Ruler/Royal Familiy tree expansion/overhaul for EU4 and things realted to it

[Picard 359]

I think that EU4 Ruler/Royal family system is to simple and should be expanded on few ways. For inspiration I use your ruler system from Imperator Rome

1. that every King can have more than one children not just one heir and one consort. Diplomatic Marriage been important thing to make allies in Europe in period which EU4 represent
2. That we can decide which Prince/Princess we can offer for marriage to other Country Royals
3. that get its pictures and more complex personality traits on one side and diplomatic/combat skills on another
4. that we have family trees

 

[Badesumofu]

I think it's possible you underestimate the scope of such an overhaul. I also worry that trying to graft such a system onto a game that wasn't designed from it would lead to all sorts of technical and performance issues.

I also think this sort of stuff, while not not relevant, isn't anywhere near as important to the early modern period as it is to the CK2 period. This era in many ways is about the shift from feudal lordships to nation state sovereignty (which reminds me - it would be lovely to see Peace of Westphalia a little more often than almost never).

So - maybe in EU5. But at the same time, it's not where I'd be focusing my efforts if I was looking at creating major new game-systems for the EU franchise.

 

[Metz]

Could be done like in the early Total War games. As the game progresses, countries eat other countries so there will be less family trees in the mid and late games.

They could also be disabled.

 

[DragoLEB]

I really like this idea, however as has been said, it would probably be way out of scope, as this is quite a big overhaul. I remember there used to be a mod that focused on Royal Families, I honestly cannot remember the name of it however. I think something like this could be a great addition to the game and make it a lot more dynamic


Edit: The name of the mod was Lex Tallionis. It worked on much older EU4 versions if anyone would like to check it out. The mod creator got busy with life and thus stopped updating it.

 

[KaiserWilhelmI]

I also think this sort of stuff, while not not relevant, isn't anywhere near as important to the early modern period as it is to the CK2 period. This era in many ways is about the shift from feudal lordships to nation state sovereignty (which reminds me - it would be lovely to see Peace of Westphalia a little more often than almost never).

Many wars were still fought over dynastic disputes, wars of the Spanish and Austrian succession comes first in my mind.

Then the many conflicts between the Hapsburgs and the Valois/Bourbons.

Even the 1870 Franco-prussian war started from a dynastic dispute. (the possible succession of a Hohenzollern to the Spanish throne scared Napoleon III.)

 

[Badesumofu]

Many wars were still fought over dynastic disputes, wars of the Spanish and Austrian succession comes first in my mind.

Then the many conflicts between the Hapsburgs and the Valois/Bourbons.

Even the 1870 Franco-prussian war started from a dynastic dispute. (the possible succession of a Hohenzollern to the Spanish throne scared Napoleon III.)

I mean, yeah - but that sort of stuff is already in the game. You don’t need a full family tree and active characters running around everywhere to model Europe not wanting a union of Spain and France. What might be cool would be if more countries could join succession wars to try to stop PUs between major powers. Because it’s really balance of power stuff, what I think would make the game more interesting would be more mechanics around balance of power and more ways for countries to work together to prevent it being upset. That would have the added bonus of putting more challenges in between the player and the point where no one can challenge you any more and thus keep games interesting for longer.

 

[SSA]

Dynasties in EU4 are less symbolic than dynasties in CK2. All they really benefit with is possible personal unions if you are a Christian, and a small opinion boost for anyone with the same dynasty. (You really don't know if they are your offspring, sibling, cousin, or whatnot).

 

[Picard 359]

So you guys think that expansion of Ruler/Royal Family tree in EU IV 4 will be very difficult to made?
I always think that CKII and EU 4 even maybe Imperator Rome share same game engine...

 

[Badesumofu]

So you guys think that expansion of Ruler/Royal Family tree in EU IV 4 will be very difficult to made?
I always think that CKII and EU 4 even maybe Imperator Rome share same game engine...

So does Stellaris, but that doesn’t mean that it would be easy to add space battles to EU4.

 

[Reman]

I think that EU4 Ruler/Royal family system is to simple and should be expanded on few ways. For inspiration I use your ruler system from Imperator Rome

1. that every King can have more than one children not just one heir and one consort. Diplomatic Marriage been important thing to make allies in Europe in period which EU4 represent
2. That we can decide which Prince/Princess we can offer for marriage to other Country Royals
3. that get its pictures and more complex personality traits on one side and diplomatic/combat skills on another
4. that we have family trees

I agree EU4 should expand the dynasty system.

I always find it bizarre when the majority of the EU4 community is completely fine with Paradox devoting developer time to add nations like Rwanda and Tirhut, but that same community staunchly believes expanded dynasty mechanics would be ridiculous in a Euro-centric game that takes place between 1444-1821.

Personal union mechanics are pretty bad as they currently stand. There's not nearly enough player agency when it comes to dynasty spreading which is used as a gateway to all the interesting and powerful stuff. The system is very opaque and micro-intensive. It's also quite ahistorical, as not even CK2 requires dynasty spreading before you can push for a union, and CK2 is the game where the player actually has the tools to have agency over dynasty spread in the first place. If EU4 would more closely follow history, Europe would have dynamic PUs rise and fall all over the place, with strategic marriages and inheritances being a major part of state policy. As it stands though, PUs are mostly relegated to scripted events and mission trees.

An expanded dynasty system with an emphasis on player agency would be much more interesting than features like army drilling, innovativeness, pirate nations, and superficial tributton systems.

 

[BrokenSky]

I also think this sort of stuff, while not not relevant, isn't anywhere near as important to the early modern period as it is to the CK2 period. This era in many ways is about the shift from feudal lordships to nation state sovereignty (which reminds me - it would be lovely to see Peace of Westphalia a little more often than almost never).

I would argue that in order to have a shift away from Feudalism, you need to actually have feudalism in the game. Atm it feels like on day 1 you have pretty much the same government structure (more or less) than on day 137,291 (If I've gotten the numbers right).

Honestly I feel like one of the game's largest failings is the extent to which administration is abstracted (and the lesser but still disappointing extent of diplomacy being abstracted). It feels like if instead of armies, you occupied provinces by spending Mil points. Having more engaging Empire Management (and diplomatic) mechanics would, in my opinion, not only help make the game feel more like you're progressing from a Feudal state into a modern one (rather than just making numbers go up), but also help with the difficulty curve of the game, where as you got larger the declining military challenge was supplemented by increased administrative challenge without it just feeling like the game was arbitrarily punishing you for winning.

Having a more detailed royal families mechanic would help in this, both with the early feudal mechanics, as well as being able to do Hapsburg diplomacy without running the whole thing via country unique missions and events. That said, the release of these mechanics should come alongside with other complimentary systems for later governments, with the general idea of making different government forms feel more distinct.

 

[GundamMerc]

I agree EU4 should expand the dynasty system.

I always find it bizarre when the majority of the EU4 community is completely fine with Paradox devoting developer time to add nations like Rwanda and Tirhut, but that same community staunchly believes expanded dynasty mechanics would be ridiculous in a Euro-centric game that takes place between 1444-1821.

Personal union mechanics are pretty bad as they currently stand. There's not nearly enough player agency when it comes to dynasty spreading which is used as a gateway to all the interesting and powerful stuff. The system is very opaque and micro-intensive. It's also quite ahistorical, as not even CK2 requires dynasty spreading before you can push for a union, and CK2 is the game where the player actually has the tools to have agency over dynasty spread in the first place. If EU4 would more closely follow history, Europe would have dynamic PUs rise and fall all over the place, with strategic marriages and inheritances being a major part of state policy. As it stands though, PUs are mostly relegated to scripted events and mission trees.

An expanded dynasty system with an emphasis on player agency would be much more interesting than features like army drilling, innovativeness, pirate nations, and superficial tributton systems.

I see someone that does not understand how to gain PUs. Dynasty is actually important in EU IV, but it is not the focus as it was in CK II. CK II you ARE playing as the family. EU IV you are solely playing as the country. Dynasties can rise and fall, it does not necessarily effect the country beyond stability and the occasional pretender which vies for the throne. The extent to which it is important in the game is solely in relations with other nations. Whether that be through personal unions or merely to improve opinions to gain an alliance, it is a secondary role, not a primary one. While I could see the merit in a dynasty focused game set during this time period, it would by necessity be a different game from EU IV. EU IV is about nations first and foremost. Its mechanics are designed for that.

 

[Sniper Fox]

I see someone that does not understand how to gain PUs. Dynasty is actually important in EU IV, but it is not the focus as it was in CK II. CK II you ARE playing as the family. EU IV you are solely playing as the country. Dynasties can rise and fall, it does not necessarily effect the country beyond stability and the occasional pretender which vies for the throne. The extent to which it is important in the game is solely in relations with other nations. Whether that be through personal unions or merely to improve opinions to gain an alliance, it is a secondary role, not a primary one. While I could see the merit in a dynasty focused game set during this time period, it would by necessity be a different game from EU IV. EU IV is about nations first and foremost. Its mechanics are designed for that.

Well said. I think the dynasty system in EU 4 is good as it is. Implementing a CK 2 like system would make the two games too similar, and I'm pretty sure that's not the best thing for Paradox from a business point of view.

 

[Reman]

I see someone that does not understand how to gain PUs. Dynasty is actually important in EU IV, but it is not the focus as it was in CK II. CK II you ARE playing as the family. EU IV you are solely playing as the country. Dynasties can rise and fall, it does not necessarily effect the country beyond stability and the occasional pretender which vies for the throne. The extent to which it is important in the game is solely in relations with other nations. Whether that be through personal unions or merely to improve opinions to gain an alliance, it is a secondary role, not a primary one. While I could see the merit in a dynasty focused game set during this time period, it would by necessity be a different game from EU IV. EU IV is about nations first and foremost. Its mechanics are designed for that.

The argument that dynasties don't matter "are not the focus" because EU4 is a game about nations fails is irrelevant when nations gain access to powerful expansion options based on dynasties. The PU route is powerful in EU4 like it was in history. The problem with EU4's implementation is that it lacks player agency. An expanded dynasty system could help this. Alternatively, Paradox could simply remove the dynasty requirement to form PUs.

 

[GundamMerc]

The argument that dynasties don't matter because EU4 is a game about nations fails when nations gain access to powerful expansion options based on dynasties. The PU route is powerful in EU4 like it was in history. The problem with EU4's implementation is that it lacks player agency. An expanded dynasty system could help this. Alternatively, Paradox could simply remove the dynasty requirement to form PUs.

Where did I say they didn't matter? I merely said they were not the focus. They are a secondary mechanic, not a primary one. Yes, you can do things that can greatly increase your power, but it is again not the main focus of the game. Please, do not put words in someone's mouth that they did not say, that is not conducive to a healthy debate.

 

[BrokenSky]

Where did I say they didn't matter? I merely said they were not the focus. They are a secondary mechanic, not a primary one. Yes, you can do things that can greatly increase your power, but it is again not the main focus of the game. Please, do not put words in someone's mouth that they did not say, that is not conducive to a healthy debate.

This line:

The extent to which it is important in the game is solely in relations with other nations. Whether that be through personal unions or merely to improve opinions to gain an alliance, it is a secondary role, not a primary one.

where you said that aside from PUs (which the guy you're quoting is arguing aren't a well built mechanic because they're too removed from the player's control), the only thing dynasties matter for is a small relationship boost.

As for things which are not conducive to healthy debate,

I see someone that does not understand how to gain PUs.

is perhaps not the best way of phrasing this comment?

 

[GundamMerc]

This line:

where you said that aside from PUs (which the guy you're quoting is arguing aren't a well built mechanic because they're too removed from the player's control), the only thing dynasties matter for is a small relationship boost.

He is speaking of control though, whereas it is actually perfectly feasible to hold some level of control regarding PUs, outside of the same chance of ruler death or heirs being born you'd see in CK II. Furthermore, MY point is that it was never the focus of the game, so it is reasonable that the mechanics are more abstracted compared to CK II. He argued that I was saying that dynasties don't matter. I never said that. I only said they are of secondary importance in this game.

As for things which are not conducive to healthy debate,

is perhaps not the best way of phrasing this comment?

You got me there.

 

[Reman]

I merely said they were not the focus. They are a secondary mechanic, not a primary one. Yes, you can do things that can greatly increase your power, but it is again not the main focus of the game.

You could use this argument on any number of game systems and it would be just as flawed. Why is a PU system with greater player agency considered "beyond the scope" of EU4 while something like the current implementation of trade is fine? When there are threads discussing improvements to trade in EU4 I never hear things like "EU4 is not a trading game". Why do nations like Rwanda deserve to be in the game over expanded PU mechanics?

Where did I say they didn't matter?

I paraphrased for the sake of brevity. Changing the meaning of your post was not my intent, and so I've edited my post to make this clear.

The rest of my post still stands.

He is speaking of control though, whereas it is actually perfectly feasible to hold some level of control regarding PUs, outside of the same chance of ruler death or heirs being born you'd see in CK II.

What sort of control are you speaking of? As far as I understand it, the PU game only gets interesting when you share a dynasty with the target. The most direct way of achieving this is for their king to die heirless while you have a RM. The only "control" you have in this situation is sending the RM. You can spam out marriages to old kings if you want, but there are usually only a few worthwhile targets. Of those, some will be hostile (so no RM is possible) and the others should usually be your allies (so you should always have a RM with them).

The other ways I know of changing the situation is with reverse dynasty spreading, which is a net-negative strategy to pursue, and consort regencies, which is both RNG dependent and usually a bad strategy in general.

 

[GundamMerc]

You could use this argument on any number of game systems and it would be just as flawed. Why is a PU system with greater player agency considered "beyond the scope" of EU4 while something like the current implementation of trade is fine? When there are threads discussing improvements to trade in EU4 I never hear things like "EU4 is not a trading game". Why do nations like Rwanda deserve to be in the game over expanded PU mechanics?

Except EU IV actually does have a heavy focus on trading. This was a time period where the amount of trade and exploitation of overseas assets increased exponentially. Dynastic influence actually went DOWN throughout the timeline, whereas trade went up.

I paraphrased for the sake of brevity. Changing the meaning of your post was not my intent, and so I've edited my post to make this clear.

The rest of my post still stands.

Then I apologize.

What sort of control are you speaking of? As far as I understand it, the PU game only gets interesting when you share a dynasty with the target. The most direct way of achieving this is for their king to die heirless while you have a RM. The only "control" you have in this situation is sending the RM. You can spam out marriages to old kings if you want, but there are usually only a few worthwhile targets. Of those, some will be hostile (so no RM is possible) and the others should usually be your allies (so you should always have a RM with them).

I'm still not seeing how this is different from CK II, outside the ability to assassinate people. You may have more options in CK II, but you are just as subject to RNG, if not more so. The difference is that you have a multitude of family to hedge your bets.

 

[Reman]

Except EU IV actually does have a heavy focus on trading. This was a time period where the amount of trade and exploitation of overseas assets increased exponentially. Dynastic influence actually went DOWN throughout the timeline, whereas trade went up.

1444-1820 includes Charles V's attempt at universal monarchy and many military conflicts directly related to succession/inheritance and how it related to the European balance of power. Systems like feudalism may have been in steep decline, but monarchies and their personal unions were highly important throughout the time period. Hence, it deserves a well thought out system that has player agency as the primary determinant of outcome. The current system does not have this.

Trade was also important during this timeframe, I agree. Its implementation is rather abysmal as well, but at least it has player agency.

EU4 is an empire building game. Empires of the timeframe were built using things like trade and personal unions as methods/motivations. Yet whenever a discussion arises about PUs, people always call expanded dynasties "beyond the scope" for some reason, while trade is seen as completely fine. It's mind-boggling.

I'm still not seeing how this is different from CK II, outside the ability to assassinate people. You may have more options in CK II, but you are just as subject to RNG, if not more so. The difference is that you have a multitude of family to hedge your bets.

In CK2 you can get a personal union by picking a target, marrying his daughter, and waiting a generation. Your son will have a claim that can be used to annex your target's realm outright in a single war. Any RNG involved is very limited.