-
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 think "Defender of the Faith" is a bad concept. It just wasn't executed very well in EU3. The requirements to become defender should have been more strict. The monetary requirement never made a lot of sense to me. Defender of the Faith should be something you can claim when you have a lot of national ideas promoting the state religion or something along those lines.
It could also be neat if the requirements to become defender were different for different religions. A Confucian state with the Mandate of Heaven could be the Confucian defender, the Caliph (if such a modifier is even in EU4) could be automatically the Sunni defender, the Catholic defender would receive the title from the Pope, and so on.
It could also be neat if the requirements to become defender were different for different religions. A Confucian state with the Mandate of Heaven could be the Confucian defender, the Caliph (if such a modifier is even in EU4) could be automatically the Sunni defender, the Catholic defender would receive the title from the Pope, and so on.
Well, if you remove the combat mechanics you need to replace them with something. After all, you can't have an expansionist historical game without combat...
This might be equally obscure and inscrutable, it might not. The thing is the current ones generally work, so unless there is some massive reason to completely rewrite them, they are likely to be at least based on the EUIII ones.
Defender of the Faith - since it generally is going to be large, rich, powerful nations claiming this, it tends to put a brake on attacks since it means there is the potential of a large angry blob joining in if you attack someone, even if they aren't formally allied. It doesn't always work, as the DoF doesn't always join in, and sometimes isn't very effective at the distance the war is being fought anyway, but the potential is there.
?
I hope they remove the horde system and repleace the Ming factions with something a bit more interactive. Hopefuly they also remove Taira, Tachibana, Fujiwara and Minamoto. In fact most of what DW introduced should be changed.
It's possible they're removing the colonist, and instead you'll have to spend monarch points on colonies.
I hope they gonna remove diplomate agent, in my opinion it was totaly useless. They should probably do the same with spy and event colonist. I really like the ideas from CIV V G&K for spy. For colonist, the agent are the easiest way to do it. But i think they should change the system to add some trading post, the possibility to "claim" territorial zone.
I hope not. The more I think of it, the more I feel that teh new system (where you send your named character agent to a specific location to carry out a mission, and then have to pull him off that mission to send him elsewhere) would be a great colony-building system, like National Focus colonization in Victoria but with way more personality.
Spending points on building colonies = boring
Sending Samuel de Champlain out from France to the province of Quebec to establish a colony or trading post there = awesome.
Spies would probably be my choice to cut, with their abilities being reallocated to the diplomat, to the monarch's diplomatic powers, and a little bit to the colonist (ie, incite natives).
Alleluia, at last this mechanic is removed! I asked so many time for that! I'm just one step further to preorder this game (I was already going to, but this is a one more incentive)
I'm all for switching administration it to the king ability, except that it should be correctly done. I don't think the king supervise each work in the country and i also think there is something like an administration around the king which can make things faster even if the king itself is stupid as nut.
About the idea of removing some stuff, I think this is the general idea : removing what is misplaced or poorly implemented and adding useful and interesting things. I also like very much the fact that this is not like other games (The Sims, for example). About what is poorly done and what should be changed, my mind isn't definitely set since a game is something whole and that somethings can be great in one and superfulous in another one.
But what could be rebranded or modified and wasn't announced yet would be :
- Hordes
- HRE / Japan
- Colonisation (trading posts, amongst other things)
- Defender of the faith (I always found this option strange. Why would one country have the burden (or the opportunity) to defend all its religion?)
- Religion (minorities, conversions)
- Rebels / Coup / Civil wars (as someone said, stack of rebels are more annoying than fun and aren't such a challenge except on our nerves)
+1 This makes so much sense, I'm going to assume that's how it works.
I think the major problem most people have with DotF in EU3 is how it leads to huge armies from the DotF fighting far away from home. I'd say the real problem there is the ability to project power like that in this time period. If the DotF could only send 5k-10k troops to his help far-away co-religionist it wouldn't be so bad.
I really think both could work well. If you used Administrative monach power to support and build colonies it could mean you would be forced to think about do i build something at home or do i use my power to colonize. Also if there were a colony cap tied to monach administrative skill you would be able to support lots with a good monach and if you suddenly got a bad one, something bad would happen or you could maybe be forced to abandon some colonies. Imho it could function quite well.
IIRC it has been stated already that you use monach power for both building (also need money i guess) and getting NI so why not also colonies?
Feel free to remove the provine (capital) population numbers! Neither did they have much impact in EU III (other than production values), nor were they in any way accurate/plausible, especially after a few hunderd years of play. So, unless you fill them with more life (effect on tax, manpower; more plausible increase or decrease during time) there is no point in having a province capital population displayed.
I think it's a fair bet that the combat system will be more like the one in CKII.
The main problem with DotF is that is was absolute nonsense and made certain historical conquests almost impossible because some over-powered European country could just smash the Turks to pieces the moment they tried anything.
Only real example of the game's DotF in Sweden during the 30 years war. Who intervened later, no when the war started. So more of a Vicky II/CK 2 'intervention' system than 'war has been declared, this is your only chance to help out'.
From what I've heard of this new 'coalition system' it could replace DotF completely quite nicely. When Europe ganged up to fight the Ottomans in real life it was as an organised alliance, not one country wasting valuable manpower protective one province minors in the Balkans.
I didn't mind inflation but the ai was horrible at deciding when it needed to mint and when it did not and this led to longer games becoming too easy
