Firstly the game is amazing as it is dont get me wrong but to date I have never completed a full game with just under 300 hours of playing (Although I will probably complete my first full play through today after achieving the auld alliance reversed.)
For me the game just becomes too easy after a certain stage, once you have a blob then nobody can stand in your way and then it gets boring. But getting to that stage is a hell of a lot of fun.
Here are some things I would love to see changed in the game that for me personally will increase the enjoyment. I may contradict myself a little
I also realise some changes may be fairly radical changes so likely to not even be thought about for EU4, but perhaps EU5?
Its also a pretty long read, my apologies for that and I also want to make clear that I love the game in its current format but late game I like many find boring, my proposals will make the early part of the game longer and the later part with a lot more work needing done to keep enjoyment going.
A revamp of the monarch points.
As I said above, when you get to a certain point the other countries just cant stand in your way. One of the main reasons for that is because your tech is generally higher and to me that is wrong. To get to the big blop stage you have most likely been fighting continuously for 100-150 years. In life if this was the case then the full effort of any country would be towards war and pretty much sod the rest. So you should essentially have high military tech but much much lower diplo and admin tech then your more peaceful neighbors.
So I propose a penalty to admin and tech points and/or a bonus to military tech points while at war. Creating a strong warlike country but very unstable and not able to raise as much money at home. Also perhaps penalties to diplomatic negotiations with other countries due to your very aggressive thinking.
A revamp of the amounts of gold taken during wars
Ever heard of the saying war is bad for business?
Well in Eu4 that's simply not the case.
Your actively encouraged to declare war on everyone around you because sometimes its the only way to make money. You can easily be expected to be taking 10% of the income of 6+ other countries at any one time and whatever lump sums of cash you can expect. And in the first 100-150 years and if you started as a small poor country you will be earning more from other countries than what you earn from your own country. And all it costs is 10% of your victory points and it lasts for 10 years? Oh and while im robbing you all blind I will take half your lands as well. Too much in my opinion.
So I propose that negotiating for peace that either gold or land can be taken, not both at the same time. Perhaps when its just gold your after you automatically humiliate them and increase your Power projection significantly. Or at the very least increase the % from 10 to a higher amount when asking for 10% of their money for the next 10 years.
Increase the speed of battles
One thing that I always thought strange in EU and other paradox games is the length of time that battles take. Some can take weeks. From the little I know of battles during those time periods they were short and very bloody affairs. Taking a few hours at most. I understand that people like seeing the tick of each round to see how their dice have rolled but does it need to take weeks for the big fights to finish? Cant they be done in 1 day?
I propose that fights be shortened to a more accurate 1 day rather than weeks with the game pausing briefly and 3 options on how those fights are shown.
1. As it is right now where all fights are showing each round of dice throws (Obviously this could only be done with countries own troops or the game would be continuously on pause.)
2. Only show the battles of armies you have clicked on prior to engagement.
3. Dont show any of the battles, give a quick report on how it went and give the option of watching a replay.
Decrease the need to blanket siege the whole of an enemies country
Historically if you controlled the whole country you took the whole country. Not so in EU4. Your fighting against France and you want one (More likely 4-5-6 though) of their provinces. but to get them you have to pretty much siege down every single province of France. As I said, previously, if you did that you could walk into the capital and declare yourself king. England did it several times to Scotland before being thrown out. The 100 year war is a great example of what taking land was all about back in the day. Move your army in, kill the other army and dont move out again. (Obviously thats a very simplified version of true events.) So why not decrease the war score needed for provinces you have claims on? That might make things a bit too easy though so to combat that why not greatly increase the spawning on rebels if you have blanket sieged the whole country? Also if you dont have a claim on a province then you arent allowed to get it during peace talks.
So my proposal is to lessen the war score needed considerably for provinces you have claims on for people that insist on blanket sieging countries when they dont need to then they have to contend with a lot of rebels spawning.
The strength of Generals is too random in the game
One thing that really does annoy me in the game is my great big blob generates 1 star generals 90% of the time and much much smaller countries have 2 star and 3 star a lot of the time. Hello? Im fighting constantly, my officers are constantly fighting and winning. So you would think they would be learning an awful lot about warfare and tactics? Apparently not.
My proposal is to increase the chance of 2-3 star generals when your main focus is war throughout the game. Perhaps give us the option of spending more military points to stand a better chance for better generals. (This would also work in well with my first proposal of a bonus to military points while at war.)
More peaceful countries keeping up to date with military tech and strength
Not that there is a totally peaceful country in the game but compared to the player at least there will be plenty that are very peaceful. If a country doesn't fight very often then its military wouldn't be as good. Its a simple fact. Military focused countries will always be pushing the boundaries. Take WW2 and Germany as an example. It took over most of Europe and used all those countries it controlled to push its military tech. Russia while certainly not peaceful had the manpower but due to leaders more interested in lining their own pockets had to share rifles between several men. More accurate to the games time period is Scotland whos clans were more interested in fighting other clans started off the Jacobite rising with pitchforks and axes compared to the English musket.
My proposal is that countries that arent looking to dominate its neighbors shouldn't have the same military tech as countries constantly at war. Obviously that makes the game sound easy but again if you take into consideration my first proposal and you have penalties to admin and diplo tech points during wars then it should balance itself out. You might be tougher than your enemies but they much more stable.
Thanks for reading, please let me know of any opinions people have. I wont say my ideas are fantastic and in some cases they might just not work. Please be polite and no flaming, I took a lot of time to write this out
For me the game just becomes too easy after a certain stage, once you have a blob then nobody can stand in your way and then it gets boring. But getting to that stage is a hell of a lot of fun.
Here are some things I would love to see changed in the game that for me personally will increase the enjoyment. I may contradict myself a little
I also realise some changes may be fairly radical changes so likely to not even be thought about for EU4, but perhaps EU5?
Its also a pretty long read, my apologies for that and I also want to make clear that I love the game in its current format but late game I like many find boring, my proposals will make the early part of the game longer and the later part with a lot more work needing done to keep enjoyment going.
A revamp of the monarch points.
As I said above, when you get to a certain point the other countries just cant stand in your way. One of the main reasons for that is because your tech is generally higher and to me that is wrong. To get to the big blop stage you have most likely been fighting continuously for 100-150 years. In life if this was the case then the full effort of any country would be towards war and pretty much sod the rest. So you should essentially have high military tech but much much lower diplo and admin tech then your more peaceful neighbors.
So I propose a penalty to admin and tech points and/or a bonus to military tech points while at war. Creating a strong warlike country but very unstable and not able to raise as much money at home. Also perhaps penalties to diplomatic negotiations with other countries due to your very aggressive thinking.
A revamp of the amounts of gold taken during wars
Ever heard of the saying war is bad for business?
Well in Eu4 that's simply not the case.
Your actively encouraged to declare war on everyone around you because sometimes its the only way to make money. You can easily be expected to be taking 10% of the income of 6+ other countries at any one time and whatever lump sums of cash you can expect. And in the first 100-150 years and if you started as a small poor country you will be earning more from other countries than what you earn from your own country. And all it costs is 10% of your victory points and it lasts for 10 years? Oh and while im robbing you all blind I will take half your lands as well. Too much in my opinion.
So I propose that negotiating for peace that either gold or land can be taken, not both at the same time. Perhaps when its just gold your after you automatically humiliate them and increase your Power projection significantly. Or at the very least increase the % from 10 to a higher amount when asking for 10% of their money for the next 10 years.
Increase the speed of battles
One thing that I always thought strange in EU and other paradox games is the length of time that battles take. Some can take weeks. From the little I know of battles during those time periods they were short and very bloody affairs. Taking a few hours at most. I understand that people like seeing the tick of each round to see how their dice have rolled but does it need to take weeks for the big fights to finish? Cant they be done in 1 day?
I propose that fights be shortened to a more accurate 1 day rather than weeks with the game pausing briefly and 3 options on how those fights are shown.
1. As it is right now where all fights are showing each round of dice throws (Obviously this could only be done with countries own troops or the game would be continuously on pause.)
2. Only show the battles of armies you have clicked on prior to engagement.
3. Dont show any of the battles, give a quick report on how it went and give the option of watching a replay.
Decrease the need to blanket siege the whole of an enemies country
Historically if you controlled the whole country you took the whole country. Not so in EU4. Your fighting against France and you want one (More likely 4-5-6 though) of their provinces. but to get them you have to pretty much siege down every single province of France. As I said, previously, if you did that you could walk into the capital and declare yourself king. England did it several times to Scotland before being thrown out. The 100 year war is a great example of what taking land was all about back in the day. Move your army in, kill the other army and dont move out again. (Obviously thats a very simplified version of true events.) So why not decrease the war score needed for provinces you have claims on? That might make things a bit too easy though so to combat that why not greatly increase the spawning on rebels if you have blanket sieged the whole country? Also if you dont have a claim on a province then you arent allowed to get it during peace talks.
So my proposal is to lessen the war score needed considerably for provinces you have claims on for people that insist on blanket sieging countries when they dont need to then they have to contend with a lot of rebels spawning.
The strength of Generals is too random in the game
One thing that really does annoy me in the game is my great big blob generates 1 star generals 90% of the time and much much smaller countries have 2 star and 3 star a lot of the time. Hello? Im fighting constantly, my officers are constantly fighting and winning. So you would think they would be learning an awful lot about warfare and tactics? Apparently not.
My proposal is to increase the chance of 2-3 star generals when your main focus is war throughout the game. Perhaps give us the option of spending more military points to stand a better chance for better generals. (This would also work in well with my first proposal of a bonus to military points while at war.)
More peaceful countries keeping up to date with military tech and strength
Not that there is a totally peaceful country in the game but compared to the player at least there will be plenty that are very peaceful. If a country doesn't fight very often then its military wouldn't be as good. Its a simple fact. Military focused countries will always be pushing the boundaries. Take WW2 and Germany as an example. It took over most of Europe and used all those countries it controlled to push its military tech. Russia while certainly not peaceful had the manpower but due to leaders more interested in lining their own pockets had to share rifles between several men. More accurate to the games time period is Scotland whos clans were more interested in fighting other clans started off the Jacobite rising with pitchforks and axes compared to the English musket.
My proposal is that countries that arent looking to dominate its neighbors shouldn't have the same military tech as countries constantly at war. Obviously that makes the game sound easy but again if you take into consideration my first proposal and you have penalties to admin and diplo tech points during wars then it should balance itself out. You might be tougher than your enemies but they much more stable.
Thanks for reading, please let me know of any opinions people have. I wont say my ideas are fantastic and in some cases they might just not work. Please be polite and no flaming, I took a lot of time to write this out
Last edited:
Upvote
0
