Please Include In Euii

[Rex Francorum]

1) A more complex religious tolerance policy. If I like catholics and protestants, why should I hate orthodox and muslims?

2) Let ships to patrol coasts in case of /$$"/$%?/$ Pirates. Attrition, in this case, should not be so important

3) DYNASTIC MODEL!!!!
So, diplomacy would be deepen: eg Maria Theresa of Spain marry with Louis XIV. Spain refuse to give dowry. Another CB for France. Louis XIV use this argument to DoW Spain in 1667.

 

[PSYCHO V]

*** Please please have the locale and a center button for leaders who have just died.

It's very hard sometimes if you have 10+ leaders and you lose track of who is where and then one dies. having to go through every army / navy can be a pain.

Hail Paradox !

 

[unmerged(349)]

I liked Viking's list a lot. Good work.

About forts, they definitely should cost increasing amounts and they definitely should be limited according to population (and maybe even according to location: Europe was full of extensive fortifications, the rest of the world has few examples of major forts). Maybe allow one fort per "colonial" area to be upgraded beyond small size. Call it the gubernatorial palace, or something.

 

[Mowers]

A must

A dynastic model ought to be put in along the lines of the blood Royale system as discussed in the wish list post centre. Its easy, it could be an option and it would add considerable depth to the game with out complicating the game.

 

[Viking]

Originally posted by Carolus Rex


lead poisoning??

he did die on the battle field in 1632, you do know that?

Lead posoning is a euphamism for being shot.

 

[unmerged(485)]

Re: A must

Originally posted by bmoores
A dynastic model ought to be put in along the lines of the blood Royale system as discussed in the wish list post centre. Its easy, it could be an option and it would add considerable depth to the game with out complicating the game.

A dynastic model would complicate the game considerably. Eu flows historically because of several restrictions and one of those is the historical events associated with monarchs. If you change this then not only do things get more complicated, but the historical flow can get far wackier than it does now (I'm not saying we should be locked into following history too closely but some semblence of history should be maintained).

Alternative history is fine but dynasic modeling would add too much fantasy (for lack of a better word) to the game.

If Richard III wins the battle of Bosworth then no Tudors on the throne of England - who would be the monarchs then? As great as Paradox is I don't think they have the time to develop the monarchs for an alternative dynasty or a continued Plantagenet dynasty. Would James I be king in 1603? I do think that on the premature death of a monarch that there should be a revolt risk of, say, 1% or 2% in the home provinces for, maybe, 6 months or a year to simulate the uneasiness in a country when there is question as to who will be the next monarch.

Having said that, I think that Blood Royale would be a great game on the computer. I have (or had - don't know if I still have it) the board game but few opponents so I have played the game solo a few time in the past. I like the idea of creating dynasties and ruling Europe through something other than might. But I don't think it would fit well in the historical context of EU & EUII.

 

[Mowers]

Interesting to hear that you have played Blood Royale…. One of my all time favourites.

You say that EU flows historically because of key events, one of those being monarchs. I can’t argue with that. History would deviate more with a fully dynamic dynastic system. I personally don’t think it adds too much fantasy although I do agree that it might not be for all and that it ought to be an option.

You raise a scenario that could possible occur under such a system. But this is not important. The random generator could simply make up a dynasty using the data that it already had- or another country could put in a claim to inherit the dynasty. Kings, as leaders of armies could die on the battlefield, and disappear, perhaps leaving the country and dynasty in a dangerous position.

Read my post on blood Royale on the wish list forum, I think the thread is royal families. We took the game to new levels, a cross between EU, EiA and BR; a lovely game for five people that we player nearly every night for years at boarding school. Great days.

 

[Rex Francorum]

Re: Re: A must

Originally posted by Sonny


A dynastic model would complicate the game considerably. Eu flows historically because of several restrictions and one of those is the historical events associated with monarchs. If you change this then not only do things get more complicated, but the historical flow can get far wackier than it does now (I'm not saying we should be locked into following history too closely but some semblence of history should be maintained).

But for me, the dynastic model should be fantasy. I would not know who will be the king of queen in 150 years, so to prepare a war because a king-soldier will reign in 1637...

Concerning events...
If a monarch has 9 as military value...there would be good possibilities that army would develop during his reign...

Between a)replay history and b)follow principles of this time, I prefer B

 

[unmerged(3138)]

1) Instead of having the manpower of each province determine how many men you can recruit a year, then have it determine how many men you can recruit TOTAL.
Maybe the number should be multiplied by ....I don't know...5?
Some kind of limitations should also be added to your navy


* This would prevent Savoy, and other minors from having those 150.000+ armies, they always manage having.

* This (and improved AI) would make it much harder for the human player to take over the world.

*Alliances will be much more important, especially for minors.




2) Being able to buy provinces. This was a very important way of expanding one's kingdom (empire, republic) that's been totally overlooked by Paradox.

The province could have an extra high revolt risk like 6% for 30 years, or 5% for 50 years to represent the populations unhappinesswith just being sold.




3) Being able to endorse pirates. Like France back then had licensed pirates, sailing out from St. Malo, attacking Brittish and Dutch trading ships.

Your relationship with the attacked nations would ofcourse be severely lowered.




That's my 99.95 Danish kroner.