Although I'm playing grand strategy games from the very beginning of PBM games in 80s and 90s, although I'm impressed by VIC2, HOI3 and CK2, ... I must say that I was somehow dissapointed of EU3. So I like to put my issues here for you guys, hoping it helps.
1) Nationalism: In EU you're playing a nation. Problem is, the concept of a "nation" as a culture or institution was invented first, on large scale, by Rousseau and Herder in 18th century; it was Rousseau's idea of a "civil society" which leads to the American and French Revolution. Yes, before the American and French Revolution there were wars between British and French, but more like in CK2: between kings or dynasties, and not between nations. Consider that the British king hold until 1820 still a title as a titular King of France, which has its roots in the 13th and 14th century, which was one of the reasons for many wars between these kingdoms. Probably only one nation, France, has some nationalistic movements, but only in badly ongoing times (compare Jean D'Arc), which got lost in peace times. Those were familiy driven CK2 aristocraties (compare Spanisch Succession War). Also compare the work of Hobbes on the problem of the British society of the Renaissance era at all.
This is one of the biggest ahistorical problems I see in EU, I guess. This whole topic is the main reason why we German needed Napoleon and the 19th century to discover the idea of a German kingdom and empire at all, and EU lacks totally of it. Before that there was no nationalism in Germany at all, no Germany at all, just an elective HRM, some provincial aristocratical kings. The development of "nations", "cultures" (before Herder, the word "culture" has a different meaning than today; more private and personal like "body culture", see Cicero for details) and "state institutions" has largely revolutionized the european kingdoms in the 18th century. Napoleon was kind of a climax of it -- with a large "people's army", which leads first time to "people's battles" (Völkerschlacht von Leipzig oder "Battle of the Nations" in 1813). It was a completely new era (compare the "Hessians" during the American Revolution). It leads to a political system between CK2 and VIC2, and not one from HOI3. Compare this: at that time people fought "for the crown", "for the king", but almost never for their "nation" or some kind of "culture".
2) Bourgeoise: I guess VIC2 and CK2 are one of your most intelligent games, and I appreciate your work, at all. In VIC2 you simulate the tension between peasants, workers and capitalists, which is great. But consider for EU4 that there was an important tension from Late Middle Age to 19th century between the upcoming wealthy but powerless bourgeoisie and the aristocrats. Workers were not invented now. The bourgeoise tried over years to gain small aristocratical titles like Baron or Knight, to increase their social ranks, which leads to deep political problems while Middle Age. While America was discovered and changed the mind of many people, the bourgeoise problems become worse and leads finally to cultural and religious, later to scientific revolutions in 15th and 16th century. It is one of the main reasons for the anti-catholic movements. Could you develop some kind of VIC2 remix of it for EU4? It would make many historicians happier.
3) Battles: Well, I think your combat system could be more exciting, somehow. As a PBM fan, I do not need fancier graphics, but some excitement through in-combat decisions or, I don't know, probably a combat system like in "Imperialism" (SSI) or "Endless Space" (card-based tactics and phase-based real-time combat) would fit too.
If you need help concerning theory of politics, science, culture, or philosophy, history or sciences at all, it would be a pleasure. Just PM me.
(Edit) And, of course, you can leave it as it is or just copy the political system of the Total War series, but I guess, I hope, that you have perhaps something more historical in mind.
Regards, Rafael
1) Nationalism: In EU you're playing a nation. Problem is, the concept of a "nation" as a culture or institution was invented first, on large scale, by Rousseau and Herder in 18th century; it was Rousseau's idea of a "civil society" which leads to the American and French Revolution. Yes, before the American and French Revolution there were wars between British and French, but more like in CK2: between kings or dynasties, and not between nations. Consider that the British king hold until 1820 still a title as a titular King of France, which has its roots in the 13th and 14th century, which was one of the reasons for many wars between these kingdoms. Probably only one nation, France, has some nationalistic movements, but only in badly ongoing times (compare Jean D'Arc), which got lost in peace times. Those were familiy driven CK2 aristocraties (compare Spanisch Succession War). Also compare the work of Hobbes on the problem of the British society of the Renaissance era at all.
This is one of the biggest ahistorical problems I see in EU, I guess. This whole topic is the main reason why we German needed Napoleon and the 19th century to discover the idea of a German kingdom and empire at all, and EU lacks totally of it. Before that there was no nationalism in Germany at all, no Germany at all, just an elective HRM, some provincial aristocratical kings. The development of "nations", "cultures" (before Herder, the word "culture" has a different meaning than today; more private and personal like "body culture", see Cicero for details) and "state institutions" has largely revolutionized the european kingdoms in the 18th century. Napoleon was kind of a climax of it -- with a large "people's army", which leads first time to "people's battles" (Völkerschlacht von Leipzig oder "Battle of the Nations" in 1813). It was a completely new era (compare the "Hessians" during the American Revolution). It leads to a political system between CK2 and VIC2, and not one from HOI3. Compare this: at that time people fought "for the crown", "for the king", but almost never for their "nation" or some kind of "culture".
2) Bourgeoise: I guess VIC2 and CK2 are one of your most intelligent games, and I appreciate your work, at all. In VIC2 you simulate the tension between peasants, workers and capitalists, which is great. But consider for EU4 that there was an important tension from Late Middle Age to 19th century between the upcoming wealthy but powerless bourgeoisie and the aristocrats. Workers were not invented now. The bourgeoise tried over years to gain small aristocratical titles like Baron or Knight, to increase their social ranks, which leads to deep political problems while Middle Age. While America was discovered and changed the mind of many people, the bourgeoise problems become worse and leads finally to cultural and religious, later to scientific revolutions in 15th and 16th century. It is one of the main reasons for the anti-catholic movements. Could you develop some kind of VIC2 remix of it for EU4? It would make many historicians happier.
3) Battles: Well, I think your combat system could be more exciting, somehow. As a PBM fan, I do not need fancier graphics, but some excitement through in-combat decisions or, I don't know, probably a combat system like in "Imperialism" (SSI) or "Endless Space" (card-based tactics and phase-based real-time combat) would fit too.
If you need help concerning theory of politics, science, culture, or philosophy, history or sciences at all, it would be a pleasure. Just PM me.
(Edit) And, of course, you can leave it as it is or just copy the political system of the Total War series, but I guess, I hope, that you have perhaps something more historical in mind.
Regards, Rafael
Last edited:
