Europa Universalis IV

[Prussia Rules]

I would like to see more information about the ruler and also his family tree, with option to marry the daughter/son to another Ruler's child, creating blood links between family's in europe, like crusader kings. And the political system, empire, should have more importance.

Agreed, except for the empire (I presume you mean the HRE). The Emperor of the HRE never had much power, it was almost purely a formal title with only great moral power, but practically no political power. So I guess the Emperor shouldn't get more power. Eventually it should get an sort of alliance with all members of the HRE, since the Emperor is the formal leader of the HRE and thus obliged to support his underlings (the soevereign rulers of all states in the HRE). This could however get problematic when Lüneburg or something is emperor and then one of the other HRE minors gets in war with France. That will make some butchering I guess

 

[ComteDartois]

That's not entirely true, the power of the HREs fluxuated over time. While they never had the sort of power that ancient Roman emperors wielded, they did serve some important functions that fit with the more uncentralised culture of Germanic chieftans, namely settling disputes and acting as a judge in legal matters between the member states. They could also excerise limited legal power within the states, such as when the Emperor Charles VI prevented the Elector of Brandenburg Frederick William I, from executing his son, the future Frederick II of Prussia, after he tried to flee army service in his youth. Instead Frederick I ordered his son to watch as his best friend, a fellow deserter, was executed instead.

 

[Orinsul]

Youre thinking about the Empire in the wrong way, It wasnt a nation or kingdom it was a loose confederation, think of it more as the U.N. of its day. Its purpose was to bring peace and stability to europe and largely in that it was a success its utterly untrue to say that the Emperor, that fact that the dark ages ended at all is a testament to that fact. The Highest authority in secular matters was the Emperor-Elect, in a dsipute between kingdoms the HRE could overule rome. If it hadnt of degenerated into a hereditary symbolic title it most likely would still be standing today rather than the E.U. which is in clear fact only a pale imitation of the empire with the edition of economic influence.

Anyway back to being a broken record, King and House are vital aspects of the period that are drastically required in the game but atleast in my humble opinion Characters are not the way forward. House and family politics are important but should not be dominant in terms of the game. And characters as instituted in Rome both over complicate and simplify the situation, you arnt playing a house but rather the invisible hand of the nation or atleast what will someday become a nation.
Maybe three or four houses in each nation or a system similar to advisor. Im still leaning towards my proposal from post 110 though so the brainstorming of alternates keeps straying back to the first.

 

[Skyman]

One thing I'd like to see is a new system for gaining tradition. Here's one version I've been thinking about:

Everyone should have a 'base tradition' depending on sliders/decisions/ideas - if you're above that tradition it goes down yearly, if you're below it it goes up (like prestige moving toward 0). This would represent the fact that the British navy became so dominant not through fighting tons of naval battles or discovering new sea provinces, but because they had a seafaring culture from which to draw skilled sailors. So with Britain having sliders toward naval, and a naval idea (maybe seahawks), their base naval tradition might be 20 or 30%, meaning that even if they hadn't fought a naval battle for a while they could recruit an admiral with some skill.

Land would work the same - a country like Prussia might have high land sliders/ideas and have a higher base tradition. This would make peace a little more desirable and make less aggressive AI nations better at defending themselves.

 

[Typhoon03]

I presume you mean the HRE

No, i was talking about the political system empire. The politcal system that i'm talking about is like feudal monarchy and administrative monarchy, i'm playing with portugal and i can have that political system, and i think that it should have more importance/bonuses than the others systems.
And one more question, anybody knows if paradox will do another expansion for europa universalis III or will they do the europa universalis IV????

 

[Prussia Rules]

No, i was talking about the political system empire. The politcal system that i'm talking about is like feudal monarchy and administrative monarchy, i'm playing with portugal and i can have that political system, and i think that it should have more importance/bonuses than the others systems.
And one more question, anybody knows if paradox will do another expansion for europa universalis III or will they do the europa universalis IV????

Okay, I understood you wrong. Thanks for correcting me Is Empire something from IN? Since I don't know it, but I only have EU3 and know NA.

 

[Willem IV]

yep, Empire is a form of government in IN.
Byzantine Empire is a 'Empire' in IN, you can convert into a empire by having 30 provinces.

you get 0.25 morale bonus

 

[13Foxtrot]

No, i was talking about the political system empire. The politcal system that i'm talking about is like feudal monarchy and administrative monarchy, i'm playing with portugal and i can have that political system, and i think that it should have more importance/bonuses than the others systems.
And one more question, anybody knows if paradox will do another expansion for europa universalis III or will they do the europa universalis IV????

I think we have seen the end of expansions since the "complete" edition just came out. May have another patch to 3.2 though.

Also, hoping for a victorian era game that bridges EU3 and HOI3

 

[unmerged(103624)]

Next-Gen

I have four main suggestions:

1. Make it more organic. It's been said that the Risk-style of the map is absurd, and I agree. Let the player draw his or her own borders and create his or her own forms of government.

2. Remove micromanagement. Let the player focus on the big picture - let the player use his or her imagination to really escape into an alternate history.

3. Don't use representative graphics. You don't have to render every soldier to make the 300,000 strong Imperial Army look bigger than the 1,000 man Duke's Guard.

4. Do your homework. Hire consultants to help. Get the knowledge from experts: anthropologists, historians, military strategists/historians, and political scientists can add depth to the game nobody else can.

Lastly, make this one better than great - make it orgasmic. Embrace the tenets of next-generation gaming, leaving the old systems behind. No more health bars or resource-gathering or sliding scales! I don't want to play an alternate English government - I want to be an alternate English government.

 

[Battlecry]

Sorry if this has been stated, but I'd really like to see a non-province-based map, where armies actually have to meet to engage rather than simply being in the same general vicinity.
Removing provinces as components would open up a whole new level of strategy based on terrain and key points (cities, strongholds, etc).

Also a more detailed military strategy system would be nice, not actual battles (I'll play TotalWar for this), but some sense that you can govern how your troops fight, and maybe win by ingenuity and inventiveness rather than pure might.

 

[Orinsul]

Ill agree with point four of post#149
but resist the other calls, were talking about a game in the EU series, not just a game made by the same people in the same time zone, Maybe make it so that province borders in the colonies were set at colonisation if something had to be altered but to scrap provinces is to scrap EU.
There are games out there about armies and warfare, EU is more than that and if too much focus and many of these posts are calling for is on the warfare side of it the games going to lose its niche.

 

[curufin]

Ill agree with point four of post#149
but resist the other calls, were talking about a game in the EU series, not just a game made by the same people in the same time zone, Maybe make it so that province borders in the colonies were set at colonisation if something had to be altered but to scrap provinces is to scrap EU.
There are games out there about armies and warfare, EU is more than that and if too much focus and many of these posts are calling for is on the warfare side of it the games going to lose its niche.

Yes, the game really needs to have some work done to make the non-warfare side of things consistently interesting.

 

[curufin]

It occurs to me that another way to nerf high-manpower countries, in the interests of historical plausibility, is to increase military maintenance when reinforcing armies & repairing ships. Right now reinforcement is "free" except for the manpower burned up. (I realize that if maintenance is below a certain level, reinforcements don't happen, but I don't think that's enough.) If you had to pay to reinforce, trading minors would benefit by comparison with big blobs.

 

[unmerged(39280)]

I'll repeat what i wrote in another thread.
No more pirates as units on map level. Make piracy an abstraction. Pirates should reduce income from tarrifs and/or trade. Make funding antipiracy actions like funding colonial maintenance or missionaries in 3.1 and/or by assigning ships to antipirate duty by removing them from your available units pool for the time they are used for fighting pirates.
No more micromanagement with patrolling/fighting pirates please.

Also the level of piracy should be more linked with politics. If all major naval powers fight piracy and are at peace with each other piracy should be very small (no base of operations). Otoh if many countries support pirates then they should flourish and be very difficult to fight.

 

[aburke]

Turning Over Control to the AI

I would love have the ability to turn over stacks to the computer. This would be useful later in the game when you have colonies all over the world and have to worry about multiple fronts. You would have several settings for stacks:
1. Hunt rebels.
2. If at war, defend territory.
3. If at war, retreat from enemies.

For ships you would have:
1. Patrol for pirates.
2. If at war, defend sea areas.
3. If at war, retreat to ports.

I am sure a lot more options could be added. This way, you can let the computer take care of some of the more pesky issues while you focus on your overall strategies. The AI wouldn't be as smart as you, so you lose some micro-managing control for increased playability. Since you get to choose which stacks are AI controlled, you as a player can custom tailor your level of control. And in multiplayer, it would be invaluable.

 

[unmerged(82794)]

I have four main suggestions:

1. Make it more organic. It's been said that the Risk-style of the map is absurd, and I agree. Let the player draw his or her own borders and create his or her own forms of government.

2. Remove micromanagement. Let the player focus on the big picture - let the player use his or her imagination to really escape into an alternate history.

3. Don't use representative graphics. You don't have to render every soldier to make the 300,000 strong Imperial Army look bigger than the 1,000 man Duke's Guard.

4. Do your homework. Hire consultants to help. Get the knowledge from experts: anthropologists, historians, military strategists/historians, and political scientists can add depth to the game nobody else can.

Lastly, make this one better than great - make it orgasmic. Embrace the tenets of next-generation gaming, leaving the old systems behind. No more health bars or resource-gathering or sliding scales! I don't want to play an alternate English government - I want to be an alternate English government.

the first one sounds pretty sweet, but hard to do. 3 does also, the rest is meh.

 

[Santôka]

God no, don't abandon the risk-style map. Look at the TotalWar series, going 3D and loosing the risk-style map has really only destroyed any chance of a strong, challenging, strategic AI. The risk map is perfect to help the AI, it can measure easily the forces at each border and plan "smarter" moves. Taking it away will harm the AI and its strategic behavior with stupid choices, stupid pathfinding issues and what-not... Thus destroying the players' enjoyment of the game...

 

[unmerged(82794)]

No, making your own borders is sweet.

 

[Santôka]

No, making your own borders is sweet.

That means keeping the risk-style map doesn't it? I'm only against the removal of the risk-style map, not the border modifying thingy...

 

[unmerged(123161)]

Yep, I also thought the same for Total war, at first real map sound awesome but it really killed that game.

As for EU4, I have only one wish; better AI (everything else is bonus)