What EU4 Will Need (and Not Need)

[Sincleric]

The whole internal politics of EU really needs to be improved upon. I am tired of having fully maxed out sliders on Free Subjects and Innovative, being a Republican Dictatorship, having Ecumenism and Humanist Tolerance national ideas, and still getting events regarding unhappy nobles and clergy that hurt my stability. From my understanding, my nation does not have powerful nobles and its clergy doesn't have enough influence to cause revolt risk across the nation. There ought to be a new screen specifically for internal factions, and the provinces they have the most influence over. You could choose to try phasing out or disenfranchising nobles, clergy, etc. individually through national laws, decisions, and local provincial rules. Nobles could start to feel pinned, and corral local provincial leaders together to build a rebel state over a region. There could even be individual kings/lords within your kingdom, who would be harder to control and more likely to form a massive rebel state, to better represent diplo-annexing.

"Rebel Risk" percentages are too abstract and do not properly represent internal politics, not to mention that once your nation gets an army of about 15 regiments you can take down any rebellion with ease, even at 0% army maintenance.

 

[Chamboozer]

I think rebellions should be more abstract. It should be represented through lost tax revenue, manpower, and defensiveness, and it should give a bonus in battle to enemy armies. Only in the cases of major rebellions should actual armies spawn.

Pretender revolts are different, if an actual civil war system were implemented to accomodate it then the causes of the civil war should not be random, as it would be too frustrating for the player. Family trees would need to be introduced.

 

[Derp]

The whole internal politics of EU really needs to be improved upon. I am tired of having fully maxed out sliders on Free Subjects and Innovative, being a Republican Dictatorship, having Ecumenism and Humanist Tolerance national ideas, and still getting events regarding unhappy nobles and clergy that hurt my stability. From my understanding, my nation does not have powerful nobles and its clergy doesn't have enough influence to cause revolt risk across the nation. There ought to be a new screen specifically for internal factions, and the provinces they have the most influence over. You could choose to try phasing out or disenfranchising nobles, clergy, etc. individually through national laws, decisions, and local provincial rules. Nobles could start to feel pinned, and corral local provincial leaders together to build a rebel state over a region. There could even be individual kings/lords within your kingdom, who would be harder to control and more likely to form a massive rebel state, to better represent diplo-annexing.

"Rebel Risk" percentages are too abstract and do not properly represent internal politics, not to mention that once your nation gets an army of about 15 regiments you can take down any rebellion with ease, even at 0% army maintenance.

I agree, although honestly a lot of that could be solved in EU3 by just having more thorough event coding. There's a lot of various religious/cultural minority events that don't check ideas or sliders relevant to them at all, for example.

 

[Jia Xu]

I think government needs to be improved on in general. Countries should have heads of state and heads of government. This game covers the period in which a First Minister leading a centralized government on behalf of the king becomes the norm in Europe.

I'd like to see a divide between culture and ethnicity in provinces. EU3 makes no distinction between cultural assimilation (like say the Arabic language spreading to Africa with Islam) and an ethnic demographics shift (like ethnic Russians becoming a majority in Tartar provinces). In EU3, I almost don't like spreading my culture around. Spreading Bavarian to Korea feels like white Germans have become a majority in a Korean province. What I want it to mean is that German as a language/culture has spread there and I haven't committed some kind of subtle genocide of a people. hmy:

 

[Sincleric]

What I want it to mean is that German as a language/culture has spread there and I haven't committed some kind of subtle genocide of a people. hmy:

There is the provincial decision for a "settlement plan" that changes culture over time at a loss of colonists, so likely the term culture is actually referring to race. I think that cores represent things like language barriers, although then again, you can get events that spontaneously form cores just because of fudged Roman documents... so I don't know. The core system is actually kind of a mess, as is culture. Both should be broken down into a few different new factors, like language, race, national alignment, and claims.

 

[Jia Xu]

There is the provincial decision for a "settlement plan" that changes culture over time at a loss of colonists, so likely the term culture is actually referring to race. I think that cores represent things like language barriers, although then again, you can get events that spontaneously form cores just because of fudged Roman documents... so I don't know. The core system is actually kind of a mess, as is culture. Both should be broken down into a few different new factors, like language, race, national alignment, and claims.

Oh, I'm aware of this. I do read the event pop-ups. But I want an alternative way of spreading culture that doesn't involve resettlement. I tried to distinguish the two different kinds of culture swapping with examples, but I guess I didn't express myself very well.

I believe cores are supposed to reflect your claim that province is an integral part of your realm. Obviously, they can't represent culture or anything like that because cores can be revoked in peace negotiations.

 

[Sincleric]

Oh, I'm aware of this. I do read the event pop-ups. But I want an alternative way of spreading culture that doesn't involve resettlement. I tried to distinguish the two different kinds of culture swapping with examples, but I guess I didn't express myself very well.

I understood what you said completely, in fact I think I was agreeing with you.

I believe cores are supposed to reflect your claim that province is an integral part of your realm. Obviously, they can't represent culture or anything like that because cores can be revoked in peace negotiations.

What I was trying to say is that cores are more than just claims. When you take a province that has no core, you get ten (?) years of high revolt risk. When you take a core of yours, however, you get no such revolt risk, even if there isn't any logical reason for the people to like your nation (for example, the aforementioned forged documents). Just because I have a claim on Wien does not mean that the people there will agree to my leadership. Not that rebel risk even matters once you get a sizable nation.

 

[Pewt]

The whole internal politics of EU really needs to be improved upon. I am tired of having fully maxed out sliders on Free Subjects and Innovative, being a Republican Dictatorship, having Ecumenism and Humanist Tolerance national ideas, and still getting events regarding unhappy nobles and clergy that hurt my stability. From my understanding, my nation does not have powerful nobles and its clergy doesn't have enough influence to cause revolt risk across the nation. There ought to be a new screen specifically for internal factions, and the provinces they have the most influence over. You could choose to try phasing out or disenfranchising nobles, clergy, etc. individually through national laws, decisions, and local provincial rules. Nobles could start to feel pinned, and corral local provincial leaders together to build a rebel state over a region. There could even be individual kings/lords within your kingdom, who would be harder to control and more likely to form a massive rebel state, to better represent diplo-annexing.

"Rebel Risk" percentages are too abstract and do not properly represent internal politics, not to mention that once your nation gets an army of about 15 regiments you can take down any rebellion with ease, even at 0% army maintenance.

Sounds like you should consider trying Vicky 2.

 

[Chamboozer]

I think that armies in enemy territory should have a 1-5 day period after a major battle or siege victory in which they cannot move. This would simulate looting and help defenders out a bit.

 

[Rogol]

Decent tutorial and more statistics. I know Paradox sucks at it, but I´m tired of guessing and calculating the most basic things.
Improved HRE mechanics - unification of HRE is too easy, conflicts like 30 years war are impossible in-game.
AI sticking to each other. Their wars on the verge of oblivion are pathetic and not realistic at all.

 

[Emre Yigit]

Won't it come with a new engine, i.e. not Clausewitz? Which is now 5 years old.

And have multi-core capability?

Surely that's worth a new game by itself? Otherwise, to be frank, I'm really rather happy with EU3 HTTT.

 

[Powerslave]

Many great ideas. I don't have much to add but one thing:

I'd like to be able to use mathematics in events. That is I'd like to for example be able to add number of provinces * 10 + income per month into a variable and then use that variable for whatever ideas I have.

 

[Maginor]

Won't it come with a new engine, i.e. not Clausewitz? Which is now 5 years old.

And have multi-core capability?

Surely that's worth a new game by itself? Otherwise, to be frank, I'm really rather happy with EU3 HTTT.

It is unfair to say that it is 5 years old since it has been continually upgraded. Versions of the engine does support multicore, for instance the one used in HoI3. What exactly do you want from a new engine that you don't think can be made by improving on the current one? Say for instance if one started with the version that is used in CKII?

On topic, I would like a game with the core gameplay mechanisms based around the understanding of the world provided by the book "Guns, Germs and Steel". Internal politics and societal structure is also a must.

 

[unmerged(160565)]

Know something I would like to see implemented? I'd like to see different ways for acquiring technology. If you are fighting someone with muskets and you have spears and somehow win... well you would use those muskets... or buy them from someone else. Does not mean you would know how to make them yourself (probably just a 'buy two units' or kill blah blah guys get to make one or two' kind of thing) but some way for uncivs like natives, Africans or Asians, to get some tech without westernizing.

I mean it happened historically, Spanish brought horses to the new world and the Sioux people became powerhouses in the plains. The dutch sold the Iroquois gunpowder weapons early on and they were looking on the path to westernization (not that they were not before the Europeans even got there).

The way I see it, the more narrowminded and serf the people in a native nation are the less chance that winning a battle against a technological superior force, or having successful 'western arms deals' or flat out a new trading mechanism for weapons with a technologically superior force, would yield a permanent boost to their technology slider.

A good example. The Inca, lets say Castille or Portugal or (in my game Scottland) land in the new world with a few men, no colony yet because they are out of range. They go searching and find the inca, now I am a good 20 or so tech levels above the Inca but I underestimated their numbers and their forts and was beat (much to my embarrassment) Now, I find it kind of crazy that noone in their civilization would look at the weapons and armor and tools my units had and just toss them aside. Maybe if they were narrow minded and didn't have the freedom to explore it, but otherwise.


Lastly, on another note having to do with the natives, I'd love to see the life rating system from VicII implemented into this game and make at least the central part of the US able to be colonized, maybe not the amazon or the Sahara desert but still.
Also with that I'd like to see some of the other native tribes, the Sioux for example, as well as other african tribes.

Ok,this is the LAST thing. I'd like to see some kind of way to... non militantly bring nations into yours when colonizing (since you cant royal marrage a tribal democracy). I mean some way to work with them, as opposed to opressing them. At the moment all you have is a random event or two. (I know, somehow, in my game as Scotland I have Aztec and Maya as accepted cultures )

 

[DanubianCossak]

My biggest 3 concerns with EU3:

1.) lack of proper representation of struggles within your society, for example, there is nothing preventing you from going full narrowminded, but at the same time picking NI's that are completely opposite. There are no factions or anything resembling people within your country doing their own "things".

2.) mechanic that allows you to recruit units regardless of anything as long as province has proper core. It is utter nonsense. Furthermore if you hit proper tech level, or have just 1 province with proper core, you can recruit infinite number of units of certain type. That doesnt make sense. I would very much prefer a system where provinces of certain cultures and whatnot contribute to a global maximum of units of any type that can be recruited. So if 20 provinces produce longbowmen, you cant recruit 2000 of those units, but a certain capped limited number, say, 40 or whatever.

3.) mercenaries are completely underpowered. You should be able to do much more stuff with them. The whole thing just cries for more development.

 

[defoffuture]

Hey I didnt read the whole thread because I didn't want to have to sift through the flaming, so this might have been mentioned:

Now that it's cancelled, why not port in a lot that the mechanics that were going into the Magna Mundi game? Not necessarily on the level of minutiae that MM was gonna have (different game with different goals, of course), but just the ideas, like corruption mechanics, for example.

 

[Derp]

Hey I didnt read the whole thread because I didn't want to have to sift through the flaming, so this might have been mentioned:

Now that it's cancelled, why not port in a lot that the mechanics that were going into the Magna Mundi game? Not necessarily on the level of minutiae that MM was gonna have (different game with different goals, of course), but just the ideas, like corruption mechanics, for example.

Paradox is good enough at making questionable decisions on their own, they don't need to rip off even worse ideas from a cancelled game.