The desire for some sort of character system is strong

[unmerged(798670)]

I have no interest in adding characters who are not in line for successions to interact.
I have little interest in adding more stats to characters such as traits (I wouldn't consider it actively harmful, but I don't really want it).

I do want a more detailed potential ruler list and I do want royal marriages to result in children with different strength claims to different thrones. I would like some ability to manipulate legitimacy of different rulers I like (without turning it all into a murderball preferably) and I definitely want some ability to increase the likelihood of putting my family in charge of other kingdoms, preferably with some more mechanical benefits such as an increase in opinion for active help with the throne and a modest bonus(+10) to vassalage.

As it stands now with the PU changes they put in, your king and your lineage are the single most important feature in this game for rapid conquest of relatively AE free expansion, and that king boils down to 3 weighted d6 rolls you have no say in, and the lineage is a series of rolls that you have practically no say in. That part of the diplomacy game... could use some work.

 

[grisamentum]

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.

Ironically CK2 is mostly about internal management via character management.

In all honestly it should depend on the government type.

If you are playing a Feudal Monarchy you should be playing a CK2-style game where internal nobles are a bigger issue and managing them is serious business. We really need a better dynastic system too, but we wouldn't need CK2's whole system. Like anyone who isn't in a full-sized dynasty could be excluded, and you wouldn't need non-nobles at all.

The current system works pretty well for Despotic Monarchy but the realm problem is that all the governments feel the same (or at least all monarchies vs all republics), they just have different little bonuses. This has always been the biggest flaw with Paradox games, especially CK and EU: so many countries are just the same. Unique NIs help with this a lot, but different gameplay based on governments would be even better. The shogunate/daimyo thing is an interesting (though regionally-specific) example of how governments can be built out differently.

Hell, once you are playing a constitutional republic or something in the lategame it should be like playing Democracy 3 (albeit 200 years earlier...) on the domestic front.

 

[LiberiusX]

I disagree with OP. As others have said. Clamor is not for a character system. Clamor is for a more robust internal politics game. That being said, the adviser concept needs a total overhaul. it is bland.

 

[Sarmatian]

I don't really think that character system is the answer but some internal management would be welcome.

EU series desperately needs something else to do besides painting the map your colour, especially EU IV which is far more restricting than III in that regard. Right now it's really all about hoping for a good ruler while using some gamey or no gamey ways to continue conquering.

 

[tapewormlondon]

No it doesn't need a character system "Like CK2". It does need fleshing out in its own way, but not crossing the lines of CK2. I firmly believe that all Pdox games, that whilst sharing similar concepts, are completely different games. Its the same reason I dont think Eu4 should have a POP system.

Horses for courses. I like to have a canter on all of them for different reasons.

 

[panionios]

I feel there is just such a strong desire amongst a lot of players for some sort of a character system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lP1Xk2UcQpY

 

[Knab]

I disagree with the OP.
Or better, I don't really feel the lack of a CK2 character system.

Actually it wouldn't be that bad, but it should be a completely secondary feature (and lighter than the CK2 system) in order to respect the balance of the gameplay.
I don't think that EU4 deserves a sort of Crusaderkingzation; instead I think that CK2 could benefit from a Europauniversalization (i.e: more historical characterization and flavour)
Think, for example, about the fact that the HRE and the ERE work exactly in the same way or the complete absence of historical events like the Rise of the Communes in Northen Italy (pretty much important).

The problem with Crusader Kings that is too much sandbox; playing as a Castilian count in 867 or Norwegian one in 1337 is pretty much the same thing.
There is no history, there are just blobs eating each other.

(All the above obviously imho).

Speaking of wishes, I would love a Vickyzation of EU4 (Pop system and minorities).

 

[Sam L]

I don't think there should be a wholesale import of the character system from CKII but like many have said a modified character system (something like only involving heirs and immediate family).

Whilst there is some opposition, I feel the desire for change is also very loud. That's why I think an optional DLC will work so those who do not want it don't have to buy it. It shouldn't be just cosmetic though but actually have some sort of real impact in the game.

 

[Sam L]

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!

Yes! Our time will come. I can feel it.

 

[Novacat]

EU4 does not need a character system.

It needs internal mechanics. Thus EU4 would likely do better to look towards Vichy 2 for inspiration, such as the POP system, then to look backwards at Crusader Kings 2.

However, I do feel that an extended family tree would be nice beyond the immediate ruler-heir dynamic, to make ruling dynasties a bit more resilient, as it stands two bad events (death of heir/ruler) can completely wipe out a dynasty.

 

[apg]

hopefully the devs can give us decent character system, eu4 is a game within the age of dynasties so i think eu4's current representation of dynasticaffairs in particular is greatly lacking.

**Deploys shield against nutters who will say were asking for the CK2 system, no one is asking for that, eu4 needs its own method**

 

[balmung60]

EU4 does not need a character system.

It needs internal mechanics. Thus EU4 would likely do better to look towards Vichy 2 for inspiration, such as the POP system, then to look backwards at Crusader Kings 2.

However, I do feel that an extended family tree would be nice beyond the immediate ruler-heir dynamic, to make ruling dynasties a bit more resilient, as it stands two bad events (death of heir/ruler) can completely wipe out a dynasty.

The problem is that EU IV is between the two eras and neither fully fits. Perhaps drawing some from both might work. As it stands, we instead have nothing of either.

 

[WeissRaben]

The problem is that EU IV is between the two eras and neither fully fits. Perhaps drawing some from both might work. As it stands, we instead have nothing of either.

That's the problem, isn't it? It would need a CK2-ish model waning in importance in the 17th century while a V2-ish model waxes from then on. EU4 has a terribly awkward timeframe: generic internal management, whose components may vary with time, would probably be a solution.

 

[Rabid]

Honestly EU:Rome would be a good place for Paradox to look for new features for the EU series, even though they seem to have forgotten everything they did there or decided that they didn't like it.

Just from the top of my head I'd like Rome's civil wars, senate (would translate PERFECTLY to an internal faction system and combine easily with the existing mission system), battle events, expanded unit types, province populations and character system! Maybe Rome 2 will come some day and bring all of the cool EU4 features and fix the inherent brokenness of having half the map made of empty provinces...

 

[caintheconfused]

As always, I heartily agree with the resistance to the OP -- let CK2 be CK2 and let EUIV be EUIV.

 

[Red John]

EU4 does not need a character system.

It needs internal mechanics. Thus EU4 would likely do better to look towards Vichy 2 for inspiration, such as the POP system, then to look backwards at Crusader Kings 2.

However, I do feel that an extended family tree would be nice beyond the immediate ruler-heir dynamic, to make ruling dynasties a bit more resilient, as it stands two bad events (death of heir/ruler) can completely wipe out a dynasty.

I agree.

 

[thesodality]

I think the only type of character system I would be in favor of would be a very simple dynastic tree so I can view and choose my heir. I would also support a system which would give me perhaps 2-4 nobles with stats to choose from as possible regents. Anything more complex would really ruin the game for devoted EU players.

More complex internal and diplomatic mechanics can be incorporated into the game without a complex (and sometimes annoying) character system like CK2.