What would YOU like to see in Europa Universalis IV?

[Straigthtsilver]

Not offending anybody is probably more about not wanting EUIV to end up on the TV being lambasted as a 'slavery game' or something. That's bad publicity. That's why Paradox also refuses to cover the holocaust in HoI.

Paradox refuses to cover the Holocaust (and other aspects of the Nazi regime) because doing so would mean losing out on a huge market for their games in Europe. Not to mention a Holocaust decision/event chain would just be in extremely poor taste considering how recent it is (historically speaking).

However, I believe that Paradox will cover slavery in at least greater detail than VicII in EUIV. Slavery was a huge and quite profitable business/industry in the later years of the game, so leaving it out while adding so many other features and depth to the economic system would be ludicrous.

As for those who think covering slavery would draw the ire of the moral guardians, may I remind you that VicII allowed you to hold slaves as a governmental policy and yet no one threw a hissy fit on national television? To be perfectly frank, PDS games are too much of a niche market to appeal to the sensationalists that prey on big name titles like Mass Effect or Grand Theft Auto. Even if they did, what would they have to show for it? A trade screen with the word 'slaves' beside a slider? That's hardly the visceral and brutal depiction of slavery that would inflame passions in the media.

Now before we start getting off topic. I'll say what I want to see in EUIV:

- An improved combat system similar to what Paradox implemented for CK2. Just the right mix of hands-off and player interaction for a grand strategy game in my opinion.
- No more mono-culture/mono-religion provinces. A simple percentage would be adequate, no need to go into VicII levels of detail here.
- Greater detail on countries outside of Western Europe. I don't especially care about the native Americans or Indian minors, but please add more detail to Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

No more Comet Sighted events!

A thousand times this! Though I have a feeling the developers will be cheeky and add in an identical event with different fluff just to spite us

 

[unmerged(80402)]

Well this will be replaced with brand new event: "Strange Signs"
"Stars falling from the earth, rooster crowing at midnight, black cat crossing the way of our king, something bad is going to happen, it is sure!"

"It is just women babling!"
-1 stability
"It is a sign from heaven!"
-1 stability
"Why this allways happen to me?"
-1 stability

 

[unmerged(21857)]

It's a contradiction but,

I'd like to see less blobing at the end of the game. If I am all powerful I'd like the game to present more "internal" problems to overcome rather than having to face a rigged France/Austria/Spain/GB. Have provinces in my empire revolt for a variety of reasons...Members of the imperial family or senate turn on one another for power...ect.

I'd also like to see more administrative levels of power to attain outside of straight up conquest. I loved the HRE MOD by and the expansion HTTT as there always seemed to be another level of power to try and attempt to claim that wasn't completely determined by conquest.

 

[BandC]

Talking about what you would like to see in the game is nice and all but in all honesty I think it's a bit pointless.

They have been working on this game for quite a while and I am almost certain all the game features that will be in the game are determined and set. Now there will obviously be changes here and there but unless:

a) What you would like to see is a small change (event, small mechanic change, etc.)
b) You're lucky and what you want aligns with what they thought about perfectly

There is close to zero chance that it will appear in EU4. Perhaps it would be better if this thread was titled "What would you like to see in EU4 first expansion?" (some mechanic changes) or "What would you like to see in EU5?" (big changes: engine etc.).

With that being said, here's what I want from EU4:

Historical plausibility.

That's it. Really.

What I mean is:

* Castille not owning entire North Africa in 20 years after start of game.
* Ottoman Empire not crumbling 90% time leading various far-away Western European countries owning parts of Anatolia.
* Bohemia / Austria etc. snaking into Central Asia and other places.
* Golden Horde not staying intact for centuries.
* etc.

Now don't get me wrong. I don't expect the game to play like a historical movie. I want some divergence from history of course. The thing is when I look at my monitor I wanna be able to say: "Yeah, I can see how that can happen in an alternate history."

The problem is in EU3 some completely ridiculous alternate histories happen and what's worse is those highly improbable alternate histories happen like 9 times out of 10 (such as Castille owning all of North Africa in 20 years). This may be subjective but to me, in an ideal EU game about 60-80% of the countries should approximately match their historical performance, 10-20% should overperform, and 10-20% should underperform.

I actually think EU3 is a great game as it is without even the fancy bells and whistles. It would be amazing if there were some historical plausibility.

That's what I want from EU4.

 

[Descri]

With that being said, here's what I want from EU4:

Historical plausibility.

That's it. Really.

What I mean is:

* Castille not owning entire North Africa in 20 years after start of game.
* Ottoman Empire not crumbling 90% time leading various far-away Western European countries owning parts of Anatolia.
* Bohemia / Austria etc. snaking into Central Asia and other places.
* Golden Horde not staying intact for centuries.
* etc.

Now don't get me wrong. I don't expect the game to play like a historical movie. I want some divergence from history of course. The thing is when I look at my monitor I wanna be able to say: "Yeah, I can see how that can happen in an alternate history."

The problem is in EU3 some completely ridiculous alternate histories happen and what's worse is those highly improbable alternate histories happen like 9 times out of 10 (such as Castille owning all of North Africa in 20 years). This may be subjective but to me, in an ideal EU game about 60-80% of the countries should approximately match their historical performance, 10-20% should overperform, and 10-20% should underperform.

I actually think EU3 is a great game as it is without even the fancy bells and whistles. It would be amazing if there were some historical plausibility.

That's what I want from EU4.

Same here. Basically, that is what I want from EU4. Anything more focused that I want is just to make it more plausible. Thinking back about some of the concepts of EU2, this was the original intent, but both in EU2 and EU3 the enforcement was either too strict (EU2) or too lenient (EU3). I almost assuredly know that if PDS make it their goal to provide a good amount of historical plausibility, they will succeed. Especially for such an experienced studio such as Paradox, if they want it, it will be there. I just hope they see plausibility as an important goal for EU4.

 

[ANO1453]

The original explorers weren't really part of the armed forces of the countries they worked for, the way they're modeled in the EU games.

For Portugal, they were. For example, Henry the Navigator was the king's own son.

I'd like to see features and functionalities that can work historically for all countries. Colonisation was done one way in some countries, another way in others. The same happened to warfare. So, my suggestion is that National Ideas, sliders, leaders, and player, can all combine to change the way things are done in his country. A bit more choices, a bit more consequences.

 

[Svip]

More Comet Sighted options!

That's all I want. EU3 always bordered me for its lack of options when a comet was sighted. Why can't I gain a casus belli from the comet being sighted? Surely, I can blame the French for it!

 

[Fishman786]

More Comet Sighted options!

That's all I want. EU3 always bordered me for its lack of options when a comet was sighted. Why can't I gain a casus belli from the comet being sighted? Surely, I can blame the French for it!

Land tech 200 should unlock a 'shoot it down!' option.

 

[Mikebloke]

One thing that does bother me that hasn't been mentioned in the information already released is how quickly religion changes.

In both the CK and EU series, religion magically switches from one to another at a potentially fast rate. Victoria 2 deals with it in a different way, minor assimilation movement and then immigration with no direct way of changing it, of course that was a different time.

I'd like to see EU4 with at least a 'Majority' and 'Minority' religion and culture for each province. Say I'm a Shia nation that just took over a Hindu dominated land from a Sunni nation, I should need to replace the Sunni's as the main Minority religion before being able to convert the whole province.

As much work as possible on non-European nations would be nice.

Also, EU4 should be a springboard for Rome2, you know, getting the rubbish release first before the diamonds.

 

[anubisfike]

The possibility to create canals where it's naturally (and technologically for the time) feasible, for example the panama canal (probably way too recent, just included it as an example), kiel canal (built in the 1700's), göta canal (1800's but suggested already in 1516) and so on would be really nice. With the new trade routes it could be a big boost for your trade and wealth. Maybe it would be slightly unrealistic to include them but I still think it could be a really ncie addition.

 

[unmerged(353072)]

Personally what I would want would be:
1. Civil wars to happen if you have like a stability of -3 or high infamy.
2. they ability to switch religions if it is next to you(I know that seems unrealistic).
3. other tech groups not getting so hindered. It sucks being Hindustan and being powerless against the west if you don't westernize. At the very least change the requirements to westernize so a country doesn't have to be next to a western country. They can just know of that country or have to be in a alliance with it.
4.More religions or religions that aren't better then any other.
5.Zealots not instantly converting a provinces religion have it take like a year or two.
6. the ability to form other countries like Yugoslavia.
7. The ability to have or allow a Queen or something to rule instead of a King. It can have a big prestige, stability and legitimacy hits, Since most people would object. You know it shows you all the kids you have and how good they are. So if all your sons have terrible stats you can have one of your daughters be ruler.
8. have limited number of daughters. Make legitimacy more difficult to get.

 

[Arcvalons]

If Slaves play an important part I'll be morally conflicted. I wouldn' want my Empire to thrive of the explotation of other human beings, but I wouldn't want to fall behind either.

Also, I like nice borders. It's almost impossible to prevent implausible borders if you start the Great campaign, but I'd like them too look nice at least.

 

[Svip]

If Slaves play an important part I'll be morally conflicted. I wouldn' want my Empire to thrive of the explotation of other human beings, but I wouldn't want to fall behind either.

But you have no problem leading your country to war?

 

[unmerged(80402)]

But you have no problem leading your country to war?

Well wars are not meaning you enslave people, plus you just do it to increase the wealth of your empire, and thus the people who are in your country, thus the conquered terrains. So this leads us why a good ruler may want to expand thru wars.

 

[unmerged(80402)]

Land tech 200 should unlock a 'shoot it down!' option.

Not Naval tech 200? I mean this would need space-ships.

 

[flame7926]

Factions, as well as more domestic options. The trade will help, but also just generally.

 

[Sam L]

Wives, husbands and children. More information on dynasties/families. No more Royal Marriage to unknown people.

 

[unmerged(80402)]

And more PU difficulties : Lithuania few times dissolved PU with poland, and few times it got it back, without (much) violence (means - without wars).

 

[GrafKeks]

Now don't get me wrong. I don't expect the game to play like a historical movie. I want some divergence from history of course. The thing is when I look at my monitor I wanna be able to say: "Yeah, I can see how that can happen in an alternate history."

The problem is in EU3 some completely ridiculous alternate histories happen and what's worse is those highly improbable alternate histories happen like 9 times out of 10 (such as Castille owning all of North Africa in 20 years). This may be subjective but to me, in an ideal EU game about 60-80% of the countries should approximately match their historical performance, 10-20% should overperform, and 10-20% should underperform.

I actually think EU3 is a great game as it is without even the fancy bells and whistles. It would be amazing if there were some historical plausibility.

That's what I want from EU4.

Our history is ridiculous aswell, as a lot of things that happened were not that likely and spanned further events/ changing more outcomes. And if just 5 Countries would Overperform and 5 would underperform; it would totally change the timeline/ history. There are no ridculous alternate histories just very unlikely ones ( and this may even include our own ). I´d like any events etc. as generic as possible without targeting specific countries, so the game will not artificially be steered in a direction. The biggest problem for "plausibility" is to write a AI that is both capable of being semi-efficient and totally irrational. I guess what I am trying to say is: It is really hard to make a "plausibile" acting game without any artificially steering, biggest part of the problem is the giant timeline it´s simply too big to get something that´s remotely based on our own history without extreme steering.

 

[The Fish]

1. In-depth colonization. We should be able to choose between different colonial policies. Should we be like the French, merely establishing trading outposts and sending missionaries into native lands? Or should we follow the British route of settling the land with colonists?

2. Trade. Whether it's slave trade or not, I want it fleshed out. Tying into the colonial policies idea above, there should be in-depth slave trade, and there should be properly represented Indian ocean trade. We should see rulers from Africa and Indonesia adopting Islam to establish religious links to the Islamic world, which aided them in trade.

3. A more fleshed out Asia and Africa. The small Swahili city-states like Zanzibar should grow wealthy from trade, almost like an African Venice. We should see the rise of Indonesian Sultanates and the collapse of the Majapahit empire. China needs an overhaul done, where they can be historically powerful but they should not become the monstrous blob that they become in EU3. China should have their Treasure Fleets and complex internal politics somehow represented.