The Essentials of this Time Period

[Chamboozer]

One of the things EUIII frequently didn't do was to recreate the feeling of the Early Modern Period. This was partially because of the start date being in 1399, when so many things were likely to turn out differently, but it was also because of the AI's inability to hold an empire together or to even focus on the strategic goals that most players would agree are the #1 priority. In EUIV, I think Paradox should focus on leading Europe's development along a similar path, while avoiding the railroading that so many players have vocally opposed. In my opinion this includes a more regional Protestant Reformation, a strong Ottoman Empire, a unified France and Russia, significant overseas colonization by Spain/Castille and Portugal, Venetian dominance of trade followed by decline after the discovery of the Cape route, and some form of appearance of the Dutch on the international stage (which was something that occured almost 0% of the time in EUIII). Obviously there should be times when things go differently, but I think even the most vehement opponents of historical determinism should agree that these things did not happen nearly enough in EUIII, and should be more common in EUIV.

I mean, think of what Victoria 2 would be like if 90% of games involved the complete collapse of the British, French, and Russian Empires within the first 20 years? At that point it just wouldn't be the Victorian period anymore.

Any thoughts? Anything else which people think are necessary to make the game feel like the Early Modern Period?

 

[TalorianEmporer]

I am assuming you are going for a more historic game correct? in that case you would need to research all the historic events of the period and make them happen for you to get a unified Russia or France. This is often not the case because there is the player throwing the spanner in the works and the random events that happen. Which decrease stability cause revolts etc. For the Paradox titles are a what if history generator. You get to affect the outcome of "history" in the game, it is endlessly fascinating seeing what the world would be like if Scotland dominated England. Burgundy shattered France or even if the Byzantine Empire had survived into the modern era. This wonderful series allows you to make your own version of history which is just amazing.

 

[Chamboozer]

This is often not the case because there is the player throwing the spanner in the works and the random events that happen.

...You can't honestly believe that the player and random events are all that causes things to deviate from history. The game isn't a super-realistic simulator, that's why we have things like lucky nations to push countries in the right direction.

I am in no way saying things should be railroaded along their historical path, but rather that there are certain aspects of the Early Modern Period that are absolutely necessary to make the player feel like they are in a historical setting rather than fantasy land. An example that exists in EUIII is the Protestant Reformation - the game simply wouldn't be the Early Modern Period without it, so Paradox created a historical event which wouldn't exist at all if EU were a 'true' sandbox.

Take the rise of the Ottomans as an example. They reach their historical strength roughly 0% of the time in EUIII, and half of the time they are completely destroyed within the first century. Is that an accurate representation of what the chances were of those things happening in alternate history? No, of course not - which is why it should be improved in EUIV. Along with the other things I mentioned.

 

[systemlvl]

...You can't honestly believe that the player and random events are all that causes things to deviate from history. The game isn't a super-realistic simulator, that's why we have things like lucky nations to push countries in the right direction.

I am in no way saying things should be railroaded along their historical path, but rather that there are certain aspects of the Early Modern Period that are absolutely necessary to make the player feel like they are in a historical setting rather than fantasy land.

... like making well-defined countries more stable and less prone to sudden disintegration and total split plus making it require an effort to conquer random unsettled faraway lands while still not restricting the options for the game to evolve in an infinite number of ways? Worked for V2, and even partly in CK2. In EUIII you can sometimes still see Gotland becoming a player, or Northumbria owning half of England. Those are the things that do not belong in the early modern period - there should be an easier way to contest a main title so minors getting big will eventually have to take up a legitimate title to rule over their territory.

 

[Buladelu]

I see the problem in focus. Victoria is about politics and economy. War, colonization, trade - those are background things. CK2 is about dynasties and crusades, HoI - war and science. EU is about everything. You can't just make it colony/trade game because then you play as Portugal/Spain/France/Englan and that's all. So there're mechanics for HRE and papacy (more developed than colonization and trade, sadly) and many others. Ruler powers, new trade system and diplomacy may change this and we get a game focused on diplomacy and trade which seems to be a good focus for previously unfocused EU.

 

[PiriReis]

I agree Chamboozer, also give colonists only to those who take the QFTNW Idea, so colonization goes smooth and more historical. Also it should be possible to make alliance with between Christian and Muslim nations ie Franco-Ottoman alliance or between Christian and Pagan ie Spain and Tlaxacala.

 

[Chamboozer]

I agree Chamboozer, also give colonists only to those who take the QFTNW Idea, so colonization goes smooth and more historical. Also it should be possible to make alliance with between Christian and Muslim nations ie Franco-Ottoman alliance or between Christian and Pagan ie Spain and Tlaxacala.

Yep, that will help prevent New World from turning into a mosaic of random colors by the end of the game. It would be good if interior provinces in the New World were reliant on ports, making sets of provinces become reliant on each other. That could help them remain politically unified as well.

As for alliances, hopefully Paradox has already changed this with the new coalitions system.