What would YOU like to see in Europa Universalis IV?

[ZechsMerquise73]

Bad idea. There is little "simple" about placing provinces and nations. Making it easier for mods is one thing. Having a level editor that lets you drag nations and provinces around would require it to be able to reshape them without leaving any dead pixels, check and change adjacencies and straits, rewrite all the distance calculations and so forth. You'd also need it to be able to sort out terrain with the newly adjacent provinces.

Not necessarily that you could make continents at a whim; which would be great if it could be done. But that you can at least select which countries have which provinces, values for the provinces, etc.

So, the same depth as the CKII social system. Just spread over 300 countries, 1700+ provinces, with the attendant spouses, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, uncles, aunts and random hangers on. As well as all the plots and intrigues that this causes, and tracking the relations between all of them, in both directions...

I said 'more', not 'exactly the same'. Currently the only known people in the universe are your ruler and heir, and a few trading cards which represent a council. More depth is better, in my opinion. If all anyone asked for is a slightly improved version of EUIII, there'd be no reason to make a sequel. The way I see it, this is their flagship game, and it should be pretty epic.

That depends on who you are playing. By 1699 I'm often up to my elbows in colonial wars, or putting down the last of the reformation problems I've been having.
I've also got the potential of colonial revolts.
What sort of cosmetic and gameplay changes would you want, considering it would have to change smoothly, otherwise you're writing more than one game.

Perhaps what I'm thinking is that the game is the same topdown obscurity at any era. Even though the wars are called something else, its still a lot of "send flag x to y position = conquest!" Not to mention that in short order you're dealing with putting down a huge blob, and then when you finish, you're the unstoppable world power (except for rebels! yay.)

Instead of having unit clothing changes accessible by DLC, put them in the vanilla game. Introduce new music as the eras pass. Events that relate to the time period with artwork that reflects the time period.

That'll make playing tribes fun... Perhaps you'd like to make it so you've got absolutely no control over anything beyond your king (or president)'s immediate reach?

How would having independent warring tribes in your realm take anything away from your personal level of control? If anything, it would give you more things to do, with having to subjugate and reform them. It would be like EUIII's tribal system expounded and visualized.

Think of EU3's current system. Say I'm bordering some Muslim tribal nation. I get a CB that they've been raiding my provinces. But they actually haven't been. I have no negative effects from their raids, so why should I ever do anything with this CB? If I'm the tribal nation, there's no explanation why the enemy has a CB on me, and I have no control over it. By visualising what's happening, making it a real entity, the player has more narrative and less arbitrary annoyance.

Building, trade, diplomacy. All things you can do when not at war. I will admit sometimes there's not a lot you can do, especially as someone like Cherokee, but if you want less revolts you're cutting down on one of the between war things to do. What sort of things would you suggest you could do, without turning the game into a micromanagement hell, and without interfering in your ability to concentrate on a war when one happens?

In CKII, they have events which you can activate in peacetime. Perhaps something like that to give more internal focus; totally optional decisions. Selecting a slider or pushing a button - like EU3's trade, diplomacy, building - isn't exactly enthralling. Besides, not having any real internal focus just means the point of the game is making war, and waiting while you cooldown for more war. HttT at least had marriage and culture to mess with, but I'd like to see it go a little deeper.

Most countries in this time period were perfectly content to not conquer all of Europe. Give us a reason to play realistically.

 

[Chamboozer]

I would like to see the Protestant Reformation unfold along much more regional lines rather than turning Europe into a checkerboard of religions. Some places like Scandinavia should be almost guaranteed to go Protestant due to the state's poverty and potential gain from taking over Church lands, while others like England or France should be very much up in the air.

 

[Kung Zog]

I would like to see the Protestant Reformation unfold along much more regional lines rather than turning Europe into a checkerboard of religions. Some places like Scandinavia should be almost guaranteed to go Protestant due to the state's poverty and potential gain from taking over Church lands, while others like England or France should be very much up in the air.

but the Scandinavian states aren't necessarily poor. However it should be easier to be protestant the farther away from Rome you are.

 

[Korsan82]

What I'd also like to have is heirs and rulers which can be directly educated. I don't want to have totally random stats on my new heirs/leaders. Give us the chance to send them into buildings (which you have to build before) to improve their skills. This would add some more things to do inside your country.
Upgradeable buildings would also be useful to even improve stat gaining and besides it would be a place you could invest gold in rather to stockpile it in your chambers.

 

[Chamboozer]

What I'd also like to have is heirs and rulers which can be directly educated. I don't want to have totally random stats on my new heirs/leaders. Give us the chance to send them into buildings (which you have to build before) to improve their skills. This would add some more things to do inside your country.
Upgradeable buildings would also be useful to even improve stat gaining and besides it would be a place you could invest gold in rather to stockpile it in your chambers.

Indeed, educational events were one of the most fun aspects of CKII, and will allow us to create an emotional attachment to our heir while also giving us some degree of control over our country's future.

 

[ZechsMerquise73]

How about different types of army mobilization?


Most start out with sally mechanics. A nation has to take time to call troops, but they don't have to pay for a regular army. Perhaps you'd get a few more and less disciplined troops than a standing army.

A standing army has a well trained fighting force ready, and all the cost that goes with it.

Perhaps a mix of these two?

A country that uses Warlords would have landed factions inside their nation, and have to keep on good political terms with these. Perhaps their leader would need to be paid in a war, and they might sometimes have their own political agendas.

A country with tribes has multiple peoples in their borders. They can either subjugate, pay, or ally these people.

Conquering a warlord or tribal nation will still have these mechanics in place, but you can whipe them out and replace them with your own systems.

 

[Chamboozer]

I would really like to see the concept of having different laws for different places brought over from CKII. That way inheriting a country through a PU, or conquering a country, don't have the same effects de-facto. This could simulate such things as Spain getting very little revenue from the Aragon, simply due to the taxation laws.

 

[IceM]

The character system, no doubt

 

[gja102]

Balance of power... I love to kill it. When you kill balance of power, the new balance appears. And fun happens.

This!I think this is the best thing ever in the game regarding things that developers didn't really put as a mechanism but exists as a general rule

Glad you agree, I do think it needs to be a hard-coded mechanism. Ideally its own screen where all the great powers' scores are listed and the various power blocs are weighted against each other. With a picture of some actual scales, just to labour the point

 

[eliphas8]

A perfect strategy loaf of CK, Vicky, EU, and HoI going from 1066 to 2012 which faithfully takes the best elements from each individual game and merges it. Unfortuneately that wont happen (unless Paradox suddenly gets a AAA development budget which is pretty high on my list of things to do if I am ever a billionaire) so I will just go for a system to represent minority populations in provinces (not on the level from the POP thread but something, it would add quite a bit of depth to the game).

 

[unmerged(167523)]

5 - Religious and cultural minorities

That´s it what I would like to see, too.

Ability to change Cultures and religions slowly (in steps) by certain buildings or settlement policies. Like in Empires - Total War where the province religion was beeing changed steatily by missionary and religion buildung.

 

[jcinq4]

Are those what appear to be trade routes in this screen shot!? This could be very interesting...

 

[AlHasanAlbaghdadi]

I would like to see the ability to attack coastal areas or bombard cities with navies, which would add to the warscore and also add a negative modifier to the region's population growth, production, and trade. To limit the power of such a painful weapon that would make naval powers more annoying than they already are, coastal fortifications could be added to the building tab, the coastal fortifications can bombard the enemy ships inflicting material and morale losses; the navies could bombard back and the outcome would depend on the local fortification level and how well its maintained, as well as the navy's condition, it would be like a siege but with ships isntead of armies.

Population growth is very fast the way it is now, it would be interesting to see large scale famines and plagues as well as population losses due to warfare, the population loss in EU3 during war was too small IMO it ought to be alot bigger, and on the other hand, after the war or famine is over the region would get a relatively large population growth for a certain period of time to stimulate recovery.

Another idea I'd like to suggest is limiting large countries growth with something other than modifiers, such as neighbouring countries forming coalitions against growing danger to restore balance in power.

 

[Cybvep]

It's already possible to block ports in EUIII and it affects warscore. What would coastal bombardment add to the gameplay?

 

[AlHasanAlbaghdadi]

It's already possible to block ports in EUIII and it affects warscore. What would coastal bombardment add to the gameplay?

Probably damage armies/navies in the province and also weaken the defenders morale, or reduce their numbers too

 

[Cybvep]

It's a bit meh, but I would like to see the increased role of ships during sieges. It's all connected with port blockades, though. That's what ships have been doing for ages.

Concerning other matters, I hope that republics will be fully playable, fun and interesting right from the start.

 

[Chamboozer]

I would like to see the ability to attack coastal areas or bombard cities with navies, which would add to the warscore and also add a negative modifier to the region's population growth, production, and trade. To limit the power of such a painful weapon that would make naval powers more annoying than they already are, coastal fortifications could be added to the building tab, the coastal fortifications can bombard the enemy ships inflicting material and morale losses; the navies could bombard back and the outcome would depend on the local fortification level and how well its maintained, as well as the navy's condition, it would be like a siege but with ships isntead of armies.

I think that a province without a coastal fort should not be able to protect the ships in its harbor from coastal bombardment, but siege-style combat between coastal fort and fleet was not typically done during this era, to my knowledge. It should basically amount to the player needing to build a coastal fort in a province if they want to keep their fleet stationed there, but once that fort is built there's not much an enemy fleet can do about it.

I really hope that trade routes affect the likelihood of one country going to war with another. If country A's relies on trade passing through country B, then country A should attempt to avoid war if possible.

 

[whalind]

I get annoyed when half of Africa is colonized by the end of the eighteenth century. Let's slow down the European expansion into areas which contemporary medicine rendered inhospitable to them.

 

[AlHasanAlbaghdadi]

I think that a province without a coastal fort should not be able to protect the ships in its harbor from coastal bombardment, but siege-style combat between coastal fort and fleet was not typically done during this era, to my knowledge. It should basically amount to the player needing to build a coastal fort in a province if they want to keep their fleet stationed there, but once that fort is built there's not much an enemy fleet can do about it.

I really hope that trade routes affect the likelihood of one country going to war with another. If country A's relies on trade passing through country B, then country A should attempt to avoid war if possible.

Were there any forms of coastal defenses before gunpowder era then? If yes, then countries should be able to build these coastal defenses and upgrade them after gunpowder becomes maisntream

 

[Chamboozer]

Were there any forms of coastal defenses before gunpowder era then? If yes, then countries should be able to build these coastal defenses and upgrade them after gunpowder becomes maisntream

Not anything on the same scale of effectiveness, fleets had to rely much more on naturally protected harbors rather than on fortresses (It would also be much harder to launch an attack on docked ships before the invention of gunpowder). Although if the game begins in 1444/5 as is currently believed, then the technology for coastal forts would already exist.