And Ottomans should have -50% FL, start with 000 rulerEu5 should not have mana, because I want the forums to be readable.
Also Portugal and Spain should be overpowered.
- 2
And Ottomans should have -50% FL, start with 000 rulerEu5 should not have mana, because I want the forums to be readable.
Also Portugal and Spain should be overpowered.
I don't, but different people want different things, that's ok. I'm also ok with EU being more "boardgamey" but in that case it should stick to it and not introduce things like minority expelling which are weird without POPs.I love POP mechanics in Victoria, but I want the EU franchise to be more boardgamey. Victoria 1492 could make for a fine game in its own right, but not as a substitute for an EUV. Victoria provides a world I want to explore and experience; EU I want to play to win, against an AI coded to competently do the same.
i mean.. if he is very motivated...I'm fine with Monarch points so long as they are limited to use on stuff that a monarch could realistically do. Obviously, magically increasing the productivity or population of a region (development) shouldn't be one of them.
It is a weird mechanic, but it comes off as a kludgy way to buff colonization for a couple of countries. I can accept it, but it is pushing my limits as game fictions go.I don't, but different people want different things, that's ok. I'm also ok with EU being more "boardgamey" but in that case it should stick to it and not introduce things like minority expelling which are weird without POPs.
Monarch can't affect this? So why Russia under Peter the Great improved so quickly in 1700s? He didn't make more people directly but the one living there became more efficient workers. Looking at Eu4 mechanics he should give one more tech or some free buildings to get such effectI'm fine with Monarch points so long as they are limited to use on stuff that a monarch could realistically do. Obviously, magically increasing the productivity or population of a region (development) shouldn't be one of them.
i am with you here. Development of your nation is something a monarch absolutely should affect. And development does not need to mean more people. Better use of people and more productivity is part of that, sure. buuuut... pressing a button a few times and bringing a city on a marsh tile to be more developed and bigger than paris is a stretch. i have fun with eu 4 but i would not mind a new system here for EU5. as long as its fun.Monarch can't affect this? So why Russia under Peter the Great improved so quickly in 1700s? He didn't make more people directly but the one living there became more efficient workers. Looking at Eu4 mechanics he should give one more tech or some free buildings to get such effect