• 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.

Testeria

καλὸς κἀγαθός
71 Badges
Jan 13, 2018
1.240
2.272
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Magicka 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Prison Architect
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • March of the Eagles
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Victoria 2
Personally - I would love to see more CHOICES integrated into EU5 systems. For example: sure, absolutism may be good for many reasons but let the player CHOSE low absolutism for some other bonus (for example I once proposed that Husaria unit would be much stronger with low absolutism).

Someone else proposed that high manpower means growing unemployment ergo growing unrest.

Make all the absurdly good choices in EU4 break something else and add to trouble.

What kind of new features do you wish for - mechanic wise?
 
  • 20Like
  • 3
Reactions:
Remove a lot of the button bloat from the game, the list of ways to interact with a nation has only exploded in the last few years, and many of them are functionally worthless. Many of them are redundant, some almost entirely so, but can't be removed due to being DLC features or whatever. We really don't need the ability to buy provinces, but also buy provinces and make them a trade company. We really don't need 3 slightly different ways to make a nation send their trade to you.
There's also a lot of modifiers that should probably be condensed. Why do we have discipline, tactics, 3 different army pips, professionalism, drill, morale, shock and fire damage given and received modifiers, 3 different combat abilities, and some special ones for mercenaries? That's not even a comprehensive list of the more than dozen different modifiers for just army quality. There's so many redundant economic modifiers as well, some of which I don't think anyone actually knows if they're working properly or not at this point.

I would be perfectly fine if EU5 was a more updated version of EU4 with a lot of redundancies removed and a more stable code base.
I think EU4's primary gameplay loop is the best executed out of all of the PDS games, and given the studio's track record recently, I really feel like trying to "fix" everything by making it all different is a recipe for disaster. Give us a game that we already know is good, not one that is potentially good in 3 years.
 
  • 15Like
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
@Xdevo I agree with you on features and button bloat. I disagree about the gameplay loop. Outside what I already said in that thread, I think the monarch point system should be reviewed. I dislike developping to get institutions overnight and many instant actions. It is true, though, that building buildings, creating troops and engaging in diplomacy are good.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
Reactions:
I think a more in-depth Estates and Court system is long overdo. Sometimes I feel like playing a nation is like being a spirit possessing a collective consciousness, with some minor detractors here and there cuz of loyalty or religion. So having a country that feels organic would be a must for me. The Interest Groups in Vic3 are already way more dynamic and relevant, even if in EU they would be much fewer and more stable (be them just the estates, orders and powerful figures). Councilors and royal/patrician families should also try to sway the country in their own way, it is all very passive as of now. IMHO
They should have personal and stated Agendas for the country. And some are either too radical (but powerless) and foreign, other groups in the country might label them traitors and enemies of the state, giving you option to repress or protect them. All in all, a better and more dynamic political system, which can take many forms.

A better trade system I believe would be of importance. If not a new system, more intuitive and interactable, at the very least a better structured and informative version of the former. Which also makes me think a simple form of POP could be beneficial, but I'm always on the fence with using POPs to fix things.

A good Prestige system might help give the struggle for the grandest court spirit of the times a spotlight. Sponsor grand works and artists, show the world that god/the gods favor your nation over the others, have an etiquette-demanding and pompous court, or perhaps a more down-to-earth and popular one, perhaps a very pious one. The grandeur, opulence and debauchery was as much a competition as a reason for criticism and revolutions and reforms.

At last, in my preference would also have a more proactive diplomatic game. Countries making more pacts, treaties, spying, pleasing and insulting, and in-general having more vivid relations between them, or at least give these interactions more relevance in the UI. When I make diplomacy in EU4, it feels tame, I feel like its just numbers going up and down and time passing, there is not much of the wonder of a game being played, those psychic responses of you doing something and getting to see it pan out, reacting. Might be a personal thing, I don't know. Which is a peeve I have with the interface and feedback of the game itself. But since its not exactly a mechanic in itself, I'm not sure its relevant for the thread.

About Missions, I'm not sure. Don't know if it should be removed, but certainly reviewed and revamped.
 
  • 10Like
  • 2Love
  • 1
Reactions:
I like diplomacy in EUIV, because I feel smart when I abuse the AI, but sometimes I wish there were more challenges in that.

Ideally, the game would react to your actions. Peace and diplomacy would be linked. If you were on the verge of completely conquering another country, others could sweep in and ask you to stop, or else. There wouldn't be "lenght of war" modifiers, the AI wouldn't go in total war, and the player who would do that would quickly find himself wrecked, except if he were completely dominant. The goal of the diplomatic and military game would be to break the balance of power and to become an hegemon, or to survive inside it.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Not my most important.... but diplomat dancing gives me vertigo.

Maybe instead of merchants/colonists/diplos/missionaries, we can just use mana to take these actions, or some kind of administration mechanic?

Or have screens similar to the 'provinces of interest' screen that allows us to mark where our diplo et al concerns are, and, for the case of diplomats, those we mark green have relations improve over time. Of course, actions and interests and marking friendly areas would make other areas 'red'.

So, for example, if I mark Lubeck node green in the trade screen, to urge my (now non existent) merchants to focus there, it adversely affects my diplomacy with other nations interested in that node.

Eventually rivals are formed, but also other positive diplo agreements become possible as well.

On a side note, AE should only diminish in 4 instances:

1) new ruler (50% drop)
2) new dynasty (50% drop)
3) new government (75% drop)
4) releasing the conquered provinces and paying gold (75%)

- all 4 would also start a decay back to zero

maybe )5: 100% drop if made a subject
 
  • 4Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
As much as I love in-country administration, politics and managing, the game has the perfect stage for a really fun and diverse diplomacy game. While EU4 has a lot of options, the menu for it is quite... compacted and doesn't give that 'grand strategy' vibe, but its a visual thing anyway. What I don't think its merely a visual thing, is that even if it doesn't come in the base game, a true diplomacy table should be implemented, treaties shouldn't be signed by the simples press of a button. There is a lot gameplay that could be had over those.

Think simply how some countries would threaten to not participate in congresses if other countries were invited as well, or how it would be a back and forth until a satisfactory term could be reached, how decisions that were outside the scope of the meeting could be brought. Of course, not all of these needs to be a Treaty of Westphalia, neither as needless complex as it really is, its a game, it can/should be streamlined, but I think it takes away from the realpolitik from the time. Political marriages, divisions of land, formation of borders, rights guaranteed., lots of changes could come from those meetings..

Besides, in the time scope of the game, power balance was a true concern internationally. Nobody wanted to see their neighbors getting big and strong, and people feared the power creep (lol). It would be nice to see a balance between power projection and threat level, you gotta show you're strong as to not be trifled with, but you can't act like a war/powermonger, nor as an antisocial freak.

But in the end, I think what I most wish for the next game is: that he gets more responsive, look more alive, and be pretty (yeah, really; we see the renaissance, baroque and romantic period, it needs to take advantage of it); and have a more varied and dynamic domestic politicking and management gameplay.
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I'd love if provinces got more in depth upgrading mechanics when it came to gold, it's super easy top reach mid-game and just have unlimited money and nothing to spend it on. I'd love it if more expensive infrastructure got unlocked as the game went on.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
A pop system so that the people in these places *exist* instead of being abstracted away as development (which Paradox said isn't necessarily population since otherwiose magical mana can quintuple the population of a random place literally overnight) or manpower/sailors. This also allows for minorities; isn't it strange how there are apparently 0 Jews in the entirety of Europe and the Middle East? The Romani apparently just don't exist since there isn't even a Romani culture in the game files.

While a full economic simulation like in Vic 3 isn't necessary (I mean, almost everyone is a subsistence farmer or temporarily a soldier), some economy might be called for. If you wage a war and get half your adult male population killed on a mountain, that's probably going to have some ill effects! These were the guys growing the food, making the ships, and mining the ores after all. A pre-industrial economy still has need for raw materials and outputs; it's always kind of bothered me how once you hit a certain military technology every country on Earth can have equal access to firearms and horses (I'm not saying "Horsepower" should be an extra pool to use, but maybe if you're introducing horses to some hyper powerful American Indian state that would also have some consequences). Being able to make guns should be a bit more of an ordeal, getting cheaper and easier as time goes on and technology advances; if you're in a backwater with nothing but cows to your name, your gunsmithing industry is going to be a bit lacking for that 20K army you want even if you do technically know what a musket is.

Pops would also allow for things like plagues or cultural blending (i.e. creole cultures if you're a colonizing nation importing slaves). Adding in pops really opens up a huge amount of doors other features could be built on.
 
  • 13Like
  • 4
  • 2
Reactions:
Since EU covers the time when a country could be really torn apart by its Population having different religions, and Princes and magnates using it for causes of war, having some form of Pops could be a good addition. Estates, Pops, Council, Groups of Interest and Powerful Vassals are all systems that could inspire something new and appropriate for EU5.

Maybe you want more prestige, so you call for a big country's greatest artist to sponsor their work and make your court and country truly grand. Maybe some of that culture will spread. Big, long-time alliances will lead to culture and religious exchange. Rivalry will lead to high fervor of your own society's value and opposition to the enemy's. If you are lacking money and many of your people (most importantly, the powerful in your country) are asking and demanding that you send "those" people away from the country, maybe you expel them and confiscate their land, like king Philip III was one to do. These actions bring swifts in the country and history, even if sometimes only long-term.

As Absolutist as thing could get, sometimes it wasn't the monarch who decided alone all that the country would do. Many times they had to adhere to the wants of their power bases, or at the very least placate them, keep them happy. I think this is a dynamic the game sorely lacks. It is a hinderance in the inner politics, but a leader that can unite them can bring a prosperous age indeed. And well... you can always buy out or incite revolt in your rival's country.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I'd like them to remove lucky nations or make it random and still be compatible with achievements. Or change it somehow so that the luck can be lost and gained. Though I would presume that would depend where the game falls on the sandbox-simulator scale.

As other people have mentioned, I think it would be a good idea to make culture more dynamic. Trade too. Maybe the end nodes could be less static. Or perhaps the whole system of trade will be reworked.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
1) Dynamic Diplomatic Relations: Allow us to recreate defensive coalitions (such as the Holy League) without having to wait for the target to generate AE. I would love to see defensive alliances, diplomatic coalitions, offensive pacts (treaties to jointly declare war on a target), and the ability to partition a nation a bit more easily.

2) Dynastic Interactions: While CK3 excels at the Dynamic building, I'd love to have at least a family tree so I can see the potential heirs and where my dynasty has gone overtime. It would also be helpful to see what diplomatic schemes I could build to PU a nation with a family tree.

3) Late-Game Army: Late Game Armies can basically march from Paris to Bangkok without supply issues. I'd love to see this changed, it should be impossible to march across the continent without good supply buildup.

4): Reworked Army Mechanics: Armies should start smaller and slowly overtime get bigger. For example, regiments should start with 500 men, then by the late game have the traditional 1K. This could even be a mechanic called "regiment size" ---> Where as your military administration grows, so can your regiment sizes.

5): Manpower Rework: I'd love to see local manpower and national manpower have a circular relationship. Local Manpower is used to fill garrisons, recruit regiments, and give reinforcement to armies stationed on the province; while National manpower fills up provinces who's manpower has depleted. When a province runs out of manpower, the province experiences economic issues as the working age males are all gone, while if a nation runs of out manpower these effects apply to the nation. Simply, Manpower should be critical to keep stocked, as running out could be disastrous for the nation.

6): Internal Politics: Appeasing the estates, revolts, and disasters all need to be improved. For revolts, I've thought that they should be like snow balls. If you let it grow, it becomes a serious issue, but if you take action early you can easily stop it. Estates should have a serious bite to their desires for policy, for example if your losing a war and have a loyal nobility estate, they might "donate" their local armies to royal control; or the Clergy might give you a legitimacy boost if they're loyal. Finally, Disasters need to be more disasterous. Right now, Disasters are only bad if you choose to let them be bad.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1Love
  • 1
Reactions:
Some ideas...

1) A pop system. It doesn't need to be as detailed as Vicky's - maybe something more like Imperator's would be more fitting, but it would be nice if populations had tangible feels. It would also be nice if provinces could produce multiple goods. This would also allow you to actually represent religious and ethnic minorities in a real way. At the very least, provinces need more texture if internal matters are to be of greater concern

2) Absolutely we need to represent different methods for taxation, as well as internal governing mechanics and interests. You wouldn't just be able to get loans from magic banks - you could also, say...sell future tax income to some nobles or enterprising merchants for a nice big chunk of change. And having all those ducats sure seems tempting, doesn't it?
Just sign on the dotted line, don't ask about what happened to Spain and France, it wasn't that bad.
This would also create an interesting tension for Muslim realms: do you convert conquered territory to make it more stable and to be better able to leverage its manpower in your armies....or do you just charge them the jizya and call it a day?

3) Bidirectional trade flow. There's no reason trade flow should be restricted: trade value should be able to flow freely between nodes in either direction, and no node should be completely isolated. Or be a black hole from which no trade value can escape, as Genoa, Venice, and the English Channel are currently. You would, of course, still restrict connections based upon geographic and nautical sense, but this would allow ahistorical trade empires to truly flex their muscle, and for European powers to squeeze every last dime from their colonial empires even if they went off the rails a little. You might; however, create a certain sense of gravity that makes it harder to pry trade out of a node in which a powerful trade empire is collecting.

4) More sensible tech. As we all know, in OTL, Europe surged ahead of the rest of the world technologically starting from the Renaissance through the invention of the Printing Press, but afterwards the rest of the world caught up and achieved tech parity, blunting European incursions into India and the East Indies. And also China remained the most technologically advanced society on the planet.

That doesn't seem right! But neither would railroading the rest of the world into hopelessly falling behind. I'm not a game designer, nor am I at all an expert on the period, so I don't know how you would do it right, but certainly I don't think it works now. For the rest of the world, the first three institutions are sinks you dump hundreds of monarch points into to surpass your neighbors and keep parity with some pale guys far away.

5) Better representation of supply lines
As we also know, the combined federation of the Pawnee, Onondaga, Mohawk, Pequot, Abanaki, and Fox crushed the first English colony like a bug, but then the English shipped their entire army of ~50,000 over the Atlantic Ocean and crushed them right back.

Oh wait, no, that's nonsense: though Indigenous peoples did frequently skirmish with European settlers in North America, to varying degrees of success, but they never won a war, so the above scenario should be an aberration. They were typically too diffuse and other nations hundreds of miles away did not march through the territory of dozens of other tribes unmolested to render aid to their brethren. More organized tribes did; however, cleave to European colonial powers in exchange for certain guarantees as to their territorial integrity (guarantees the restless colonists typically did not honor, of course) and to renew their own grudges against their rivals.

In any case, sending a large army far afield should be an expensive and difficult undertaking bedeviled by attrition and difficulty supplying them. This would encourage European powers to seek coastal footholds in far away places before launching campaigns of colonial conquest and chains of ports to help ease the difficulties of supplying distant campaigns. And encourage them to make friends with some natives. At least, for a time...

6) It should be hard to keep a large empire together

No empire lasts forever, but your average EU4 empire does, unless it runs into an even bigger, hungrier empire, of course! Nonetheless, you almost never see European countries with significant holdings in India, because the subcontinent typically consolidates into a hyper-stable collection of three or so mega-states. Ming China needs all kinds of bespoke events to get it to fall apart. The Ottomans and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth rarely decline, and certainly never for the reasons they actually did. This means you never get anything like the circumstances that allowed the British to become the dominant power in the Indian subcontinent, or for Persia to rise and challenge the Ottomans for supremacy in the Middle East.
 
  • 9Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
- Improve Ai, competitive Ai that understand mechanics and knows how to use them, make a playable game in Sp, bad AI makes the game boring.

- New warfare system. Like in Victoria 3 but doing good job, with lot of options and variables.
 
Last edited:
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Pursuing the discussion between @Arizal @Testeria and @Jarvin about National Ideas.

I also dislike them more and more, for another reason than the sake of a supposed equilibrium or a virgin state of the world at game start.

I don't like them because they're related to what happened in another dimension (our own) rather than in your own game. For instance, when seeing FRA having national ideas as a colonizing nation, that may not match at all the game I want to play. And when seeing Aboriginal ideas based on events that happened in the 19th century, that's frankly over-ridiculous.

Now comes the question: "Ok, then what?"

I've seen the word "choice" mentioned very frequently in the messages above mine. I think my idea that would (or rather, "could") conciliate both ideas: instead of national ideas, just having policies (the same way they work now) working the same as now, but with multiplicated effect. Something like:
  • 5 "great" policies (being the current policies, whose bonuses would be x1.5);
  • 2 "greater" policies (x2);
  • 1 "greatest" policy (x3).
This way, if you want to use those policies, you may. If they're not that useful in any given context, you may just use another one.

It would be much better for the game equilibrium, you would have the choice to not use them, and the IA could be competitive just by scripting a few modifiers (let's say FRA doesn't have any colony because they're stuck in Europe and their territory is divided by two and there are religious revolts because of the Reform, then it would make the IA much better if not taking colonial ideas but rather something about religion, legitimacy or coring).
 
  • 3Like
  • 2
Reactions:
@Elfryc Do you mean that instead of national ideas or missions, countries would have "national" policies?