What are the things you don't want to see in EUV

[Aepdneds]

For me:
*The AI relation reevaluation after loading a save game
*A further bloat of the number of provinces, there are already enough in the game
*"You can't do this because you are in a war" features, at least in the amount they exist in EU4
*Clickable pop-ups at the position of your mouse pointer

 

[Blindbohemian]

POPs. No one I have encountered has ever suggested a single thing POPs would do for an EU game that couldn’t be done better in some other way.

Mission trees, they add nothing to EU that couldn’t be better added in some other way, and they do so much damage in exchange.

Changing national ideas when forming countries. It doesn’t gel with the point of national ideas as a feature, and incentivises wonky gotta-catch-em-all gameplay.

Government forms and mechanics being tied to specific tags. Why can’t a small, heavily-invested Estonia create a militarised “Prussian” monarchy? Why should a Baltic-focused naval Prussia get arbitrary military bonuses?

Redundant mechanics like stability AND unrest; it would be very good to see EUV rationalise it’s mechanics into a smaller, more coherent and integrated package that can produce more complex and interesting interactions as a result.

Major features being DLC-locked and therefore silo-ed as untouchably separate from the rest of the game (read: as a swirly redundant mechanic overlapping something else). The name of the game is mechanics interacting. Anything reducing that is directly negative.

 

[Kuantum]

Current Paradox can't make a EU game.

They just can't.

Isn't Vic 3 proof enough?

 

[Aepdneds]

Current Paradox can't make a EU game.

They just can't.

Isn't Vic 3 proof enough?

Since the EU team moved to Tinto there was a big improvement in the quality, Johan is doing a great job and I trust him to make a good successor to EU4.

 

[Kuantum]

Since the EU team moved to Tinto there was a big improvement in the quality, Johan is doing a great job and I trust him to make a good successor to EU4.

Eu 4 has become an endless loop of DLC improving a region, lefting it overpowered, complain about how overpowered it is, followed by overpowering another region.

I don't really care about who is making the game. It's not a question of technique but of mindset and vision.

Judging by the latest releases, the vision is making the games as dumb as possible. Vic 3 as nothing to offer except construction queues.

And the mindset, well, we can't really talk about that, can we?

 

[Anemetius]

No more mana.

 

[necro84]

For me the only big problem is stacking permanent modifies from multiple mission trees by tag switching.
I won't use the other things I don't like e.g. I almost never play as theocracies but not taking modifiers and not playing optimally is a bad feeling for me.

 

[gigau]

Let's calm things down and discuss respecting other people's opinions.

Please avoid discussing a game outside its subforum... one development team is not the other.

 

[grommile]

Pops.

Culture groups.

The current design of National Ideas.

Lucky nations being on by default. (If people want the mechanic to still be there, fine, but don't make it the default, and definitely don't make it mandatory for achievements.)

Mission trees that give rewards. Mission trees designed to provide inspiration to the player and guidance to "historical mode" AI behaviour are fine.

Any mechanic that encourages "gotta catch 'em all" tag changing.

Achievements for (near) World Conquest. I don't directly care whether it's possible to conquer the world; I just don't want it to be an officially endorsed goal that gets you official Internet badges.

 

[I like wars and maps]

Mission trees.
They turn a sandbox game into a more restrictive design then GTA missions where you basically gimp yourself as hard as someone ignoring absolutism as a mechanic if you dont do what the devs tell you to and when they want you to do it. But mission trees are a dopamine farming design since click button recieve green number and incredibly easy to make so they will stay for sure.

 

[Aepdneds]

Yeah, I am not totally happy with the mission trees either, some of them are too allmighty. Stuff like "unify your local culture, unrest in your culture -2" is totally reasonable, stuff like "conquer Ulm, get a reunification CB on the United states of America" (like the Austrian mission tree) is completely off the scale.

 

[Hermerico]

Crashing the game for going from Nation Selection screen to the Main Menu screen.

 

[Lavilledieu]

I think a linear research tree is a mistake. It makes countries too similar. Behind ahead in military tech makes your army globally good, while in practice your fancy Spanish artillery shouldn't be of much use in Nepal or in rainforests. Some modifiers for units tied to climate/terrain/continent could be put implemented. And so on. Basically, give technologies some niche uses. It even helps creating different experiences when you play different countries if your research strategy has to switch.

Having no real unit variety is something I want to see gone too. Have some units with niche uses, some units tied to tech groups/... Currently, we have the soup unique units create, but even though I own many dlc, I've barely used those as they are so tag-specific. I want the evolution of feudal levies to professional armies be represented by changing units, not by the linear tech and professionalism (which everyone uses for manpower anyway).

 

[Zohtun]

The Ottomans

 

[Aepdneds]

I think a linear research tree is a mistake. It makes countries too similar. Behind ahead in military tech makes your army globally good, while in practice your fancy Spanish artillery shouldn't be of much use in Nepal or in rainforests. Some modifiers for units tied to climate/terrain/continent could be put implemented. And so on. Basically, give technologies some niche uses. It even helps creating different experiences when you play different countries if your research strategy has to switch.

This is now my completely own head canon, but I never saw the tech tree as a research cost but as an implementation investment, someone in the world did the invention and you spend the "mana" to get the useful implementation, but I get your point that the bonuses are too flat for every situation.

 

[vv142]

Without repeating a lot of good things that were mentioned, I would not like to see easy or sustainable long-term Personal Unions.

I believe that it would be realistic to make them more unstable and much much harder to keep. So that keeping them becomes an exception (on a path to a creation of a new country) rather than the rule. I think that you should be certain to lose (unintegrated) PUs above a certain number of subjects: 2 with shared border, culture and religion and 1 otherwise. And that you should be sure to lose PUs that are not small after some time. It would force one to integrate PUs quickly or form another country in a reasonable period of time (kind of like Austria or PLC did). Same apples to PUs with subjects (so there would be no way to keep Portugal or get Spain in PU like in real life). Examples of split of Habsburg empire on Charles V abdication (due to too many PUs), attempted French PU of Spain and Habsburg’s challenge to get the PU in the war of Spanish succession, Spanish PU over Portugal, Dutch PU of England, all spring to mind. To be fair, Naples and Milan did stay in PU, but they were small.

 

[Wenla]

Mission trees.

 

[Koopatin]

eternal alliances.

 

[brifbates]

The Ottomans

You misspelled Byzantium...

Also, EU IV style pre-determined monuments, the CK 2 model where you choose what to build and where is fine, province x providing buff y because it happened to be important enough in real life is nonsense in a sandbox game.

Add in pretty much everything on Grommile's list (although I don't have huge problems with culture groups in general, just some specific cases that were made to ease gameplay of certain nations).

 

[InvisibleBison]

eternal alliances.

I think alliances should be formed for a specific purpose, and fall apart if that purpose is attained or no longer relevant.