If Paradox made a new, final expansion for EUIII, what would you like to see in it?
- Thread starter UmOceano
- 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.
there's so much to add.. even if, like alot of people said, EU3 is one of the most complex and well made historical game we ever played.
-All nations should be playable by a human player. Redo that tribal government thing, barely anyone is crazy/bullheaded enough to play those AI-played countries without going through the stages of depression.. Next time I'll play some cheap strategy game like Age of Empire I'll ask myself: hey, why the Egyptians are so strong? they should be a unplayable free-for-all buffet like pretty much all Africans nations are in EU3.
*That was the only thing I'd like em to solve if there was only one thing that could be made better.*
Most of the other things have been said by others i guess:
-Less euro-centrism
-I want it to be alot harder to be a huge world-conquest style empire.
-yes naval battles are teh bore, and the sea rebels (pirate ships) idea is terrible. I do want pirates but only because pirates actually existed: the silly way to get rid of em is another thing.
-Even more ways to make a nation different from another (sliders, governents, etc.)
-More accuracy concerning non-european nations.
-Regional Infamy/BB. LIke when I attack a asian nation (exemple) and the whole world is pissed at me 1 day after it happened.
-Information need time to travel: that another country that's 5000km from from my capital learn 1 day later that I'm the scum of the earth is silly.
-All nations should be playable by a human player. Redo that tribal government thing, barely anyone is crazy/bullheaded enough to play those AI-played countries without going through the stages of depression.. Next time I'll play some cheap strategy game like Age of Empire I'll ask myself: hey, why the Egyptians are so strong? they should be a unplayable free-for-all buffet like pretty much all Africans nations are in EU3.
*That was the only thing I'd like em to solve if there was only one thing that could be made better.*
Most of the other things have been said by others i guess:
-Less euro-centrism
-I want it to be alot harder to be a huge world-conquest style empire.
-yes naval battles are teh bore, and the sea rebels (pirate ships) idea is terrible. I do want pirates but only because pirates actually existed: the silly way to get rid of em is another thing.
-Even more ways to make a nation different from another (sliders, governents, etc.)
-More accuracy concerning non-european nations.
-Regional Infamy/BB. LIke when I attack a asian nation (exemple) and the whole world is pissed at me 1 day after it happened.
-Information need time to travel: that another country that's 5000km from from my capital learn 1 day later that I'm the scum of the earth is silly.
Civil wars. I mean, really meaningful civil wars. The ability for every faction to split off into a "Revolutionary" faction (French Revolution) or a "Pretender" faction (War of the Roses) if REB forces are left alone for too long.
That might also solve the problem with British rebels joining Russian minors and so forth.
That might also solve the problem with British rebels joining Russian minors and so forth.
Family trees and not randomly pooping up dynasties based on Power of dynasty. Perhaps also beign able to create new countries or empires you can name for lots of prestige or something or in a peace deal.
I have to voice my opinion against these ones...who cares about nations and factions who were nothing until 1700 or 1800?
I can understand Ming or Japan, but hardly more; is anyone going to play Inca Empire or Creeks? Even in SP, he would be bored after 1 hour.
Uh, people who care about World History might care for a bit more options when you play a game. The biggest problem with playing some nations is the sheer amount of boredom involved as you wait for Europeans to show up: you have nothing to do.
There's a rich body of history outside of Europe, and I'd like the game to explore it a little better.
I understand what you say, but this game isn't called World History, it's called Europa Universalis and it's a strategy game, not a history lesson.
Every corner of the world has undoubtely much to tell about its development and its history, but I think that most places wouldn't offer the same amount of opportunities Europe does in regard to a wargame.
P.S. It's considered customary registering before posting
Make it like Magna Mundi and with the possibility to fight battles like in the Total War series
and of course more of every possible option micromanagement hell if possible .
and of course more of every possible option micromanagement hell if possible .
Regardless, I don't see how expanding the scope of the game is a negative.
Yeah, um. No. There's reasons why I haven't registered, I'm not likely to change that for a while.
Just a fair warning: No reason is considered good enough to justify not typing a couple of numbers into a box and clicking okay. Prepare to be received with hostility.
As for the Euro-Centrism... well it is called Europa Universalis. I must admit that I can't really think of many gameplay elements that would make sense and be fun for nations like the Inca/Maya. Cooking up the next sacrifice would just amount to clicking whom you are going to sacrifice to, and there is little else one could add that is not already simulated in the current game mechanics.
I'd like it possible to sell unmodern fleets to other nations. If I have an old navy and goin' to modernize I would like to sell some ships or whole fleets to somone in a better need of it.
My copy of EU3 is second hand, and already registered under the name Kegofort on these forums. So yeah, that's a pretty good reason, I'd say.
Inca and Maya, sure(maybe). But with Mali and Songhai(as well as some of the Indian countries) there could be a bit more done to make them more playable, more historic and more fun! That's all I'm looking for, honestly. Some nations just arn't very playable or historic, and I'd like to see that change. I don't think it'd be a huge issue, but it would be fun.
No offence Verjigorm, but it seems you reply without reading to anything monsterfurby and I wrote.
Just my 0.02€ ofc.
Just my 0.02€ ofc.
I do not get the hostility towards improving other non-european countries.
Just because the GAME is eurocentric doesn't mean YOU have to be biased towards it. India and Asia could use a little fleshing out, while America is simply TERRIBLE when compared to Europe. I'm talking "why not just have it all uncolonized" terrible.
There should be FAR more American and African tribes. Also, they should be able to put up a rather good fight. Not to the point where it's Euro vs Euro, but at least to the point where it's like, say, Euro vs India. If someone truly wanted to take over ALL of America and Africa, it's possible, but it wouldn't be possible to march 4,000 men with rather terrible excuses for guns and take over every tribe in North America. In WWM, I was just colonizing N.A. as Spain when I ran into a super Apache that held most of Western America, and had vassalized their way to the Mississippi. That was a massive war, where it took not 4,000 but 25,000 men to fully subdue them.
Was that totally realistic? Not really, but it's not very fun annexing all of the American tribes with a handful of people to get a massive headstart, either.
Just because the GAME is eurocentric doesn't mean YOU have to be biased towards it. India and Asia could use a little fleshing out, while America is simply TERRIBLE when compared to Europe. I'm talking "why not just have it all uncolonized" terrible.
There should be FAR more American and African tribes. Also, they should be able to put up a rather good fight. Not to the point where it's Euro vs Euro, but at least to the point where it's like, say, Euro vs India. If someone truly wanted to take over ALL of America and Africa, it's possible, but it wouldn't be possible to march 4,000 men with rather terrible excuses for guns and take over every tribe in North America. In WWM, I was just colonizing N.A. as Spain when I ran into a super Apache that held most of Western America, and had vassalized their way to the Mississippi. That was a massive war, where it took not 4,000 but 25,000 men to fully subdue them.
Was that totally realistic? Not really, but it's not very fun annexing all of the American tribes with a handful of people to get a massive headstart, either.
For many of the countries outside Europe, the period before 1700 and 1800 was precisely the period during which they were important.
And many of the so-called "countries" in the HRE were "nothing". Ever.
The Inca Empire is potentially interesting. It's not interesting in game because it's presented in a completely unrealistic way. For example, it expanded from 1 province to 20? over the course of the 1400's. (A real-life example of a typical game of EU3
.) It didn't sit there pre-formed waiting for the Europeans to show up. As of 1400, "the Incas" could quite easily have not existed in 1500.As for "who is going to play X", I've played far more games as Incas than I ever will as one of those boring HRE so-called "countries." Who would ever want to play some "country" the size of a North American back yard? Maybe everyone's not exactly like you?
Now I'm not sure about the interest in playing the Creeks, or Maya, but the fact that they're unrealistic means that if you're playing a colonizing country the game develops in ways that are both unrealistic and boring. This is doubly true when Africa and India develop ahistorically. This makes playing England or Portugal boring, unless you spend your time invading the one part of the Universe that matters, the HRE. Last time I checked, England and Portugal were generally considered part of Europe.
And I think that the "the game is called 'Europa'" argument is stupid. If one wants the game to be only about Europe, don't extend the map beyond Europe (like Crusader Kings). People talk about "strategy" and "fun", but there is neither fun nor strategy in the current implementation of the rest of the world. The Europeans win, effortlessly and always, from the early 1500's. Yawn.
Last edited:
Make it so the ai actually tries to westernize, especially if they're countries that moved towards westernization historically.
Create an "in line to the throne" chart so we can see whos the next likely heir after prince 3/3/3
Make republics less overpowered. Not every republican leader should be hyperskilled, alot of these guys were in office because their families were rich and powerful. Especially in Noble and Merchant republics.
Make republics more republican. It would be cool to have general "conservative" and "liberal" (or what have you) factions in the government duking it out, and occasionally rioting.
make revolutionary rebels able to (or to always) have a chance of changing the government in the early part of the game. I know that there are only like 6 types of government available at game start, but when I get the event "liberals angry" as a monarchy I want there to be a chance that I might get a republic out of this.
Create a new form of government called "military dictatorship" and some sengoku events for japan. Spice up the far east with more dynastic imperial warfare for the han chinese. Make a "Qing" instead of a "Manchu" decision, and make it only for the Manchu. Create a "Siam" decision for Ayutthaya. Make Vijayanagar a union of dravidian cultures. Make india more fun to play. Give persia some national decisions and events.
Create an "in line to the throne" chart so we can see whos the next likely heir after prince 3/3/3
Make republics less overpowered. Not every republican leader should be hyperskilled, alot of these guys were in office because their families were rich and powerful. Especially in Noble and Merchant republics.
Make republics more republican. It would be cool to have general "conservative" and "liberal" (or what have you) factions in the government duking it out, and occasionally rioting.
make revolutionary rebels able to (or to always) have a chance of changing the government in the early part of the game. I know that there are only like 6 types of government available at game start, but when I get the event "liberals angry" as a monarchy I want there to be a chance that I might get a republic out of this.
Create a new form of government called "military dictatorship" and some sengoku events for japan. Spice up the far east with more dynastic imperial warfare for the han chinese. Make a "Qing" instead of a "Manchu" decision, and make it only for the Manchu. Create a "Siam" decision for Ayutthaya. Make Vijayanagar a union of dravidian cultures. Make india more fun to play. Give persia some national decisions and events.
It's a pretty good need. And give soldiers homefield advantage. European battlefields are not like the ones in America, India and Indochina. Americans didn't fought in the European-Middleeast way and in EU it's to easy to beat them of europeans could defend their colonies at the coasts, inland no way! The natives made fun of them. Aslong they where in the forts they where pretty safe, in the wild close to chanceless untill 1700.
Removal of the "Form Chinese nation" -decision from Ming that turns them into Manchu. I'm still wondering what's supposed to be the logic behind that. :wacko:
Hostility is the option then, I'm not fanatic enough to make distinctions between people based upon that so i cannot register it seem..
And the euro-centrism thing can simply be improved by making African/new world nations more playable. Right now only the AI and the hardcore gamers play with them which is a waste imho