I am finishing my doctoral thesis this fall, so it is rather fresh still. And of course Cadiz was extremely important.
true!!
What would YOU like to see in Europa Universalis IV?
- Thread starter Jia Xu
- 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.
true!!
.png){kind=avatar}
You could randomize trade goods I suppose, but mineral resources should only appear in certain areas. Of course alluvial gold was rather quickly exhausted in the Caribbean, so there it could be a temporary situation, depending on how much investment is sunk in. And how long the Indians hold out.
Maybe several binaries with specific CPU targets so that the game is optimized for my specific CPU thus increasing the performance just a tad bit more?
The problem with non-random mineral location is that players will just beeline to them, creating a rather unrealistic experience.
The Aztecs and Incas should have many gold provinces, but I wouldn't go further then that.
Well, by the middle game overseas gold is worth much less than the standard colonial goods, why players beeline to them anyway? So that they can have a couple of gold provinces producing 30-40 ducats while their coffee provinces produce 100 ducats?
City and region development
in EUiii you spend hours on boring gameplay while recovering infamy, inflation, stability etc. before being able to further expand territory.
in depth play in city/provence development is the solution for overcoming these years of dull peace treaties.
how?
- when clicking or zoom in on a provence i would like to see a more detailed map with roads rivers and its city nicely embedded.
- availability of large amount of buildings and terrain improvements based on culture, terrain, climate, population size, production goods on one hand and technolgy level a
- historically unique buildings in some cities.
- I would like to place these buildings myself in a sort of city sandbox and see my cities grow and prosper in time
- establish trade routes and pilgrim routes too boost city development
- when a provence is taken not all buildings should be lost. for example the alahambra wasnt destroyed when castilia conquered granada nor the haga sofia when the ottomans conquered byzantium.
- when a city is sieged you should be able to see the actual city.
- when armies clash in the provence before the city gates you should see these armies fighting and not dice running.
surely it would require a lot of programming to keep al that data smoothly running, but hey Q3 2013 is long way from here.
in EUiii you spend hours on boring gameplay while recovering infamy, inflation, stability etc. before being able to further expand territory.
in depth play in city/provence development is the solution for overcoming these years of dull peace treaties.
how?
- when clicking or zoom in on a provence i would like to see a more detailed map with roads rivers and its city nicely embedded.
- availability of large amount of buildings and terrain improvements based on culture, terrain, climate, population size, production goods on one hand and technolgy level a
- historically unique buildings in some cities.
- I would like to place these buildings myself in a sort of city sandbox and see my cities grow and prosper in time
- establish trade routes and pilgrim routes too boost city development
- when a provence is taken not all buildings should be lost. for example the alahambra wasnt destroyed when castilia conquered granada nor the haga sofia when the ottomans conquered byzantium.
- when a city is sieged you should be able to see the actual city.
- when armies clash in the provence before the city gates you should see these armies fighting and not dice running.
surely it would require a lot of programming to keep al that data smoothly running, but hey Q3 2013 is long way from here.
No offense intended, but this is absolutely pointless. It creates massive amounts of tedious micromanaging. Furthermore the amount of code required to do something like this is enormous. I'd rather have a more complicated diplomatic game and be able to focus on inter-province trade more in times of peace, something I'd like to automate during war.
Less inane blobbing and colony spamming from minor nations, more Casus Belli's to expand better, more flavor for nations besides the majors, and more formable nations because they give me something to aim towards in the short term.
I think that the historical silver (not gold) producing provinces should be in their historical locations. Central Mexico never produced much mineral wealth AFAIK. The mines were in the north, at Zacatecas in particular. Silver should not be all over the Andes but in particular locations. I think that quality should be the issue rather than quantity of silver-producing provinces. But keeping in mind that the big lodes were not discovered until after the Conquest.
Gold would be alluvial in this time period, tending to run out quickly unless a lot more capital investment is involved. And in general resources should match that tendency, having a base value but requiring periodic increases in investment to remain profitable.
So outside the historical areas that produced mineral wealth in quality and in some quantity, there should be a random chance of finding gold that will run out in a random number of years. Gold and diamonds (in Brazil) would originally be purely a panning operation, then you could invest in hydraulic mining, which would require heavy investment but also permanently affect the tax rate in the province (as the hills are washed away in search for gold and other riches). That's how I would tackle the issue anyway.
And there's always the chance that one of your subjects in a remote province will find the mother lode.
Option to automate an army
So the game wont get bogged down in the micromanagement of wars and leave you to get on with the running of a nation if thats what you want to do.
thats important but i forgot it before in thinking only of government stuff.
On the Gold Debate, even if it does run out, there would be a time when it stops being the typical/chief export of a province. As other things, like cash-crops that can be increased in yeild as they don't depend on already being found there and etc, increase over time and with the population. While i'd guess Gold is pretty limited in how much just throwing more labourers at it can increase production.
So the game wont get bogged down in the micromanagement of wars and leave you to get on with the running of a nation if thats what you want to do.
thats important but i forgot it before in thinking only of government stuff.
On the Gold Debate, even if it does run out, there would be a time when it stops being the typical/chief export of a province. As other things, like cash-crops that can be increased in yeild as they don't depend on already being found there and etc, increase over time and with the population. While i'd guess Gold is pretty limited in how much just throwing more labourers at it can increase production.
One thing I'd like to see is an alert when an army (or fleet) 1st comes into view. I doubt we'd get it, though.
I'm going to quote myself here to expand on one of the points I added above. I'd like union tag countries (assuming they work at all similiarly in this game to the way they do in EU3) to be more dynamic overall. Right now, they're very set on the historical path. Spain, for example, has a flag containing elements of the Castillian and Arogonese flags, and a name list for its rulers, advisors, and generals made up either primarily or entirely of Castillian names. But if I form Spain as Portugal, not only does this not fit, but for me, it takes away a lot of the sense of accomplishment for doing something different and altering history. As soon as I form the union, all trace of my national beginnings disapears. Yes, my primary culture remains the same, but what actual impact does this have? All the names are Castillian now, not Portuguese. And if you form Spain as Granada, well, you get some rather interesting missions, I'll put it that way. :laugh: It would add to the immersion and sense of reward to the player if the union tag was clearly heavily influenced by the country that forms it, so that, say, a historical France is different from a Navarran one, in some way other than the given primary culture.
Some kind of local autonomy. Spain wasn't Spain until 1812 IMHO, with the Constitution of the Spanish Monarchy, as an example. There were idk how many kingdoms with their own legal privileges, and that's after the loss of the Italian possessions in the Spanish Succession. These included Mexico and Peru and by the later 1700s New Granada and Rio de la Plata. So I guess I'm suggesting that constituent states that could be released as vassals (or become independent by other means) be allowed their own autonomy within your country, and more political depth.
My last playthrough as Castile->Spain->HRE in EU3 DW left me with a huge blob on both sides of the Atlantic. Historically most of the direct taxation and manpower for 'Spain' came from Castile, and so did many of the biggest benefits go. Even though vassals of the same king, Neapolitans, Aragonese, and Flemish could not emigrate to the Indies for example. This would make running empires much more interesting.
My last playthrough as Castile->Spain->HRE in EU3 DW left me with a huge blob on both sides of the Atlantic. Historically most of the direct taxation and manpower for 'Spain' came from Castile, and so did many of the biggest benefits go. Even though vassals of the same king, Neapolitans, Aragonese, and Flemish could not emigrate to the Indies for example. This would make running empires much more interesting.
- Gradual changes in climate, like the Little Ice Age, as mentioned in another thread.
- A way to, with great effort and over years, build the Suez Canal (or the Kiel Canal, though this would generally be less useful) and attempt to keep Europe-Asia trade on the old routes.
- A modernization system like Magna Mundi the mod (not the game, that system never really made sense to me honestly), with multiple factors increasing tech costs.
- A research system that isn't based on putting most of one's budget into research, as this doesn't make any sense for the period.
- Rare chances for weird things to happen, like China modernizing on its own and colonizing the Pacific, or most/all of Europe falling into technological stagnation.
- And man, that trade system looks awesome. I just hope it's as good as we see in the alpha screenshots.
- A way to, with great effort and over years, build the Suez Canal (or the Kiel Canal, though this would generally be less useful) and attempt to keep Europe-Asia trade on the old routes.
- A modernization system like Magna Mundi the mod (not the game, that system never really made sense to me honestly), with multiple factors increasing tech costs.
- A research system that isn't based on putting most of one's budget into research, as this doesn't make any sense for the period.
- Rare chances for weird things to happen, like China modernizing on its own and colonizing the Pacific, or most/all of Europe falling into technological stagnation.
- And man, that trade system looks awesome. I just hope it's as good as we see in the alpha screenshots.
Some kind of option, like "Crazy Mode" might be interesting. Check it and the game hands out huge bonuses to completely random countries. Sort of like EU3's Lucky Nations mechanic on steroids. Or maybe big buffs to certain provinces, making them hugely more valuable than normal, altering one's normal strategy in the region. Might be better suited to a mod, though.
More complex peace negotiations. I know this would be a major change from the current system, but I'm hoping the named diplomats and Johan's remark about how diplomacy has been expanded means its not a complete pipe dream.
Basically, instead of just having the war leaders send a peace offer that is accepted or rejected, you'd have a system where every nation would be involved in the peace negotiations, with their influence being determined by their contribution to the total warscore and their diplomats/rulers skill. For example, every nation involved in a war could list its wargoals, and the war leader would be forced to add the primary wargoals of major allies before it could add secondary wargoals of its own.
Also it would be nice if peace deals didn't have to be one-sided. I.e. territory could be swapped, or the winning side pay the losing side compensation. This mainly happened in the CK2 timeframe, but it would still be a nice addition.
Basically, instead of just having the war leaders send a peace offer that is accepted or rejected, you'd have a system where every nation would be involved in the peace negotiations, with their influence being determined by their contribution to the total warscore and their diplomats/rulers skill. For example, every nation involved in a war could list its wargoals, and the war leader would be forced to add the primary wargoals of major allies before it could add secondary wargoals of its own.
Also it would be nice if peace deals didn't have to be one-sided. I.e. territory could be swapped, or the winning side pay the losing side compensation. This mainly happened in the CK2 timeframe, but it would still be a nice addition.
Totally agreed, I would also like to be able to bid on provinces (to make things like the louisiana purchase easier to accomplish).
Something I'd love to see about colonization is the ability to claim a piece of land in the US without actually owning it. This would, through a little scripting, make the Inter Caetera, Treaty of Tordesillas and Treaty of Saragossa easier). It might even be nice to have a little algorithm create an arbitrary line through the new world between the first powers who own say 4 colonies in line with the Inter Caetera. Breaking a claim to piece will not immediately start a war but give the player a strong CB against the nation settling in their claim. This might be a solution to small nations colonizing the heck out of the New World as it will already be claimed by the major powers, and create a complete new level of diplomatic play between the major powers.
Speaking of which, a nice feature would be 'no peace beyond the line': a nice English turn of phrase for more or less constant warfare within the colonial sphere beyond the line of demarcation, where European politics did not have full effect.