What EU4 Will Need (and Not Need)
- Thread starter Zenith Darksea
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I'd like to see more missions and more decisions. Specifically missions that relate to sliders/NIs. I think it's silly that I'm getting "Naval race with country X" as a nation with a maxed land slider. Your missions should reflect the ideas and the policies of the country.
I would like to see different types of treaties. I would like to form non-aggression pacts and defensive treaties with other nations. That way, I'm not dragged into offensive wars when I have no desire to attack someone else.
I also like the leadership (I think it's leadership) sliders from HOI3. That way if you want more magistrates, for example, you can put more of your leadership towards that. It would make sense that if you're playing a peaceful country you can focus more on research/government leadership than the guy who is fighting constantl.
It would be nice to see more things to do as a peaceful country as well, but I can't think of any good suggestions for that at the moment.
I would like to see different types of treaties. I would like to form non-aggression pacts and defensive treaties with other nations. That way, I'm not dragged into offensive wars when I have no desire to attack someone else.
I also like the leadership (I think it's leadership) sliders from HOI3. That way if you want more magistrates, for example, you can put more of your leadership towards that. It would make sense that if you're playing a peaceful country you can focus more on research/government leadership than the guy who is fighting constantl.
It would be nice to see more things to do as a peaceful country as well, but I can't think of any good suggestions for that at the moment.
Since this is about EU4 and likely a new engine, maybe it should feature a mix of turn-based and realtime. Suppose we are talking SP only for a minute. Now imagine, you are at peace, and basically all you do is pause the game once or twice a year to use your specialists. How about you could set the game to run in turns of the length of your pausing interval (and set that interval mid-session)? Once you hit ´end turn´ the game will, behind the scenes, run normally, but it wont display anything, except the date it is working on right now. Everything progresses just as in realtime during the ´AIs turn´. Events might still pop up during it. Certain events throw you back into realtime (being declared war upon, is obviously one of these).
I´d probably use such a feature quite often, not only in EU4, but also in, say, HoI4, where i´d probably have two meetings (=turns) a day during war-time and maybe one per month in peace.
The value such a feature would add to the franchises would go beyond mere functionality, as the flow of time within a game greatly contributes to the consistency of its atmosphere, for me. I assume, some people simply put the speed to max and have the game pause on everything and then decide whenever something comes up. But, for me, when, say, 20 years pass in the game, it just feels odd (like some sort of amnesia) when they fly by in 30 seconds - i either want to wait for some time (!), or hit ´end turn´ a number of times i find appropriate. --- I dunno - i am probably not explaining it convincingly.
Besides that, i dont want to switch to another game each time i feel like doing TBS rather than RTSish.
I´d probably use such a feature quite often, not only in EU4, but also in, say, HoI4, where i´d probably have two meetings (=turns) a day during war-time and maybe one per month in peace.
The value such a feature would add to the franchises would go beyond mere functionality, as the flow of time within a game greatly contributes to the consistency of its atmosphere, for me. I assume, some people simply put the speed to max and have the game pause on everything and then decide whenever something comes up. But, for me, when, say, 20 years pass in the game, it just feels odd (like some sort of amnesia) when they fly by in 30 seconds - i either want to wait for some time (!), or hit ´end turn´ a number of times i find appropriate. --- I dunno - i am probably not explaining it convincingly.
Besides that, i dont want to switch to another game each time i feel like doing TBS rather than RTSish.
To be honest, I don't want an EU4 sequel. I feel like EU3 is a good enough game that I can play it till Doomsday.
the game needs better balance and scaling for eastern and western tech groups. from a 1399 standpoint and onwards the eastern tech gets unrealistically dominated as the game progresses
Game should make gold vanish after some time, as it was in reality(as gold is rare, and the former gold mines are mostly now out of it - for example there were gold mines in poland(in silesia of course, near wrocław, in city of złotoryja)).
Last edited:
A better alliance-system is absolutley necessary:
agression pact
non-agression pact
interfaith alliances (For expample: Ottomans and France)
Defensive alliances
Religious alliances
Cultural alliances
Alliances, which focuses on only one country...
agression pact
non-agression pact
interfaith alliances (For expample: Ottomans and France)
Defensive alliances
Religious alliances
Cultural alliances
Alliances, which focuses on only one country...
GOOD LOOKING BORDERS OF AI COUNTRIES!
Seriously, they need to prioritice more which provinces they want to conquer.
Also in the American colonies...
Just some more homogenous maps/borders would make this game look and feel 100 times better.
Seriously, they need to prioritice more which provinces they want to conquer.
Also in the American colonies...
Just some more homogenous maps/borders would make this game look and feel 100 times better.
I wouldn't mind stability being harder to control if it was more "damn I really want to expand but my people are getting upset" and less "hey sucka take this unavoidable -1 stability event".
Other than that I'd like to see
- A bit more detail on the military and economic sides; nothing on the level of HoI3 or V2, respectively, but more than what we have now.
- More tough choices. Judging by Paradox's last few games the crusty old policy slider system seems to have lost favour, so that's one good sign, but in general strategic decisions should require more thought. Ideally there would be little or no "no-brainers".
- Better gameplay for African and American countries. I know they're not the focus and I'm certainly not expecting as much detail or work as put into the countries in Europe or even Asia and the Middle East but in EU3 their implementation is totally bare-bones and barely functional as player choices. A lot of combat mechanics don't scale properly for the tech level they start at, you spend most of your time waiting for Europe to arrive, and a lot of events don't even take them into account (i.e., getting the "Natives not assisting" event... as the natives).
- Steal whatever works from V2/CK2. There's been more than a few times that I've been playing either of those games and I think to myself "man, if only it worked like this in EU3".
- More involved diplomacy. In reality diplomacy was enormously important but in EU3 it's kind of primitive.
- Finally - and this might sound at odds with my other suggestions - keep it relatively simple. One of the nice things about EU3 is it doesn't get bogged down too much in any one specific realm of detail. There's a fine line between "complex enough to be interesting" and "so complex it's boring".
Other than that I'd like to see
- A bit more detail on the military and economic sides; nothing on the level of HoI3 or V2, respectively, but more than what we have now.
- More tough choices. Judging by Paradox's last few games the crusty old policy slider system seems to have lost favour, so that's one good sign, but in general strategic decisions should require more thought. Ideally there would be little or no "no-brainers".
- Better gameplay for African and American countries. I know they're not the focus and I'm certainly not expecting as much detail or work as put into the countries in Europe or even Asia and the Middle East but in EU3 their implementation is totally bare-bones and barely functional as player choices. A lot of combat mechanics don't scale properly for the tech level they start at, you spend most of your time waiting for Europe to arrive, and a lot of events don't even take them into account (i.e., getting the "Natives not assisting" event... as the natives).
- Steal whatever works from V2/CK2. There's been more than a few times that I've been playing either of those games and I think to myself "man, if only it worked like this in EU3".
- More involved diplomacy. In reality diplomacy was enormously important but in EU3 it's kind of primitive.
- Finally - and this might sound at odds with my other suggestions - keep it relatively simple. One of the nice things about EU3 is it doesn't get bogged down too much in any one specific realm of detail. There's a fine line between "complex enough to be interesting" and "so complex it's boring".
I think I have a possible solution to Stability. First, I would eliminate the +3/-3 scale. It's okay in a pinch but it's just not subtle enough. I would implement a +100/-100 scale. That way if you lose 1 stability point it's not exactly a game changer, but losing 50 would, but that would take years to drop, perhaps decades. The rate would be based on a scale similar to the ones found on the Budget/Research window, except you can't manipulate the rate like you can with minting or research(in essence no more investing in stability) but through decisions you make with a random event(Rule of Thumb would be any event that currently drops or raises stability would drop or raise the rate in this new system; so the hated "Comet Sighted" event won't be nearly as bad). The extremes of this scale would be +5/-5, so even at -5 drop rate it would take 40 years to drop to -100 stability, plenty of time to react and turn the ship around. The effects of -100 stability would be disastrous. The odds of a Civil War scale revolt are astronomically high. You'd probably suffer pretender uprisings every few years and, if you're a large multicultural nation, you will suffer nationalist, patriot, and colonial rebels every few months. There is also the distinct possibility of it all coming down on you all at once, with multiple pretenders rising to depose you combined. Combining all these effects of -100 stability you're gonna have a hell of a time maintaining fiscal solvency. Also I would add the possibility of vassals abandoning you if your stability is too low: what good is a protector who can't even protect himself? Of course it's HIGHLY recommended that you don't get that low, but if you get a series of very bad events you're gonna have a bad time.
Maybe the rate can also decrease and increase at fractions too(like .1 or .2) which means that stability can also decrease by fractions, that way rebellions can also decrease the stability rate(at say .1; depending on the severity of the rebellion). Of course that means encouraging rebellions in your enemy, even if the rebellion is a failure it still hurts them a bit and in the long run it can even help bring them down.
It should also be noted that the Stability rate has a natural tendency to move towards zero, which is good if your rate is negative or bad if it's positive and your over all stab is low. There would be no events that increase or decrease over all stability.
As for what should NOT be included? Canada.
Maybe the rate can also decrease and increase at fractions too(like .1 or .2) which means that stability can also decrease by fractions, that way rebellions can also decrease the stability rate(at say .1; depending on the severity of the rebellion). Of course that means encouraging rebellions in your enemy, even if the rebellion is a failure it still hurts them a bit and in the long run it can even help bring them down.
It should also be noted that the Stability rate has a natural tendency to move towards zero, which is good if your rate is negative or bad if it's positive and your over all stab is low. There would be no events that increase or decrease over all stability.
As for what should NOT be included? Canada.
I'd suggest a Native American expansion, mostly to solve the problems outlined by Derp, for EU3 before EU4.
The best thing they could add would be a basic logistics system. It's silly that a 25k stack can be maintained in South America in 1502, or for example that the Ottomans in 1540 can station 300k men in Hungary ad infinitum.
#2 on my list would be to improve how sieges work. They should be more dynamic, with siege events occuring that damage both defenders and attackers. It should take more than just an equal number of men to make progress on a siege.
This kind of thing could help prevent countries from collapsing after a single war because the enemy won't be able to run across their country chasing their stacks without taking horrible attrition, and they won't be able to carpet siege as easily.
#2 on my list would be to improve how sieges work. They should be more dynamic, with siege events occuring that damage both defenders and attackers. It should take more than just an equal number of men to make progress on a siege.
This kind of thing could help prevent countries from collapsing after a single war because the enemy won't be able to run across their country chasing their stacks without taking horrible attrition, and they won't be able to carpet siege as easily.
I doubt both. First off, no way you can (at least in 1 province) support 25k stack in south america, unless you build high level fort there(min 2 levels) and same i doubt Ottomans could station more than 100k in hungary in whole.
Regardless of the actual supply limit, attrition is low enough and manpower is high enough that having a 25k stack in the Americas is feasable and has few drawbacks outside of opportunity cost. The AI does it consistently.
As for Hungary, you may be right in that particular example, but the point still stands. It should not be just as cheap for the Ottomans to maintain 100k men in Hungary as it is for them to maintain the same amount in Bulgaria. I merely use the situation I know best to make an example that can apply to every country.
As for Hungary, you may be right in that particular example, but the point still stands. It should not be just as cheap for the Ottomans to maintain 100k men in Hungary as it is for them to maintain the same amount in Bulgaria. I merely use the situation I know best to make an example that can apply to every country.
This is strange for me, I have no problems staying at +3 stability and have almost never been seriously threatened by rebels in DW EU3.
Perhaps we need, in addition to attrition, a 'unit cap' for each individual province. This could vary depending on technology, diplomacy, buildings and general province quality. It would make it impossible for armies larger than the unit cap to enter the province, unless it's owned by the nation in question.
you forgot the uncle HoI
yes i agree a lot of the system in crusader kings 2 would be nice and i would love things like supply lines and better diplomatic options. they are all great, but we need better naval system and coloinzation.
The main problem I would like fixed would be sieges getting stalled after an assualt; but there is less than 100 defenders left. It just doesn't make sense. We got 40,000 dudes outside, but there are 23 guys still in the fort and they say we aren't allowed. Clearly we should stop trying to take their fort/sarcasm