Europa Universalis IV
- Thread starter Madmonkey24
- 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.
No, the Moroccans/Algerines have a fleet they just dont use it. They wont make any more ships or anything
What I would like to see in EU4, mmmh? 
(I haven't read all the answers of the thread, so there may be some repetitions here)
Well, I'm not really a warmonger and am definitely not playing EU to have total war battles (leave this to TW, that's the only thing they have, poor lads).
I also doesn't play trade-ish very much and would'nt know how to improve the economic system ; and I don't want some dusty 2D time-travelling graphics.*
So, it's going to be mainly about what I see as the main focus of the series : diplomacy.
First, I think I'd really love to see better peace treaties :
Then I think that it would be awesome if one could offer to purchase a province (or even a claim (= a core somewhere, like if my king bought the title "king of Jerusalem" from it's previous poor owner, I get a core on Judea for the next 50 years)), and see in the related box the reaction of the other country (based on your relations, your prestige and your diplomatic level, I presume), just like peace offers.
(On a related topic, I find it strange that you have to do this only one province at a time -so several times if you want to sell a whole region, and wasting diplomats (some kind of weird game balance?)-, and also strange that quite often a country will go "maybe" when I want to sell it a province of his own culture for free, just because they doesn't have a core.)
Well, speaking of that, I think that provinces could be offered as a gift, as another option than money (a much greater gift indeed, with greater relation improvement). Currently you have to sell it for freeconfused and you don't even gain any sympathy for the gesture.
It could be linked to royal marriages (dowry of the orcades to the Scottish crown from the norwegians IIRC) or other personal union stuff.
Well, I think it'll be all for now. I'll come back if I have to.
* : Well, it's not a main complaint as far as I'm concerned, even if nobody should refuse a graphic improvement in a general manner.
(I haven't read all the answers of the thread, so there may be some repetitions here)
Well, I'm not really a warmonger and am definitely not playing EU to have total war battles (leave this to TW, that's the only thing they have, poor lads).
I also doesn't play trade-ish very much and would'nt know how to improve the economic system ; and I don't want some dusty 2D time-travelling graphics.*
So, it's going to be mainly about what I see as the main focus of the series : diplomacy.
First, I think I'd really love to see better peace treaties :
- that aren't unilateral all the time. Sometimes you just didn't crush your ennemy utterly and feel like some sort of consensus would be nice.
"Here, I won a minor victory, so you're going to renounce your claims on these four provinces of mine, but I'll give up my core on this province of yours and give you 10d as a consolation."
- that allow minor partners to have some of the gains if they did their job (especially if they have claims or reasons to fight on their own, not simply following allies).
Maybe giving bad boy if the alliance leader uses his minors to cut a greater slice of the ennemy cake for himself in a selfish manner.
- while I love the new casus belli system, I feel that declaring war over some core province and getting four not-cored others in the peace treaty and NOT the one that brought you there is somewhat cheating : "I keep this province in their hands so I can come back later for another "free" war, yeepee!"
And I think it wouldn't go unnoticed to the other monarchs around and thus should provide various mali (muy mucho infamy, loss of prestige, lower relations with neighbours ...) to the one who does it.
"Here, I won a minor victory, so you're going to renounce your claims on these four provinces of mine, but I'll give up my core on this province of yours and give you 10d as a consolation."
- that allow minor partners to have some of the gains if they did their job (especially if they have claims or reasons to fight on their own, not simply following allies).
Maybe giving bad boy if the alliance leader uses his minors to cut a greater slice of the ennemy cake for himself in a selfish manner.
- while I love the new casus belli system, I feel that declaring war over some core province and getting four not-cored others in the peace treaty and NOT the one that brought you there is somewhat cheating : "I keep this province in their hands so I can come back later for another "free" war, yeepee!"
And I think it wouldn't go unnoticed to the other monarchs around and thus should provide various mali (muy mucho infamy, loss of prestige, lower relations with neighbours ...) to the one who does it.
Then I think that it would be awesome if one could offer to purchase a province (or even a claim (= a core somewhere, like if my king bought the title "king of Jerusalem" from it's previous poor owner, I get a core on Judea for the next 50 years)), and see in the related box the reaction of the other country (based on your relations, your prestige and your diplomatic level, I presume), just like peace offers.
(On a related topic, I find it strange that you have to do this only one province at a time -so several times if you want to sell a whole region, and wasting diplomats (some kind of weird game balance?)-, and also strange that quite often a country will go "maybe" when I want to sell it a province of his own culture for free, just because they doesn't have a core.)
Well, speaking of that, I think that provinces could be offered as a gift, as another option than money (a much greater gift indeed, with greater relation improvement). Currently you have to sell it for free
confused and you don't even gain any sympathy for the gesture.It could be linked to royal marriages (dowry of the orcades to the Scottish crown from the norwegians IIRC) or other personal union stuff.
Well, I think it'll be all for now. I'll come back if I have to.
* : Well, it's not a main complaint as far as I'm concerned, even if nobody should refuse a graphic improvement in a general manner.
I've posted before but I'll say another couple things I want to see.
CK style character traits for ruler only (avoids major database problems).
A list of titles eg King of England, France and Scotland.
CK style character traits for ruler only (avoids major database problems).
A list of titles eg King of England, France and Scotland.
Partial inheritances, e.g. Burgundy disappearing and giving its French territories to France and its Dutch lands to Austria.
Government Suggestion: Change Tribal Federation to allow advancement from Tribal Government into more "advanced" government without need of an event (i'm playing Vanilla so my fault if there is already something like this)
In Nomine converted those events (along with nation-forming events, westernization, and other similar things) into decisions that you can enact any time you fulfill the minimum requirements. Actually if you're running EU3 1.3 I don't think there are even the events to escape from tribalism (aside from some nation-forming events that also change your govt. type like Persia). I believe the events were only added in Napoleon's Ambition.
I do like the idea of +/- peace deals, where stuff is swapped. I also would like to see some way that a subordinate would have to get a portion of the deal, if they'd made a major contribution to the war. Say, proportioned to 1/2 the VPs they'd garnered. At least, if the leader gets the land, they should get a % of $ and prestige.
I am definitely NOT for greater tactical control. In fact, I'd like to see less. I'd prefer a stance given to forces: aggessive/cautious, with a check box or button like naval patrols, & defaulting to cautious. Then the armies would take it from there, so you couldn't retreat them yourself. Once combat starts, the generals/admirals are in charge.
I envisage it working something like this:
Aggressive:
+10% losses inflicted
+20% losses incurred
+20% attrition
Will retreat only if routed
12 day minimum combat
-10% speed in retreats
No morale recovery during retreats
Cautious:
-10% movement
Will retreat if morale falls below 50%
6 day minimum combat
+10% retreat speed
Can recover morale during retreat.
When battles are joined, the stances of the 1st units involved remains in play.
If more than one are present at start, the senior (1st in outliner), determines.
That's just the bare bones, but it'd mean (1) less micromanagement, and (2) balance vs the ai.
I'd also like to see "rank" brought back, as in EUII, except that now it'd be by flat seniority. This would be easy as each leader now has a # in the files. Lowest # is senior, except of course, for kings.
I am definitely NOT for greater tactical control. In fact, I'd like to see less. I'd prefer a stance given to forces: aggessive/cautious, with a check box or button like naval patrols, & defaulting to cautious. Then the armies would take it from there, so you couldn't retreat them yourself. Once combat starts, the generals/admirals are in charge.
I envisage it working something like this:
Aggressive:
+10% losses inflicted
+20% losses incurred
+20% attrition
Will retreat only if routed
12 day minimum combat
-10% speed in retreats
No morale recovery during retreats
Cautious:
-10% movement
Will retreat if morale falls below 50%
6 day minimum combat
+10% retreat speed
Can recover morale during retreat.
When battles are joined, the stances of the 1st units involved remains in play.
If more than one are present at start, the senior (1st in outliner), determines.
That's just the bare bones, but it'd mean (1) less micromanagement, and (2) balance vs the ai.
I'd also like to see "rank" brought back, as in EUII, except that now it'd be by flat seniority. This would be easy as each leader now has a # in the files. Lowest # is senior, except of course, for kings.
The swapping stuff in peace deals sounds like CK, and the generals and seniority (other than EU2, according to George, which I've never played) sounds like any AGE game. Hint hint.
Does the "swapping stuff in peace deals sounding like CK" makes it a bad idea?
I think it would pretty accurate, in fact.
Also, there are some ideas that have been posted here and that I really like (and some of my own) :
And some I don't like :
I'll edit that if I come up with something new.
I think it would pretty accurate, in fact.
Also, there are some ideas that have been posted here and that I really like (and some of my own) :
- Get Craig Mullins back on board, damn it!
- More nice pictures and moody drawings (maybe even based on your country/culture)
- Partial inheritances
- Slowing colonization a bit (currently the spaniards and portugese have all the caribbean by 1500)
- Allowing several countries to set a colony in a province (could lead to border or cultural frictions and open the way to wars).
- Allowing control over a province without gobbling it up (trade posts, satellite states, etc).
- Allowing a cultural and/or religious minority in a province (useful with colonies and annexations - and maybe removing the cultural conversion when a missionary is sent to a pagan province -).
- I don't get why you cannot convert outside your religious group. Didn't the bosnians and albanians convert to islam under ottoman rule? (Forced or not, that is.)
(In fact I don't see the point of "religious groups" except for classification in "true religion/heretic/heathen". There must be a way around it.)
- Improved colonial revolters. Currently it makes no sense having the USA revolting from both the norwegian, castilian and dutch colonies that might cover the territory, and thus having different cultures and religions.
- We always want more provinces, of course. But currently I often wonder about some of them. Like Gibraltar for instance. This tiny tiny little rock didn't play any major role in history before the british took it in 1704 (which is quite late given the start date of the game, and its uchronic nature makes it unlikely to happen again in your game), and I don't see why this should be set as a province while neither the Aland islands or the whole Anticosti island (rather large in comparison) aren't.
I'd really like if the provinces were drawn following cultures, or geographic particularities, and not because of the twentieth century borders. (Are you sure that the native americans inhabiting the provinces between modern Canada and the USA (for the most part of the game) had frontiers that straight? And the aborigines in Australia (this is to WWMod, I think)?)
- Separating Rome from the Vatican, to allow the formation of a centralized catholic italian country that wouldn't have to give up its capital to the pope afterwards? (Not sure about that one, I haven't played in Italy for a couple extensions)
- More religions available (and ways between them*)? Currently only two (almost one after several rebellions) for islam appears quite low.
* : no conversion allowed between orthodox and the other christian faiths? Why that?
- More nice pictures and moody drawings (maybe even based on your country/culture)
- Partial inheritances
- Slowing colonization a bit (currently the spaniards and portugese have all the caribbean by 1500)
- Allowing several countries to set a colony in a province (could lead to border or cultural frictions and open the way to wars).
- Allowing control over a province without gobbling it up (trade posts, satellite states, etc).
- Allowing a cultural and/or religious minority in a province (useful with colonies and annexations - and maybe removing the cultural conversion when a missionary is sent to a pagan province -).
- I don't get why you cannot convert outside your religious group. Didn't the bosnians and albanians convert to islam under ottoman rule? (Forced or not, that is.)
(In fact I don't see the point of "religious groups" except for classification in "true religion/heretic/heathen". There must be a way around it.)
- Improved colonial revolters. Currently it makes no sense having the USA revolting from both the norwegian, castilian and dutch colonies that might cover the territory, and thus having different cultures and religions.
- We always want more provinces, of course. But currently I often wonder about some of them. Like Gibraltar for instance. This tiny tiny little rock didn't play any major role in history before the british took it in 1704 (which is quite late given the start date of the game, and its uchronic nature makes it unlikely to happen again in your game), and I don't see why this should be set as a province while neither the Aland islands or the whole Anticosti island (rather large in comparison) aren't.
I'd really like if the provinces were drawn following cultures, or geographic particularities, and not because of the twentieth century borders. (Are you sure that the native americans inhabiting the provinces between modern Canada and the USA (for the most part of the game) had frontiers that straight? And the aborigines in Australia (this is to WWMod, I think)?)
- Separating Rome from the Vatican, to allow the formation of a centralized catholic italian country that wouldn't have to give up its capital to the pope afterwards? (Not sure about that one, I haven't played in Italy for a couple extensions)
- More religions available (and ways between them*)? Currently only two (almost one after several rebellions) for islam appears quite low.
* : no conversion allowed between orthodox and the other christian faiths? Why that?
And some I don't like :
- Timelines that stick to historical periods no matter what (these are uchronic games, so the "really important date" in real life doesn't mean anything in your game once you reach it. All researches, explorations, successions, wars ... have been changed, and so the historic milestones too).
- Reverting back to the old EU2 graphics.
- Reverting back to the old EU2 graphics.
I'll edit that if I come up with something new.
Last edited:
1. I didn't understand that objection, either. I don't see why you couldn't offer $ when demanding something else, for instance, or vice versa. Unless of course it would screw the AI.
2. That's what I'm trying to do in my mod. Unfortunately, very few people have tried it, so I've gotten scarcely any feedback.
I never said it was a bad idea. I said "hint hint" more to the developers to just copy and adapt the code they already wrote. It's a good idea. Why did you guys assume that just because I said some ideas "sounded like something from CK" that I was saying it was bad?
I just assumed you meant "whoa guys it's so déjà-vu! go get CK if you're looking for this stuff!", my bad.
I'm still not sufficiently fluent with english, it seems. Sorry for that.
I'm still not sufficiently fluent with english, it seems. Sorry for that.
It's OK. George from VA didn't get it either. I think the error was more in my communication than in your interpretation.
i dont agree there george.
i think tactical acumen is what makes this game great.
the big failing of CK is the simplicity of battles.
i think increased tactical detail in battles would be awesome, instead of the retreat fest we have now.
i fast forward the game pretty much till there is a battle, and if my guys faught on their own there'd be no reason to play the game.
i think tactical acumen is what makes this game great.
the big failing of CK is the simplicity of battles.
i think increased tactical detail in battles would be awesome, instead of the retreat fest we have now.
i fast forward the game pretty much till there is a battle, and if my guys faught on their own there'd be no reason to play the game.
You really should go get the complete series, yup.
Heir to the throne is wonderful too.
Heir to the throne is wonderful too.
i dont agree there george.
i think tactical acumen is what makes this game great.
the big failing of CK is the simplicity of battles.
i think increased tactical detail in battles would be awesome, instead of the retreat fest we have now.
i fast forward the game pretty much till there is a battle, and if my guys faught on their own there'd be no reason to play the game.
It may just be a matter of taste. But my view is that:
1. It's a strategic game. Tactical control seems out of place. For the people who made strategic decisions, all they could do is hope their generals did what they wanted. Even if you're talking about Napoleon, he couldn't be 2 places at once.
2. There's too much micro-managing involved, IMO. I'd like the system to make much of this pointless.
You can't make that comparison here, though. In-game, we are already doing a lot more than a normal king would be able to directly control. Some more tactical depth wouldn't change that, but it would make the game slightly better.
Again, it is a matter of taste, to a degree. But to me, it feels wrong to have as much control of battles as we do, plus it screws the AI, plus it forces you to micromanage.