The desire for some sort of character system is strong

[Sam L]

I know that Paradox has repeatedly said that there would be no character system in EUIV but I feel there is just such a strong desire amongst a lot of players for some sort of a character system. I feel this is because it's historically accurate to have characters that drive nations but also a strong dynastic relationship element due to the period.

When will they yield? I think a DLC would be a good idea. Even if it doesn't add to gameplay for aesthetic or other reasons.

 

[Portal]

I just so wish that EUIV borrowed more from CK2. Sadface.

 

[Grombeard]

They once said there will never be jews in their games and now you can even take their money and expel them from your realm in CK2, so... keep your hopes up! Everything is possible!

 

[TacticalRetreat]

No. Keep EUIV and CKII seperate! I don't want characters, I want better state management. That's what the game is all about. CKII is strategy-light for fans of The Sims.

 

[Anthropoid]

No. Keep EUIV and CKII seperate! I don't want characters, I want better state management. That's what the game is all about. CKII is strategy-light for fans of The Sims.

Well, its not like "characters" and "state management" are mutually exclusive are they?

I agree CK2 is 'too easy' in large part because of the players control over characters. But surely there is some happy medium mix in between?

Technically, we already have "characters" in EU4 at present. Granted they are quite barebones and 1-dimensional. We have some names, some titles, and some values, and lame-ass generic events. A DLC to bring some life into the nation and improve the detail and nuance of state management would be nice wouldn't it?

 

[SerFishy]

Well, its not like "characters" and "state management" are mutually exclusive are they?

I agree CK2 is 'too easy' in large part because of the players control over characters. But surely there is some happy medium mix in between?

Technically, we already have "characters" in EU4 at present. Granted they are quite barebones and 1-dimensional. We have some names, some titles, and some values, and lame-ass generic events. A DLC to bring some life into the nation and improve the detail and nuance of state management would be nice wouldn't it?

I agree with that. That period of time was about a lot of key figures, not only basic warfare. It does not need to be like CKII but still, a character system is necessary to give a taste of the time.

 

[Tub]

It would be logical to completely eschew characters if they didn't have such an enormous effect on the game. As it is, a monarch can completely define a nation's success, or failure - not to mention the psychological effect on the player. To have a fantastic 5/5/5 king be killed with an event that's basically, "Whoops, your king died" is the most galling thing to happen to someone. Introducing some sort of event chain for a death would be great.

As well as that, given the influence that Royal Marriages have over countries and dynasties, it would be great to have some kind of family tree, just in order to keep track of your royal marriages, and dynastic prospects. This is especially important for a country like Austria, or an OPM in the HRE, where getting Personal Unions and the like are extremely important for survival.

As well as this, how can monarch stats be pre-determined at birth? Surely they develop over time? I know that some people will think that this is too reminiscent of CK2's education system, but at the end of the day, a one year old boy is not going to be a better military administrator at birth than most people are at adulthood. Give us some way to improve a monarch's stats - make it punishing, but possible.

tldr; Characters, like it or not, have a huge impact on how you play, and where you plan to take your nation. We're not asking for them to be personal, just for our control over them to be more than 'Hey, your great ruler arbitrarily died', or 'Have fun with the rubbish ruler that just got born'.

Foul language removed - Seelmeister

 

[Fintilgin]

I don't think we need a full fledged CKII rpg sim going on, but a basic character system for monarchs would be good. A portrait and maybe two - three traits to set them apart from other monarchs and a small event pool for the traits.

 

[balmung60]

I have to agree. Ironically, characters (or rather, their stats) are an even more important part of EU IV gameplay than CK II gameplay, and yet, in EU IV, these characters are naught but statpoints. This is an era in which, despite the general decline of the lower nobility, the kings and queens and doges and what have you were still very important, and indeed, many of the DHEs in the game acknowledge this. However, in gameplay, your king is just three extremely important statpoints, a title, and a name. Between the lack of real interaction between characters and the fact that neither events nor gameplay really seem to reflect them, but rather treat them all as the same, and yet, how they are vitally important to the success of your country, the game feels like it doesn't know which way it wants to go with the characters.

 

[Nadrak]

oh god...do not import more of CKII into EU IV, please. I do not want to play Sims:Kingdoms. Granted, I would like to see some tree where I could see where are my relatives, but nothing else. I tried CKII, but the Sims micromanagement turned me off and I love EU IV.

 

[RX2000]

I just so wish that EUIV borrowed more from CK2. Sadface.

This.

EU4 is just so bland compared to CK2.

 

[SweetHalcyHS]

Er, no. I heavily disagree with a character-based system. EU4 definitely needs a lot of work on internal management, but I doubt character management is necessarily the right way to do that.

 

[Ruanek]

I'd rather not have a complex character system for dynasties and kings. Sure, it's annoying when your good monarch dies, but an event chain isn't going to change that. And I don't want to have to micromanage my ruling dynasty (which may change in a few years), or worry about if I have enough relatives to do royal marriages, or any of that stuff.

Sure, characters are important to the time period. But EU4 is about the power of the state, not the character.

 

[Pornek]

Contrary to CK EU is a game about your empire and not your dynasty. Individual flavor is represented as National Ideas/ Events/ Decisions.
Im heavily against implementing a character system.

 

[deafhobbit]

This.

EU4 is just so bland compared to CK2.

I disagree completely. I've tried to get into CK2 many times, but have never been able to enjoy the minutia of managing my character's various relationships with everyone on the planet. I'm glad that people who do enjoy that thing have a well designed strategy game for them to play in CK2, but please don't try to turn EU4 into that. There's nothing wrong with multiple games in the same genre by the same publisher having different mechanics.

 

[Anthropoid]

Sure, characters are important to the time period. But EU4 is about the power of the state, not the character.

If that is true, then why does my "state" suck wind at keeping up in the Miltech race when I get a crappy 3/2/1 Monarch?

 

[Naresh]

Coming out of retirement simply for this post...

A character system would completely destroy EU4. My monarch is defined by his 3 stats. I don't need other modifiers like "jealousy -1 to dip rep" or warmonger "+1 army tradition per year" making it even more random. And if it was brought in for generals... even worse. I don't want to grind through 10 leaders and 500 military points to find a general that isn't an "alcoholic -5% discipline". Its a game about an empire, the monarch is the man who defines much of that empire, yes. But he's not the be all and end all. We have ideas, national ideas, religion, region, culture and a multitude of other factors that need more flavour rather than consider a character system.

Eu4 is about nations, not people. I don't want to spend an extra hour per decade wheeling and dealing with HRE OPM marriages, assassination attempts and minor feuds between the vice duke chancellor of the royal stable and the earl of cleaning my chamber pot because he called his pony fat.

I love both games and have sunk roughly the same time into each. They are separate games for a separate (if overlapping) fan base.

I would love to fall into a rant about arguments over how some people feel EU4 is bland, or that CK2 is like the sims. But it would detract from my statements...

 

[Nyrael]

Dear Lord, the inability of people to understand that character system does not equal implementing CK2 into EU4...

Sure, characters are important to the time period. But EU4 is about the power of the state, not the character.

Which is historically inaccurate because Kings of EU4 era were extremely important (debatably more so than in CK2 era). It is only in Vic2 era that they became figureheads.
I myself wouldn't want an detailed character system, but Kings at least should be their own characters (at least give them portrait FFS, even if from a pool of pre-made icons). Perfectly, the Advisors should also play a role (cause certain events to trigger as Advisors represent people that left important legacy in history).
I repeat: nothing on level of CK2. Character Relations would be highly undesired (as they would make it too CK2-ish) but Kings and Advisors leading their lives in their state would IMO be welcome.

Kings should have their own opinions that give small bonuses while Advisors sometimes (not often) trigger certain events that leave a mark on nation's history.

 

[Anthropoid]

Sure, characters are important to the time period. But EU4 is about the power of the state, not the character.

If that is true, then why does my "state" suck wind at keeping up in the Miltech race when I get a crappy 3/2/1 Monarch?

I disagree completely. I've tried to get into CK2 many times, but have never been able to enjoy the minutia of managing my character's various relationships with everyone on the planet. I'm glad that people who do enjoy that thing have a well designed strategy game for them to play in CK2, but please don't try to turn EU4 into that. There's nothing wrong with multiple games in the same genre by the same publisher having different mechanics.

Trying to overlay CK2's full "court system" into EU4 would be an absolute catastrophe. If any of the advocates for more "character" in EU4 are advocating that, well I have to say, I don't think it is realistic.

But fleshing out some of the characters that WE ALREADY HAVE IN GAME, and on which a huge amount of the strategy depends, seems to me to be warranted.

Rather than say "please plug a bunch of stuff from CK2 into EU4" how about "couldn't some of the peacetime, realm management elements from CK2 inspire a more fun and detailed country management system for EU4?"

 

[El Greco]

No. Keep EUIV and CKII seperate! I don't want characters, I want better state management. That's what the game is all about. CKII is strategy-light for fans of The Sims.

+1