General suggestions from longtime player

[Willi123]

Hi Paradox,

I am playing EU4 for many years now and have thousands of play time in the game, so you did a great job I guess, but to be honest, CK3 has more and more taken over the first place of the paradox games, at least for me.

I thought about this fact and about what happened and what the reasons could be for this development and I can bring it down to two major issues I have with EU4 (what I do not have with CK3):
1. Blobbing:
In EU4, the amount of nations shrink all the time. The AI blobs everywhere. For example: In reality, the HRE had 300 states in 1800. IN EU4 the amount shrinks from 70 countries in 1444 to maybe 3-5 countries in 18th century with HRE flavor completely gone very fast. The same everywhere else on the world. Secessions are very seldom, disintegrations of empires as well (if not scripted like with Timurids), so most "lucky nations" become bigger and bigger and bigger, until the player or another lucky nation stops them.
2. Peace time:
Players blobb as well...because of "boredom" (at least if WC is not the game target). In peace time, there is almost nothing to do for players. For building something you need money, so setting game speed on "5" is often the only thing what a player can do. Or to start a war somewhere and conquering something....

Would be fine, if you could address or at least think about these topics. I really want EU4 back as my personal Number 1 of paradox games .

BR Carsten

 

[FishieFan]

So what do you suggest they do to stop blobbing?

 

[Willi123]

So what do you suggest they do to stop blobbing?

e.g.
1. Implement some mechanics like government administration in Victoria 3, what makes it hard or very expensive to expand fast.
2. Make peacetime more valuable with development bonus, so that player or AI thinking twice before starting a costly war.
3. More events which could trigger issues with government adminstration (for AI as well). Failing to handle them would result in partial devolution, secessions of states.
4. Make war more restricted in HRE. Emperor annexes some countries via war -> he will loose the next vote for Emperor and gets massive opinion lost. HRE countries can only peacefully annex other HRE states or with war against the Emperor. As compensation there should be more possibilities to peacefully annex HRE countries with special conditions.
5. Ideas to make peacetime more interesting:
- More domestic policy,
- More trade, economic policy
- more dynastic events/policy
- more flavour events
- building and expanding structures is not only about spending money, you need specific requirements to be fulfilled (money, local approval,...) to start building and get some events about progress.
- More "micro management" possibilities on state level.

 

[ValhallArchitect]

I do agree with your point on internal mechanics lacking.

As you point, CK3 (and to some extent VIC3) have a lot of internal mechanics.
Sometimes, just keeping your realm together is already a challenge, after a bad succession or a failed discovered assassination. Even when it’s not, you still have to check through.

On the contrary, EU4 barely has anything to do with this.
The only time you will have a huge struggle with unrest or rebellions, is either when you get a lot of overexpansion (due to war) or when you switch religion. Only some very specific countries do have a disaster.
In reality, a lot of countries crossed some big trouble times, for internal reasons, including great powers : Ming, the British revolution in the times of Cromwell, Mughal…
Estates have been implemented in order to solve that, but they are overall quite easy to manage, and you will mostly gain bonuses from them ; while in the contrary history relied about gradual centralization of power into absolute monarchs (so in CK3 way, the reduction of vassal domains and privileges to the benefit of the crown)

Besides, EU4 focuses too much on a slow, gradual, but almost perpetual expansion. It’s actually quite easy to keep growing up if you simply wait for overexpansion, unrest and nationalism to decrease, then go to war again.

In reality, some countries did grow really quick (Safavid, Mughal, Qing, Ottoman invasion of Mamluk…) while some others fell nearly as fast (Delhi sultanate, Ming, Timurid, PLC…) due to mismanagement

I believe what truly lacks as mechanic relies around population and economics : the state did not only have to collect money, and build with it, they had to satisfy their population needs, avoid starvation (missing), epidemics (missing), ensure their merchants had commercial opportunities (sometimes easier to build in peace time than in a strangled embargoed economy)…

In fact, your estates should simply have more autonomy, pursue goals of their owns. Your burghers should build trade fleets, open commercial routes, your nobles seek more autonomy (ie PLC).
As a player, you should not be the absolute god who decides every single construction and policy, but the monarch who tries to orient the nation, sometimes competing with your population and estates interest.
For example, as Britain your american merchants could open (illegal) trade routes with other national powers (like France and Spain), and while you try to forbid it, they would grow dissent.
Your Breton burghers would build their own trade fleet as France, ask you for a colonial charter or a trade charter in the East Indies, which you would give (as it will bring you back money), but should you go to war with Britain, their economy (and thus yours) would suffer a lot.

It’s something VIC3 allows you to do (with classes looking to fulfill their own needs, and your industrial magnates building their own factories) or CK3 in another manner (your own vassals developing their buildings, growing their local autonomy, fighting between each other and between estates to get more autonomy, a free city charter…)