true but most regions don't produce just one product now if it is supposed to be the main good produced i could see that . all I'd ask is at least two the main good and the secondary good.
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.
I don't know, if that is a necessary additional complexity. But seeing as the exact resources are not that important (except if it is gold or something), then perhaps it might be doable.
My thinking is this; it shouldn't unnecessarily increase complexity. And since I assume they probably will introduce an alternative to manufactures, it may be doable. But there should also be something valuable - gameplay wise - in the other end, and not just be added for the sake of 'realism'.
Oh and population counters that go above 999,999 . other than those two things(and one i mentioned in another thread) I'm content to be surprised.
is it realistic to have the population go over 1 mil? I mean london didn't go over 1 million until the 19th century
but suppose that an alternate history is occurring ,like i had a game where Ireland colonized most of the new world and the area that would have been Mexico city was renamed New Dublin and we hit 999,999 by 1537 . so realism should only go so far .
Well, I would like to see a game as well made as EU 3 without having to wait 5 years for it¡. My worry is that EU III is so complete and bug free now that playing EU IV will feel a bit... hollow, or boring after a while. Well, I know expansions will give end up giving us a better game than EU III.
Regarding particular things, I hope they totally revamp the military unit AND combat system. I dont like ther EU III unit system at all (Portugal getting Highlanders? WTF??). The combat system is difficult to understand (It took me a lot to get it). The budget page was also extremely countertuitive. It took me some time to find out what it all really meant. ON general terms, explaining things and presenting them in a better an easier way (this does NOT mean the game has to be simple) would make wonders.
Regarding particular things, I hope they totally revamp the military unit AND combat system. I dont like ther EU III unit system at all (Portugal getting Highlanders? WTF??). The combat system is difficult to understand (It took me a lot to get it). The budget page was also extremely countertuitive. It took me some time to find out what it all really meant. ON general terms, explaining things and presenting them in a better an easier way (this does NOT mean the game has to be simple) would make wonders.
- A possibility to randomly generate the undiscovered part of the world. (Somewhat like Imperialism II)
- A detail, but important: advisor names are tied to the province they're born in, not to the state that coincidentally owns it then. If Burgundy were to accidentally conquer Mainz, Gutenberg would still be Gutenberg and not Gutinbert.
- Trade routes instead of territories, but that seems to be covered.
- The importance of population, urbanisation and population density ought to come into play. France was a major power partly because it was relatively densely populated in its time.
- A less absolute cultural system. Assimilation is too sudden, one ought to see a slow shift.
- A detail, but important: advisor names are tied to the province they're born in, not to the state that coincidentally owns it then. If Burgundy were to accidentally conquer Mainz, Gutenberg would still be Gutenberg and not Gutinbert.
- Trade routes instead of territories, but that seems to be covered.
- The importance of population, urbanisation and population density ought to come into play. France was a major power partly because it was relatively densely populated in its time.
- A less absolute cultural system. Assimilation is too sudden, one ought to see a slow shift.
A bigger time span. Let's say the starting time of CK2 and the ending time of EU3 (1820). That would kickass and would show how each country would be doing.
It would also be epic if you could participate in battles phisicly like in Mount & Blade.
lol imagine a mix of Mount & Blade combat system with Europa Universalis. That would be a dream.
It would also be epic if you could participate in battles phisicly like in Mount & Blade.
lol imagine a mix of Mount & Blade combat system with Europa Universalis. That would be a dream.
- dump population completely, and just keep base taxes.
- some sort of corruption slider.
- a faction system similar to the one in rome
- more provinces in china
- correct history of the inca
- more daimoys in Japan than just 4
- generally alot of more work with the province shapes. especially in prussia
- some sort of corruption slider.
- a faction system similar to the one in rome
- more provinces in china
- correct history of the inca
- more daimoys in Japan than just 4
- generally alot of more work with the province shapes. especially in prussia
Last edited:
The population issue could easily be dealt with by using realistic growth percentages - until the Industrial Revolution, almost every state in the world had a steady population growth of no more than 0.1% due to infant mortality and short lifespans.
I would like to see population altough I understand that would be difficult to balance.Except that I would love to have more diplomatic options, like demanding something from nations, different kinds of warnings and ultimatums.
I doubt it'll be in the game, but something like this.
Realistically I'd like to see
- Colonization being a bit slower, and AI nations focusing on one or a few areas at a time.
- A slightly deeper HRE system.
- Less fragmenting of countries, prettier borders
- Tied in with the fragmenting thing: AI better at handling revolts. In a recent quickly expanding Delhi-game I played, I spread my armies around the subcontinent and put them on AI rebel hunting mode. 1st Army would attack a nearby rebel stack. Another stack pops up --> 2nd Army marches to the 1st's position to deal with it. Rebels pop up in the 2nd Army's turf, and since they're gone it takes months for the 3rd army to show up and deal with it, and so on. Seeing that made me understand why borders inevitably end up messy as hell in EU3. And when the half of the armies are besieging the stuff they lost instead of leaving that to some, and breaking rebel sieges instead, it often gets bad.
In fact, AI improvement is the one feature I'd forgo everything else for. Most aspects of the game can be altered with mods, so if you don't like something you can usually change it. Not that easy with the AI of course. And since 99% of my time in EU3 is spent offline, it's important to have a challenging AI for warfare. For example the AI should "learn" how to deal with attrition, and how it might not be the best idea to allow us humans to divide and conquer their armies with ease every time.
- Change the ledger: Don't show exact army/fleet numbers. Use spies for that instead.
- National ideas: I really like the MMtM system for NIs, where you can pick an advanced, strong land idea only after picking several other land ideas, and the same with other "branches" like trade. You could also tie ideas/idea availability to sliders, and offer more decisions, missions and other flavour stuff based on how many land ideas a state has.
- Rank: Another MMtM system I really enjoyed was the goal of advancing from Margrave to Duke of Brandenburg, to King of Prussia, etc. A goal in many games are forming states. Title rank gives another, similar goal, or several goals depending on the start. Higher tier could simply give some prestige and diplomatic skill.
Realistically I'd like to see
- Colonization being a bit slower, and AI nations focusing on one or a few areas at a time.
- A slightly deeper HRE system.
- Less fragmenting of countries, prettier borders
- Tied in with the fragmenting thing: AI better at handling revolts. In a recent quickly expanding Delhi-game I played, I spread my armies around the subcontinent and put them on AI rebel hunting mode. 1st Army would attack a nearby rebel stack. Another stack pops up --> 2nd Army marches to the 1st's position to deal with it. Rebels pop up in the 2nd Army's turf, and since they're gone it takes months for the 3rd army to show up and deal with it, and so on. Seeing that made me understand why borders inevitably end up messy as hell in EU3. And when the half of the armies are besieging the stuff they lost instead of leaving that to some, and breaking rebel sieges instead, it often gets bad.
In fact, AI improvement is the one feature I'd forgo everything else for. Most aspects of the game can be altered with mods, so if you don't like something you can usually change it. Not that easy with the AI of course. And since 99% of my time in EU3 is spent offline, it's important to have a challenging AI for warfare. For example the AI should "learn" how to deal with attrition, and how it might not be the best idea to allow us humans to divide and conquer their armies with ease every time.
- Change the ledger: Don't show exact army/fleet numbers. Use spies for that instead.
- National ideas: I really like the MMtM system for NIs, where you can pick an advanced, strong land idea only after picking several other land ideas, and the same with other "branches" like trade. You could also tie ideas/idea availability to sliders, and offer more decisions, missions and other flavour stuff based on how many land ideas a state has.
- Rank: Another MMtM system I really enjoyed was the goal of advancing from Margrave to Duke of Brandenburg, to King of Prussia, etc. A goal in many games are forming states. Title rank gives another, similar goal, or several goals depending on the start. Higher tier could simply give some prestige and diplomatic skill.
There's a lot of things I'd like to see, but among the feasible I've thought of this seemed most useful. A shortcut to quicksave whenever you want, like most other games have.
I would like to see that domestic policy sliders, decisions and NI's get reworked to something more aligned with each other. Being able to take Smithian economics while being fully mercantile for example, doesn't make a lot of sense. Preferably I would make policy by taking decisions and NI's, and that the sliders are just a representation of what that implements.
The Hansa should not be a country, but more have a HRE like system, with loosely allied free imperial cities.
I like how in CKII you have multiple cities in a province. It would be cool to control a province, but have a free imperial city in your border that you don't control, and if you would like to, you'd to fight the emperor.
Also the advisers could be reworked. Now some advisers are quite useless, or in very specific circumstances, while in real history a great banker was an asset to any court always. Maybe less types of advisers, but that you can give them assignments according to what you need right now. A real renaissance man was skilled in multiple disciplines after all.
The Hansa should not be a country, but more have a HRE like system, with loosely allied free imperial cities.
I like how in CKII you have multiple cities in a province. It would be cool to control a province, but have a free imperial city in your border that you don't control, and if you would like to, you'd to fight the emperor.
Also the advisers could be reworked. Now some advisers are quite useless, or in very specific circumstances, while in real history a great banker was an asset to any court always. Maybe less types of advisers, but that you can give them assignments according to what you need right now. A real renaissance man was skilled in multiple disciplines after all.
O yeah, something else what I would really like to see is give and take diplomacy. Instead of being able to just offer this or demand that, being able to offer this and take that. For example being able to take a core province here, but have to have that non core province released as a state. Also if you completely fuck you allies over in peace negotiations, that should have consequences.
That would be a step back. Population should be more important, not less.