Very interesting survey, I'd really love to see the results, getting a more solid profile on playstyles and overall opinions of the player base.
- 6
Help us improve Europa Universalis!
- Thread starter Johan
- 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.
I answered the survey. The flaws pointed out above should be noted when Paradox analyzes the results. (No survey is perfect.)
In the future, I'd like to see EU4 or an eventual EU5 borrow the best mechanics and systems from other Paradox games. Europa Universalis has always been less focused thematically and mechanically than other Paradox titles, and I think that's a design strength. Ideally, EU4 or EU5 would couple that design philosophy with the oftentimes better mechanical systems that Paradox has created in its other games.
Crusader Kings has an excellent representation of court politics and elite intrigue; Victoria and Imperator have pops; Victoria, Imperator, and even Stellaris have more flexible trade systems than Europa Universalis does; and March of the Eagles has both a fairly sophisticated representation of pre-industrial warfare and a representation of the types coalitions and spheres of influence that developed late in EU4's time period and early in Victoria's.
I'd like to draw attention to March of the Eagles especially because, despite its absence in the survey, it's probably the best model for an improved Europa Universalis combat system. It has a large diversity of land unit types, a large number and variety of leaders, greater interaction between units and provinces (armies can retreat into and garrison forts), and a rudimentary focus on supply.
In the future, I'd like to see EU4 or an eventual EU5 borrow the best mechanics and systems from other Paradox games. Europa Universalis has always been less focused thematically and mechanically than other Paradox titles, and I think that's a design strength. Ideally, EU4 or EU5 would couple that design philosophy with the oftentimes better mechanical systems that Paradox has created in its other games.
Crusader Kings has an excellent representation of court politics and elite intrigue; Victoria and Imperator have pops; Victoria, Imperator, and even Stellaris have more flexible trade systems than Europa Universalis does; and March of the Eagles has both a fairly sophisticated representation of pre-industrial warfare and a representation of the types coalitions and spheres of influence that developed late in EU4's time period and early in Victoria's.
I'd like to draw attention to March of the Eagles especially because, despite its absence in the survey, it's probably the best model for an improved Europa Universalis combat system. It has a large diversity of land unit types, a large number and variety of leaders, greater interaction between units and provinces (armies can retreat into and garrison forts), and a rudimentary focus on supply.
- 7
- 6
- 4
Thanks for the survey. I'm glad to see the new studio working to focus, hopefully, on refining an already great game instead of just adding more stuff.
I hope my response has helped. Unlike the forums, where your questions & responses are always judged, the survey allowed for a chance to contribute.
I hope more focused surveys will be used in the future.
Thank you again.
I hope my response has helped. Unlike the forums, where your questions & responses are always judged, the survey allowed for a chance to contribute.
I hope more focused surveys will be used in the future.
Thank you again.
- 1
Uff... I got your point and I agree to need a more varied and wide/tall mechanics along with the management and administration of your nation, and not to be a "board game with many mana and RNG elements" but Imperator tried to do that, and oh boy, it just didn't work because some of its mechanics were testimonial. So I keep they better focus on improving the diplomacy, warfare, internal management (like factions and states), culture, people and courts but not to be Imperator in 1444.
- 5
- 2
- 1
I hope Vic2 gets the love it deserves in this poll. Despite it's flaws it does a lot of stuff well, especially the population. To me the idea of a more polished version of this game that fixes the stuff that didn't work out well is not a meme, Vic3 could really be a great game.
- 12
- 2
- 1
My final note was wishing that defensive playstyles could actually be meaningful, instead of rendered moot by larger powers having borderline infinite manpower with practically nonexistent attrition.
- 10
Answered the survey but I'll repeat what I put in one of the sections where you could type out an answer.
I love diverging from history - my first CK2 game was establishing the Danelaw, that's also been my first game when CK3 came out - I love doing "what if?" type scenarios like that. That doesn't mean I don't value historic integrity though, changing a historic outcome loses value massively when every AI is incapable of sticking to the rails either, which isn't to say I don't want the AI also doing odd things, but having some semblance of railroads isn't bad.
It's a really hard mark to hit, not going to pretend otherwise. One of my favorite things is looking at Europe if I'm playing as a ROTW nation that doesn't have visibility and seeing what's happened - have the Ottomans spread everywhere? Are the Teutons still alive? What's going on in Iberia?
I think having a general semblance of history that nations mostly adhere to but having the potential for things to go massively off track is the ideal, but no doubt hard to hit mark.
I also love my RP games in CK2 but frankly, EU4 is where I go when I want more of a strategic game -a lot of the surveys questions asked what I value in a grand strategy game, which includes CK and Stellaris, both games that I play with far more of an RP focus than EU4. Tad worried the broad questions will get answers that aren't representative of EU4/5 wishes since they asked about GS in general.
I love diverging from history - my first CK2 game was establishing the Danelaw, that's also been my first game when CK3 came out - I love doing "what if?" type scenarios like that. That doesn't mean I don't value historic integrity though, changing a historic outcome loses value massively when every AI is incapable of sticking to the rails either, which isn't to say I don't want the AI also doing odd things, but having some semblance of railroads isn't bad.
It's a really hard mark to hit, not going to pretend otherwise. One of my favorite things is looking at Europe if I'm playing as a ROTW nation that doesn't have visibility and seeing what's happened - have the Ottomans spread everywhere? Are the Teutons still alive? What's going on in Iberia?
I think having a general semblance of history that nations mostly adhere to but having the potential for things to go massively off track is the ideal, but no doubt hard to hit mark.
I also love my RP games in CK2 but frankly, EU4 is where I go when I want more of a strategic game -a lot of the surveys questions asked what I value in a grand strategy game, which includes CK and Stellaris, both games that I play with far more of an RP focus than EU4. Tad worried the broad questions will get answers that aren't representative of EU4/5 wishes since they asked about GS in general.
- 5
As long as they don't make the mistake of thinking this forum represents the EU4 fanbase all that well. Majority of players will never come here.
- 6
This should be sent this to Steam, so people more people can involved.
- 5
- 1
.png){kind=avatar}
I'm going to put a few points that I think should be changed:
A) Less numerical modifiers. Fewer numerical modifiers that have greater consequences.
B) Change Colonialism substantially, create more of a difference between simply claiming a province and developing it.
C) Shift more economic decisions to the state level, this would allow the economy system to be deeper.
D) Totally change Trade, right now trade mostly just puts a twist on map painting. Instead it should be more about "acquiring" goods from far off places and selling them. It could have much less numbers involved, but if the core logic that goes into it is right, it would be much more interesting. Also, right now the gains from monopolisation are disproportionately large. It's better to monopolise trade nodes where you have presence then to trade in places you have no presence, I think it should be the other way around, and would make gameplay more interesting.
A) Less numerical modifiers. Fewer numerical modifiers that have greater consequences.
B) Change Colonialism substantially, create more of a difference between simply claiming a province and developing it.
C) Shift more economic decisions to the state level, this would allow the economy system to be deeper.
D) Totally change Trade, right now trade mostly just puts a twist on map painting. Instead it should be more about "acquiring" goods from far off places and selling them. It could have much less numbers involved, but if the core logic that goes into it is right, it would be much more interesting. Also, right now the gains from monopolisation are disproportionately large. It's better to monopolise trade nodes where you have presence then to trade in places you have no presence, I think it should be the other way around, and would make gameplay more interesting.
- 3
- 1
I was feeling bad having to select Vic2 as best in every category except diplomacy...
- 5
- 2
Please check this link for a survey
Free Online Survey Software by SurveyMonkey: Closed Survey
This survey is currently closed. Please contact the author of this survey for further assistance.www.surveymonkey.com
Your replies matter!
How are any of these questions supposed to help?
There is nothing specific or significant. These questions are so trivial.
The only useful part was the comment section at the end.
PLEASE FIX THE AGE OF REVOLUTIONS. Make is playable. Fix the rebel bugs.
- 8
- 3
- 1
I'd say one of the more interesting things EU4 does was discovered well after the fact: Transitioning your state from Feudal to Centralised. I don't think v1.00 modeled much of that beyond adding cannons to your forces, but later mechanics like the Age system and Absolutism and even as recently as Emperor's estates system fits that vision. Stuff like that is defiitely interesting because you have to plan ahead and shift what decisions you make, usually ahead of whatever the arbitrary point is.
- 6
Lovely to see my fellow Vicky 3 players pushing our agenda.
Truly the Vicky series is the queen of gaming.
Truly the Vicky series is the queen of gaming.
- 8
- 4
Yeah sure. I hope a fith age will be included in EU4. With unique mechanics of course.
- 3
- 1