Greetings to everyone spectators, commentators, developers, historians, and intellectuals alike.
I wish to give to the design of this game by posting some numbered suggestions with the goal of improving overall game-play.
Let me start my post by praising it on the areas well done, as all good things deserve due credit.
From all of the game publishers I have seen so far, paradox seems to be the only publisher to get history and gaming correctly. Not only do they assist in the process of learning geography, theology, political science, economy, bellicology, administration, history, anthropology, philosophy and many more topics (These are the ones I can think of), but in my opinion, and as we all understand and have come to the conclusion from playing titles such as Europe Universalis 4, Crusader Kings 2, March of Eagles, and Victoria II that opinions are relative that being said please do not take my words literally, I encourage open debate but, try to stay away from comments which do not assist anyone, including the commentator.
Now on to my suggestions, if any of the suggestions are currently available for the game then please demonstrate how I can better access them with a reply. I may know the history, if anything, but I might not know the game as many veterans do.
1. Player "Ambitions of War" screen and Consideration of opponent forces for A.I: Now I have read a lot of history throughout my life, Hell I made a title for myself in it, but this is a problem I continuously ran into. I ally the A.I, because as well all understand, survival of the fittest in the name of the game in history. Many times the A.I will ask you to join a war, as you, the player would in a battle. Now, personally when I fight with an ally, I like to give them land to improve my opinion of them and because it is the "relatively" right action to undertake. I suggest though that paradox please make a section in the war screen where the player may suggest their "Ambitions of War". Under this screen the play can list any A.I provinces that they desire in the course of the war so that the A.I may grant them this as part of the peace treaty. I realized how dire this suggestion is because I find myself waiting to make a decision of declaring war on another A.I, but they will reluctantly beat me to the declaration with no consideration for co-belligerents near them or the measure of their strength against yours. Naturally I have to reject the absurd declaration of war (Example Russia asking me to declare war on the Commonwealth, Spanish Empire, Netherlands, Persia, and Austria. I am playing as Italy in the game) causing me to lose an alliance and prestige for taking the obviously understandable option of not going to war with your closest neighbors and getting massacred for an eventual peace treaty not benefiting you at all. Even if it would cost more diplomatic points to have more "Ambition of War" the final result will lead to a more positive game-play.
2. Rebellions act as allies and do not battle with the player, if the player at war with the nation they are rebelling against. Improved rebel interaction: Yesterday as I mentioned in the superscript, I was playing as Italy and declared a nationalist war on Spain while Nationalist rebels were seizing the lower half of the Italian peninsula. A suddenly 30 regiments decided to attack me when I am part of their nationality and if not in the game eventually will be (historically) then lost quite a lot of units. I find that it sort of makes no sense for that to occur unless they are inciting a rebellion on you. Even if they are passing through your territory they should just be neutral or friendly if assisting you. Imagine a scenario where I'm a Moroccan rebel trying to break from the French side of Morocco and stumble on to the Spanish controlled side and just decided to attack them for no reason, especially when they are not a vassal nor part of the same nation. It doesn't make sense and never will having rebel groups attack a nationality that's not actively not harming or endangering their interest nor themselves, if anything that's completely against the point. I think this could even be improved by having the separatist ask you to declare war on their nation with the same mechanic an A.I asks for an alliance or royal marriage. This can open so many possibilities for interesting game play.
3. Additional Causus Belli depending on government and ideas: This is as clear as it sounds, I think certain causus belli should be delegated for the governmental and ideas chosen, a quick example is a "Liberation" casus belli on the completion of the "Humanitarian" ideas or "Coup de Etat" for covert ideas. Historically nations have had a huge variety of causes to go to war.
4: No loss of Prestige for gifting provinces to vassals or Allies: I was playing as Italy and gifted my former colony now ally United States of America provinces I took from Spain and lost prestige. This makes no sense, imagine if when Americans undertook the "Louisiana Purchase" from France, Alaska from Russia, Philippines/Puerto Rico from Spain, or when England purchased Manhattan from the Dutch they would have all lost prestige. If anything that should immensely improve relations and should appear as an alliance style flag for a country offering to buy your land. Oh, I also believe the inverse should happen where you should be able to buy/vassalize land, nations, alliances, etc. with ducats.
5. Improvement to Client States: Extending the range of client states. I would like to make a vassal in Asia (Future Taiwan) / Africa (Future South Africa/ Mozambique/ Angola Regions) and Indonesia as Italy, but I cannot when historically this could have been possible. I validate my point because if I could form "Australia" simply by delegating independence, then I should be able to form another nation in the same region.
6. Random World Generator: I love the random new world generator, but lets us take things a bit further and add more appeal to a truly customized game. You choose your Religion, Tech, Culture, etc. And, a new map with so many provinces as you selected will be randomly generated for the "old world" as a companion to the "new world" generator. Historically this could have also been possibly because since we may decide political boundaries, as humans we cannot decide the physical composition of earth. Therefore, all of earth's topographical features are to some extent "random". Take for example how Lake Michigan happens to look like Sweden (physically), it could have looked like anything else. I could also see how this was avoided because a game called "Europa Universalis IV" would have to include Europa right? But if you think about it, anything is valid for that name, my name could have been "Europe" and the continent would have been called Equus, Asia, Westlandia, etc. (Insert anything you wish) for all we know. Names, locations, luck, nations, etc. all of that is very easily based off luck, even language is.
(If you want more information on this, I could suggest a book I wrote on the subject while working on my Master's dissertation)
7. Random Iron man: I love iron man so you're not tempted to cheat, but I hate that the "Lucky Nations" are enabled. What constitutes "Luck" and how does a nation achieve it? Since everything is essentially and to a great degree "random" (Sort of how your born without predetermining your situation, status, class, gender, etc. But rather create yourself after existing) I believe lucky nations is just for a "purely" historical game-play (even that isn't 100% true to history). I obtained this idea from my philosophy studies (2nd Degree) under which I became an existentialist.
8. Nation Name Modifier: You should be able to change your nation's name/flag any time you wish to accommodate for the lands obtained. This has occurred continuously throughout history and adds a level of interesting and fun game system.
These are all I could think of for now. I would be more than happy if the community respectfully shared their intrigue with me and build constructive criticism. As I continue to play I will more than happily write down comments and notes. I usually play with a history book for reference to see what could have changed or how a certain problem was caused, this also assists in using past ideals to improve game-play with realistic or close too realistic. However, the game's producers are ultimately in power to determine the relative range they decide to interpret or decide history under.
I hope you all enjoy reading, and have a great day.
I wish to give to the design of this game by posting some numbered suggestions with the goal of improving overall game-play.
Let me start my post by praising it on the areas well done, as all good things deserve due credit.
From all of the game publishers I have seen so far, paradox seems to be the only publisher to get history and gaming correctly. Not only do they assist in the process of learning geography, theology, political science, economy, bellicology, administration, history, anthropology, philosophy and many more topics (These are the ones I can think of), but in my opinion, and as we all understand and have come to the conclusion from playing titles such as Europe Universalis 4, Crusader Kings 2, March of Eagles, and Victoria II that opinions are relative that being said please do not take my words literally, I encourage open debate but, try to stay away from comments which do not assist anyone, including the commentator.
Now on to my suggestions, if any of the suggestions are currently available for the game then please demonstrate how I can better access them with a reply. I may know the history, if anything, but I might not know the game as many veterans do.
1. Player "Ambitions of War" screen and Consideration of opponent forces for A.I: Now I have read a lot of history throughout my life, Hell I made a title for myself in it, but this is a problem I continuously ran into. I ally the A.I, because as well all understand, survival of the fittest in the name of the game in history. Many times the A.I will ask you to join a war, as you, the player would in a battle. Now, personally when I fight with an ally, I like to give them land to improve my opinion of them and because it is the "relatively" right action to undertake. I suggest though that paradox please make a section in the war screen where the player may suggest their "Ambitions of War". Under this screen the play can list any A.I provinces that they desire in the course of the war so that the A.I may grant them this as part of the peace treaty. I realized how dire this suggestion is because I find myself waiting to make a decision of declaring war on another A.I, but they will reluctantly beat me to the declaration with no consideration for co-belligerents near them or the measure of their strength against yours. Naturally I have to reject the absurd declaration of war (Example Russia asking me to declare war on the Commonwealth, Spanish Empire, Netherlands, Persia, and Austria. I am playing as Italy in the game) causing me to lose an alliance and prestige for taking the obviously understandable option of not going to war with your closest neighbors and getting massacred for an eventual peace treaty not benefiting you at all. Even if it would cost more diplomatic points to have more "Ambition of War" the final result will lead to a more positive game-play.
2. Rebellions act as allies and do not battle with the player, if the player at war with the nation they are rebelling against. Improved rebel interaction: Yesterday as I mentioned in the superscript, I was playing as Italy and declared a nationalist war on Spain while Nationalist rebels were seizing the lower half of the Italian peninsula. A suddenly 30 regiments decided to attack me when I am part of their nationality and if not in the game eventually will be (historically) then lost quite a lot of units. I find that it sort of makes no sense for that to occur unless they are inciting a rebellion on you. Even if they are passing through your territory they should just be neutral or friendly if assisting you. Imagine a scenario where I'm a Moroccan rebel trying to break from the French side of Morocco and stumble on to the Spanish controlled side and just decided to attack them for no reason, especially when they are not a vassal nor part of the same nation. It doesn't make sense and never will having rebel groups attack a nationality that's not actively not harming or endangering their interest nor themselves, if anything that's completely against the point. I think this could even be improved by having the separatist ask you to declare war on their nation with the same mechanic an A.I asks for an alliance or royal marriage. This can open so many possibilities for interesting game play.
3. Additional Causus Belli depending on government and ideas: This is as clear as it sounds, I think certain causus belli should be delegated for the governmental and ideas chosen, a quick example is a "Liberation" casus belli on the completion of the "Humanitarian" ideas or "Coup de Etat" for covert ideas. Historically nations have had a huge variety of causes to go to war.
4: No loss of Prestige for gifting provinces to vassals or Allies: I was playing as Italy and gifted my former colony now ally United States of America provinces I took from Spain and lost prestige. This makes no sense, imagine if when Americans undertook the "Louisiana Purchase" from France, Alaska from Russia, Philippines/Puerto Rico from Spain, or when England purchased Manhattan from the Dutch they would have all lost prestige. If anything that should immensely improve relations and should appear as an alliance style flag for a country offering to buy your land. Oh, I also believe the inverse should happen where you should be able to buy/vassalize land, nations, alliances, etc. with ducats.
5. Improvement to Client States: Extending the range of client states. I would like to make a vassal in Asia (Future Taiwan) / Africa (Future South Africa/ Mozambique/ Angola Regions) and Indonesia as Italy, but I cannot when historically this could have been possible. I validate my point because if I could form "Australia" simply by delegating independence, then I should be able to form another nation in the same region.
6. Random World Generator: I love the random new world generator, but lets us take things a bit further and add more appeal to a truly customized game. You choose your Religion, Tech, Culture, etc. And, a new map with so many provinces as you selected will be randomly generated for the "old world" as a companion to the "new world" generator. Historically this could have also been possibly because since we may decide political boundaries, as humans we cannot decide the physical composition of earth. Therefore, all of earth's topographical features are to some extent "random". Take for example how Lake Michigan happens to look like Sweden (physically), it could have looked like anything else. I could also see how this was avoided because a game called "Europa Universalis IV" would have to include Europa right? But if you think about it, anything is valid for that name, my name could have been "Europe" and the continent would have been called Equus, Asia, Westlandia, etc. (Insert anything you wish) for all we know. Names, locations, luck, nations, etc. all of that is very easily based off luck, even language is.
(If you want more information on this, I could suggest a book I wrote on the subject while working on my Master's dissertation)
7. Random Iron man: I love iron man so you're not tempted to cheat, but I hate that the "Lucky Nations" are enabled. What constitutes "Luck" and how does a nation achieve it? Since everything is essentially and to a great degree "random" (Sort of how your born without predetermining your situation, status, class, gender, etc. But rather create yourself after existing) I believe lucky nations is just for a "purely" historical game-play (even that isn't 100% true to history). I obtained this idea from my philosophy studies (2nd Degree) under which I became an existentialist.
8. Nation Name Modifier: You should be able to change your nation's name/flag any time you wish to accommodate for the lands obtained. This has occurred continuously throughout history and adds a level of interesting and fun game system.
These are all I could think of for now. I would be more than happy if the community respectfully shared their intrigue with me and build constructive criticism. As I continue to play I will more than happily write down comments and notes. I usually play with a history book for reference to see what could have changed or how a certain problem was caused, this also assists in using past ideals to improve game-play with realistic or close too realistic. However, the game's producers are ultimately in power to determine the relative range they decide to interpret or decide history under.
I hope you all enjoy reading, and have a great day.
Upvote
0
