, no offense.

I think he was just talking about the times that titles should start and end:

1071-1453 for CK
1453-1789 for EU
1789-1821 for game about Revolutions and Napoleon
1821-1936 for Vicki
1936-1953 for HoI

Within that you'll have all your different periods.

 

[George LeS]

...

I wouldn't buy a [EU] game that only allowed for six points of play. Part of the fun of EU3 is hitting the day button and watching events unfold differently, the ability to play as any faction at any time. Suggested start dates for EU3 being 1453, sure, that's fine. But don't force it on the player. That's just stupid. The gap between 1071 and 1453 is huge, and the stuff inside it is similarly huge. 1071 we don't even have a united Mongolia, The Byzantines are in decline but are still a huge fighting force. 1453 we have the Byzantine's gone for good and Austria, France, and England as growing powers. And the Mongolian Hordes have come and gone. There's nothing fun about that. It's just six scenarios of play instead of a whole world of possibilities. I think anyone opting for that is a bit crazy, no offense.

I don't think that's what he meant. His post, as I read it, means the game should cover 1453-1789. That doesn't exclude a choice of starts within that range (or any of the others).

BTW, I tried a start on 1453.1.1, & the ai managed to keep BYZ alive until after 1490, even expanding. At one point it was 11 provs, until they got dumb & DOW'd someone guaranteed by both France & Castille. (AI my butt -- that's AS, artificial stupidity.)

 

[Chamboozer]

There are mods that are completely free that offer it.

But I would pay somewhere between 20-40 dollars for it. 50 would be pushing it. I mean really pushing it, I'd need to feel comfortable they didn't screw it up before i purchased it for that much.

I wouldn't buy a [EU] game that only allowed for six points of play. Part of the fun of EU3 is hitting the day button and watching events unfold differently, the ability to play as any faction at any time. Suggested start dates for EU3 being 1453, sure, that's fine. But don't force it on the player. That's just stupid. The gap between 1071 and 1453 is huge, and the stuff inside it is similarly huge. 1071 we don't even have a united Mongolia, The Byzantines are in decline but are still a huge fighting force. 1453 we have the Byzantine's gone for good and Austria, France, and England as growing powers. And the Mongolian Hordes have come and gone. There's nothing fun about that. It's just six scenarios of play instead of a whole world of possibilities. I think anyone opting for that is a bit crazy, no offense.

He's talking about the start dates of games, not the scenarios of EU.

 

[scholar]

I believe they meant the 29th of may as a start date for 1453 effectively eliminating Byzantium.

And even with that I still wouldn't feel comfortable, I'd feel like I was getting less for my money. I want more for it, not a decreased amount. Why should we have to buy 3 games for a time line that is effectively or partially covered in one game? I'd rather extend the timeline of that one game to encompass a larger period than split it up into three or more games. You will never find a 100% accurate representation of the world in a Europa Universalis engine, separating it into separate games just seems silly when you reach this realization.

 

[Earl Uhtred]

I think he was just talking about the times that titles should start and end:

1071-1453 for CK
1453-1789 for EU
1789-1821 for game about Revolutions and Napoleon
1821-1936 for Vicki
1936-1953 for HoI

Within that you'll have all your different periods.

That's exactly what I meant. Sorry to muddy the waters.

 

[scholar]

That's exactly what I meant. Sorry to muddy the waters.

It's alright, sorry I misunderstood you. Although I'm still not in agreement, it's alot more agreeable to say that then just six scenarios of play.

 

[jdrou]

There are mods that are completely free that offer it.

Then what do you need Paradox to do?

But I would pay somewhere between 20-40 dollars for it. 50 would be pushing it. I mean really pushing it,

Then I guarantee it will never happen.

 

[scholar]

Then what do you need Paradox to do?

Then I guarantee it will never happen.

I made a very extensive list of suggestions, of which only the timeline was extended by mods. But everything else? No, mods don't offer that much.

I wonder why you think so. EUIII Complete was 30 dollars when I purchased it. HttT was 9.95.

 

[aHuman(oid)]

I made a very extensive list of suggestions, of which only the timeline was extended by mods. But everything else? No, mods don't offer that much.

I wonder why you think so. EUIII Complete was 30 dollars when I purchased it. HttT was 9.95.

If you're already willing to pay 40 dollars for EUIII, why would they give up being able to make CK, Victoria, & HOI sequels, and then some, to sell at the same price as EUIII? That's not even taking into account the extra 860 odd years that you presumably want for the price you're willing to pay for two expansions, which looks to be about $10 each.

I think that's what jdrou was pointing out.


Edit: I want to make it clear that I'd support many of the changes you advocated in your post, but if you want the timeline expanded by 1400 years, you'll have to either be willing to pay Paradox a reasonable amount for their work, comparable to what they get under the current system, or put up with using mods to extend the timeline.

 

[jdrou]

I wonder why you think so. EUIII Complete was 30 dollars when I purchased it. HttT was 9.95.

Because a single game that covered 1000-1945 or so would kill all of the other Paradox games (aside from Rome) so its revenue would have to at least equal all the other games combined to justify the time and effort involved. Probably would need even more since I'm pretty sure it would take more time and effort to create a single integrated game than separate ones with a tighter focus.

EDIT: took way too long to write that.

 

[scholar]

It would still be interesting to have. And a game that has a timeline that goes on for nearly 1000 years would lack the depth and detail of one that goes on for say 200 years or 400. So I wouldn't call it a franchise killer, just a diversion... But I do see your point.

 

[Annales]

What I would like to see in EU4:

Even more region details.
As a Genevan I'd love to take my republican city on a trip to become a mega country.
This would allow a more detailed map of evolving europe. For example when napoleon came in power over europe he was the one that redrew the european map into something very close to todays boundaries.

A tactical military option. Being able to influence battles using terrain and circling ennemies. Maybe getting inspired by RoP for this. I'm sure you get the picture.

 

[Aleksei]

tactical... :wacko:

 

[Annales]

Yes tactical. There's strategy on the grand scale and then the possibility to go in depth and give a severe spanking to the AI.
I'm fed up chasing armies who got on a spot 1 day before me and had time to get on a -2 hill and across a -1 river. If I see something like that I rethink my engagement and try some other way.
Merde!

 

[enf91]

Merde!

I thought it was "The Old Guard dies, it never surrenders." . Maybe your idiot commander thought he could defeat the enemy anywhere, only to have reality smack him in the face.

 

[Falconius]

When it comes to battles, how about this: You get to choose a "Tactic", with choices such as "Full Frontal Assault" or "Echelon" or "Outflank". Your choices would be limited at first, but better leaders and more advanced technologies would unlock more and more of them as the game went on.

This way, you would still have the quick battles you have now (as opposed to a tactical battle map like the Total War series), but you would still have a tactical strategy to use.

 

[Dylan305]

Stable/Better multiplayer system.

 

[unmerged(182703)]

I would like to be able to choose someone rather than my first born as heir if he/she sucks.

Of course, this will mean that you get a large revolt, and some other countries may claim your throne. But if you really need to get that decision enacted, it may very well be worth it. And if you want a daughter heir in a country that doesn't allow it you need to get a pragmatic sanction and other nations to agree.

Also when you do this, your first born heir and he/she revolts, some provinces automatically rebel according to his/her ADM skill, some of your army rebels according to his/her MIL skill, and a foreign power may support according to his/her DIP skill.

You should also be able to abdict from the throne for your heir and make your heir a general at a specific age.

Also for diplomacy, like many people have suggested - better alliances. Also I don't think anyones suggested this but (maybe they have I haven't read every post):

1.Have defensive alliances against one or more specific countries - ie Austria or Bradenburg will help the other only if invaded by Bavaria or Bohemia.

2.Have defensive alliances if you are invaded by more that one group - ie Austria and Bradenburg alliance. Austria gets invaded by Poland and Lithuania - bradenburg has no commitment. During this war they get invaded by Milan and Aqueilia, Bradenburg joins the war against the last invading group - Milan and Aquelia.


In addition, some UI additions:

1. Be able to flag a country for messages. So I can flag France, England, Netherlands, so that if any of them go to war I get notified. I don't want to know if anyone else in the world go to war, just those three.

2. Auto build roads, post offices, land enclosures ftw? Or atleast give them different icons! or leave them in the same column. (if there is a mod for this can someone let me know please!)

 

[TheCheeseMaster]

alliances are pretty stupid most the time

i.e. play as grandana, get allies with morrocco and algiers. Castile will go to war with you. Morocco and Algiers say they will fight with you but dont!

 

[Earl Uhtred]

Could it just be that the Castillians massacre the Moroccan / Algerine fleets early doors, preventing any support arriving in Europe?