What are Your most important wishes for EU5 mechanics?

[Testeria]

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?

 

[Arizal]

Why the hate on NIs and missions?

Nations in history have personalities, if you understand them well enough, and would have geared their nation a certain way different to others elsewhere or even those nearby. As someone mentioned, France gets a colonial idea in their NIs because their nation would colonize due to their environment and lack of continental expansion (pre-napoleon) would push a France in any situation to do so. Allowing full modularity to all NIs for the player/AI would simply create a scale of modifier-stacking that would become nonsensical.

Missions are a non-essential chain of events/progressions that offer a historical experience or aspirations emulating that of said nation during the historical timeline.
EU4 is a historical game after all, so missions (or something similar) are quite critical as a mechanic or for a gameplay experience.

And @Elfryc : From your explanation, I'm sorry to say I can't follow your suggestion. I may be absolutist in my thinking, your idea is better than NIs because at least there is a choice implied in it. If I understand it well, you can lose your innate bonus (temporarily) in order to gain suboptimal, but situationnally better bonuses, but in your proposal, you still have bonuses linked to the existence of your TAG, that isn't explained otherwise than by that TAG being in existence.

This may be a compromise, but it still has the same fundamental problem I have with NIs and mission trees, in that bonuses depend on TAGs rather than on actions you can make, or than the way your country evolves.

That's why I like so much, in theory, CK2/3 system of customizable cultures/religions, or Victoria 3 system of customizable laws. Those systems may suffer from the problem of having often the same results, and only the road being different. I understand that criticism. But I still prefer that over having the "nations" having their "national character", which is fixed in stone.

If I take @vaLor- point : "France gets a colonial idea in their NIs because their nation would colonize due to their environment and lack of continental expansion."
Aren't those precisely things that can be influenced by the game mechanics? What if France goes on a napoleonic rampage in the XVIth century? How would its (historically moderate) focus on colonization be justified then? And what if France lost its Atlantic coast to England? Wouldn't that make their colonization bonuses completely unrealistic?

EU is at its core, in my eyes, an alternative history generator. Pasting predetermined outcomes on it, be it by missions or by bonuses which go preferably on certain countries, goes directly against this idea. This is not to say countries shouldn't be different. Indeed, their situation at the beginning and the ressources they have should have an impact on the way they evolved. But ideally, besides the initial conditions, none of that should be predetermined.

Of course, some things are more realistic than others. There is a balance to be had. And there have been countless conversations on that subject in those forums. But this is a very large subject encompassing much more than NIs and missions.

 

[oilver]

A potential EUV is really an oppurtunity for paradox to rework the underlying game mechanics, the issue with this is that the underlying game mechanics function really well in EUIV.

With this in mind, my number one issue with EUIV atm is that there isn't enough randomness in the game to create a true sandbox feeling. To improve this I would like to see a fuller estates mechanics, whose management become a central part of the game. It would be good if they were also connected to ones provinces, ideas, policies and culture.

I would also like to see consolidated start dates (add 1356 or one in the 1500s) as atm I always start in 1444.

 

[vaLor-]

If I take @vaLor- point : "France gets a colonial idea in their NIs because their nation would colonize due to their environment and lack of continental expansion."
Aren't those precisely things that can be influenced by the game mechanics? What if France goes on a napoleonic rampage in the XVIth century? How would its (historically moderate) focus on colonization be justified then? And what if France lost its Atlantic coast to England? Wouldn't that make their colonization bonuses completely unrealistic?

EU is at its core, in my eyes, an alternative history generator. Pasting predetermined outcomes on it, be it by missions or by bonuses which go preferably on certain countries, goes directly against this idea. This is not to say countries shouldn't be different. Indeed, their situation at the beginning and the ressources they have should have an impact on the way they evolved. But ideally, besides the initial conditions, none of that should be predetermined.

Of course, some things are more realistic than others. There is a balance to be had. And there have been countless conversations on that subject in those forums. But this is a very large subject encompassing much more than NIs and missions.

There was a predetermined outcome, our historic timeline. The EU games (and EU4 specifically) are based on events which happened in history, such as the idea that during the time France unlocks its 4th NI in this example it would likely be interested in creating a modest colonial empire.

Placing that into specific game situations, the AI should find itself in this situation in a large majority of cases, assuming it is unperturbed by the player. After all, even if France wants to do some Napoleonic conquest, you need money and colonies are second to none in providing it.

For the player, you aren't obligated to be colonial if you don't want to, it's just that an AI would if you weren't the one playing it.

Personally, I think missions and ideas are a part of the choice as a player to make use of, as a (non-essential) option to explore the nation's historic path and aspirations. If someone wants to create an alt-history world where AI outcomes include Somalia becoming the dominant world power and harbinger of civilization, that this is not the same game concept as EU4. I agree there is a balance to be had though.

More glaring to me is when the game is unable to frame a situation which did not go down the historical timeline, such as the lack of dynamic trade routes.

P.S.: If this wasn't already mentioned, the ruler/heir/dynastic system needs a lot of work for EU5, and the game needs a different engine and smoother performance to allow for better representation of the 1444-1821 world (tags+provinces) [and shouldn't need to relaunch itself when going through saves]

 

[Olaf Trygvasson]

For me, I just want the devs to learn from Vic3’s mistakes. A total sandbox where all nations have almost the same mechanics doesn’t work very well. EUV should embrace the shocking amount of diversity and complexity in governments of the era across the globe. Obviously a lot of players love the conquest loop, and want a map painter, but I think that the game should force them to deal with the internal factors of the various powers that alternately forced and hindered conquest. The core gameplay should be dealing with vassals and the estates to try and keep your country stable

 

[ZéMalta]

Well I agree that different governments and cultures should play and act very differently, but there is a limit of content making. Interesting models and solutions could help this a lot, yes, but there still a lot of brute production and elbow grease to make these regions different.

I don't think it was a mistake, as much as an investment. Make the core game mechanics and inner workings be very solid (I see only Warfare as rough), and form a really good BASE, for the game to grow over it. With regional, cultural and governmental details and uniqueness coming slowly and with quality.

That is how I see it. Call me optimist, but I think its a good pipeline for a PDX game that covers the entire world.

 

[arosenberger14]

For me, I just want the devs to learn from Vic3’s mistakes. A total sandbox where all nations have almost the same mechanics doesn’t work very well. EUV should embrace the shocking amount of diversity and complexity in governments of the era across the globe. Obviously a lot of players love the conquest loop, and want a map painter, but I think that the game should force them to deal with the internal factors of the various powers that alternately forced and hindered conquest. The core gameplay should be dealing with vassals and the estates to try and keep your country stable

Overall I agree, but I'd love for Paradox to try and make high-risk unstable situations come with opportunities as well as danger. Slow and steady should be one style, but you should also be able to play more explosively at the cost of a much greater risk of things going seriously wrong down the line. Victoria 3 was a huge missed opportunity on this front; provoking a revolution to sweep away a stubborn old political order that is resistant to incremental reform should have been much more of a thing.

There needs to be some sort of analogue to stress in CK3 that guides you to reacting towards the way the state would, and if you push things too hard interesting things start to happen...

 

[Johan]

For me, I just want the devs to learn from Vic3’s mistakes. A total sandbox where all nations have almost the same mechanics doesn’t work very well. EUV should embrace the shocking amount of diversity and complexity in governments of the era across the globe. Obviously a lot of players love the conquest loop, and want a map painter, but I think that the game should force them to deal with the internal factors of the various powers that alternately forced and hindered conquest. The core gameplay should be dealing with vassals and the estates to try and keep your country stable

I completely agree. It was the #1 lesson I learned from Imperator, (that mana is heavily disliked was #3, and #2 was that people prefer a more of a simulation, instead of boardgame feel). In imperator there was only four different types of mechanics for countries, republics, monarchies, settled tribes and migratory tribes, and hardly any unique content otherwise at release.

 

[grommile]

Simulation, of course, means that the country-specific diversity needs to come from e.g. having the attributes of France, not from being called France.

 

[Danskjävel]

On a whole other note, I think it's really positive to see that the developers are engaging and encouraging the community to share their wants and ideas. Kudos!

 

[cursorhiker]

Overall I agree, but I'd love for Paradox to try and make high-risk unstable situations come with opportunities as well as danger. Slow and steady should be one style, but you should also be able to play more explosively at the cost of a much greater risk of things going seriously wrong down the line. Victoria 3 was a huge missed opportunity on this front; provoking a revolution to sweep away a stubborn old political order that is resistant to incremental reform should have been much more of a thing.

There needs to be some sort of analogue to stress in CK3 that guides you to reacting towards the way the state would, and if you push things too hard interesting things start to happen...

Agreed, one way of making defeats and setbacks "fun" is to have major disasters happening unlocking radical and powerful reforms. It would probably be able to be gamed, but instability and defeats should provide the impetus to try to make big changes to avoid a second one.
English Civil War tears apart the Three Kingdoms for years -> Parliament powers are codified and expanded, a core of the English professional army is built, and a more centralized government is created.
Prussia loses half her territory in the Treaties of Tilsit -> major military reforms to bring the Prussian Army in line with the French model are done
The Ottomans get their tail kicked by the Portuguese and Spanish at sea -> they try to reform their navy towards a more European model (this one didn't really succeed)
Poland gets carved up by Prussia, Austria, and Russia -> Polish try to reform the government to avoid foreign influence over it (another failure)

Unrelated, another thing I'd like to see is tying garrisons to manpower, allowing the stationing of troops in a city or fortress to plus up the default garrison. If I snatch a small fortress on the Indian coast with a few thousand expeditionary force, I should be able to station them in the fortress to avoid getting attacked in the field by a big Mughal army. In addition, army professionalism should be the holy grail of endgame armies, with small professional armies being able to decimate armies several times larger than them (Wellesley's victory at Assaye is a perfect example).

 

[Blindbohemian]

I would really like to see ‘Mamluks’ renamed ‘Egypt’. It’s bizarre having countries on the map named after their government type.

 

[Kyoumen]

I would really like to see ‘Mamluks’ renamed ‘Egypt’. It’s bizarre having countries on the map named after their government type.

It's very common for Muslim polities to be named after their rulers. The Ayyubids, the Abbasids, the Safavids, Timurids, the Ottoman Empire, even Saudi Arabia.

 

[Blindbohemian]

It's very common for Muslim polities to be named after their rulers. The Ayyubids, the Abbasids, the Safavids, Timurids, the Ottoman Empire, even Saudi Arabia.

“Mamluks” isn’t a dynasty, though, or a cultural grouping or anything else of the sort. It’s very broadly a form of government.

Furthermore, the reason that the polities you’ve listed are often historiographically named after their rulers (“Ottomans”, for instance, is often called “Turkey” in contemporary records) is because they don’t have clear national or geographical identities. Similarly we talk about “the Habsburg empire”, or the recurring requests on these forums for an “Angevin empire” or “North Sea empire” formable. Country names are typically the most-convenient label.

Mamluk-ruled Egypt does have a clear geographic identity. The Mamluks took control of Fatimid Egypt, and later ceded control to the Ottomans, who ultimately left behind a pseudoindependent state called Egypt. Under the rule of the Fatimids, the Mamluks, the Turks, the Alivites and the British, Egypt was and remained Egypt. Calling it “Mamluks” is like calling 1444 Hungary “feudal elite”.

 

[Kyoumen]

“Mamluks” isn’t a dynasty, though, or a cultural grouping or anything else of the sort. It’s very broadly a form of government.

Uh, no. A Mamluk is a slave-soldier, originally of Turkish origin but later from all other the place. Functionally they were a specific military social class. Mamluk Egypt went through several fairly significant changes of government; the connecting thread was the Mamluks, not the form of government.

More to the point, however, the period of Mamluk-ruled Egypt is commonly called the Mamluk Sultanate; it's a clear term that refers to the specific period where it was ruled by a military caste of former slave soldiers. Reading history or references to this period in English, that is likely to be what it's called. What is gained by removing that information? I don't think many people are confused that what the Mamluk Sultanate is ruling is, in fact, Egypt (and sometimes other places).

 

[Blindbohemian]

More to the point, however, the period of Mamluk-ruled Egypt is commonly called the Mamluk Sultanate

The historiographical term for the brief period of Latin Christian rule in Byzantium is the “Latin Empire”, but adding a country represented with that historiographical term has been justly resisted as pointless and ill-understood for much of EUIV’s history. There is a difference between historiographical language and the names of countries. Austria, for instance, remains Austria whomever they PU; we don’t call Muscovy “boyars” or Poland “Sejm”. In historiography “Mamluk Sultanate” usefully delineates a particular period of Egyptian political history that the EUIV MAM tag has no requirement to conform to.

“Mamluks” is the Mamluk Sultanate of Egypt. Distinct from the Mamluk Sultanate of Iraq, which is (tellingly) represented with the Iraq tag in relevant start dates. What would be gained by removing that piece of information would be a) ontological consistency, b) generating an impetus to attach some flavour to the “Mamluks” as a slave-soldier-elite caste beyond a poorly-understood country name, and c) eliminating the potential for the incoherence of a republican or theocratic “Mamluks”, because (as I said) “Mamluks” is not a country or an ethnic group but (in this context) very broadly a form of government wherein a Circassian slave soldier elite holds executive power in the state, and that makes no sense in the context of a republic or theocracy, and d) removing the patently absurd decision for “Mamluks” to “form Egypt” at admin tech 22. What does that even mean? The Mamluks are a government in Egypt. They seized it from the Fatimids. They didn’t conquer “Caliphate” and form “Mamluks”. The very idea is plainly absurd.

 

[Kyoumen]

The historiographical term for the brief period of Latin Christian rule in Byzantium is the “Latin Empire”, but adding a country with that historiographical name has been justly resisted as pointless and ill-understood for much of EUIV’s history. There is a difference between historiographical language and the names of countries. Austria, for instance, remains Austria whomever they PU.

“Mamluks” is the Mamluk Sultanate of Egypt. Distinct from the Mamluk Sultanate of Iraq, which is (tellingly) represented with the Iraq tag in relevant start dates. What would be gained by removing that piece of information would be a) ontological consistency, b) generating an impetus to attach some flavour to the “Mamluks” as a slave-soldier-elite caste beyond a poorly-understood country name, and c) removing the patently absurd ability for “Mamluks” to “form Egypt” at admin tech 22. What does that even mean?

Resisted by whom, exactly? It's in Crusader Kings II, and the titular title is in CK3 as well. It's not in EUIV, sure, but I doubt that's because of its name.

And the Mamluks forming Egypt would represent forming something more akin to a national polity.

BTW, you can also reform the Mamluks specifically by a Muslim nation taking Cairo if they don't exist and inviting that social class to participate in government again, something which will be pretty confusing if you just call them "Egypt" and would, oddly, make it so that apparently the only Egyptian nation possible requires Mamluk slave soldiers calling the shots.

 

[Blindbohemian]

Resisted by whom, exactly?

Johan, if I recall correctly, at least in the EU3 days.

And the Mamluks forming Egypt would represent forming something more akin to a national polity.

And why is that something unique to the Mamluks? Why is there no national transition for France, England, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Austria, Morocco, Poland, Latvia, Corsica? Which of those states were “national polities” in 1444 in a materially different way to Mamluk-ruled Egypt? In what meaningful way was Egypt less conscious of its national identity in 1444 than Norway?

BTW, you can also reform the Mamluks specifically by a Muslim nation taking Cairo if they don't exist and inviting that social class to participate in government again

Yes. An absurd and gamey workaround necessitated by a) the laudable Paradox commitment to making regional majors reformable and b) the fact that they’ve named the tag “Mamluks” instead of sensibly calling it “Egypt”. Were the tag given a reasonable name it would be a straightforward reformation decision like all the others in the game. Another benefit to getting rid of the silly “Mamluks” name.

 

[Anna_Gein]

Afaik Mamluks & Ghilman were technically not "slave-soldiers" as they were usually freed once their training was over.

Just to show how arbitrary names by convention can be.

 

[Hermerico]

No country specific mission trees. No national ideas.

Strongly agree.
It doesnt mean all tags would be the same, there are many ways that could be used for historical tags to excell in the ways they did historically.

Unique advisors
Unique laws/policies/reforms
Unique ruler personalities
Events
Unique [insert mechanic that Eu5 has and Eu4 doesnt]
Etc...

If you are playing a Britain that didnt lose its continental holdings and is still exclusively focused in expanding its continental domains, its silly to assume they would still be the uncontested naval superpower with a subpar military.

If you are playing Spain and focused in dominating the Mediterranean instead of even bothering with colonizing, there is no reason to keep them stuck with strong colonial ideas instead of more trade/economic oriented ones.

If you are playing a Sweden that decided to remain a small trade and diplomacy oriented nation who fights no wars, it is silly to expect you to still have one of the most efficient and high quality armies in the game.

Etc

Forming Tags as well should be a matter of flavour and immersion, as well as prestige, reputation, accepted cultures and territorial claims.
It shouldnt magically reward you with different ideas, your country wont suddenly become better at X Y and Z because it changed name and flag.

 

[Me_]

For me, I just want the devs to learn from Vic3’s mistakes. A total sandbox where all nations have almost the same mechanics doesn’t work very well. EUV should embrace the shocking amount of diversity and complexity in governments of the era across the globe. Obviously a lot of players love the conquest loop, and want a map painter, but I think that the game should force them to deal with the internal factors of the various powers that alternately forced and hindered conquest. The core gameplay should be dealing with vassals and the estates to try and keep your country stable

Very much this. I can not understand why so many people keep saying things like "every nation should be able to use mechanic X" about every single mechanic. Diversity is the core of replayability. Dealing with the same problms in different ways. Facing different problems. Having stronger bonuses for one area of the game or the other. If every nation would be able to use the EoC mechanic, then what would be the point of playing in China. If every religion had access to the Papacy (just renamed), then what would be the point of having multiple religions.
Diversity and mutually exclusive options are what motivates one to play again and again. I remember Stellaris on release. It was horrifyingly bland. One playthrough was enough to see 95% of the game's content. What would be the point of playing again? To perhaps see the remaining 5%, but at the cost of repeating so much? EU5 needs to have diversity embedded in it from day 1.