-
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 dont think EU4 needs characterization of ruler, but it can have use for sub-state actors like powerful noble houses that can potentially interact with outside world. The way it is now, only sub-state actors are the rebels and rebels act completely berserk attacking everything and everyone and almost never trying to conspire either between different rebel factions or the outside world.
EU covers the period where feudal realms centralized into empires and nation-states and unfortunately there are basically no mechanics representing this social development.
EU covers the period where feudal realms centralized into empires and nation-states and unfortunately there are basically no mechanics representing this social development.
Last edited:
- 9
- 1
Colonisation style like in Vic 3. I love the gradual growth of colonies instead of the "one province at a time" thing EU4 currently has.
- 2
- 2
I liked the original where there were three tiered options to attempt to explore and colonize...the more ducats you laid down the bigger the chance of success.
Independent from any skeptical view of the material struggle and plays, wars for political and capital power, many a war and intrigue in the period was made on the pretext of ideological and religious differences. Both internally and externally. Fighting for land, markets and colonies or liberties is depicted as much as realpolitik as a battle of ideas in history. Parlamentists, absolutists, reformists, conservatives.... they would fight and ally one another, but always strive to dominate, and this would fit the game very well I think. Part of the balancing act.
I believe Nations in the game should be the sum of their provinces, cultures, economies, estates and populations, ideologies, technology, government and history. The game already addresses some parts of it, but it could add more layers to the society aspect. While not as super fun and dynamic as it could be, Interest Groups of Vic3 could be a basis, even if at EU period these groups would be fewer and much more stable. It would basically be an expansion and fleshing out of the Estates really. But they should take more part in the wrangling of the nation, and work as a Council does in CK2.
So many kings and emperors had to make concessions or were impeded from making projects because of the power of these groups, and I think it would enrich the game. The same should be true with continental politics as well as neighboring diplomacy; trying to keep either everyone friendly haphazardly, or making deep friends and enemies. Besides, some wars were fought on prestige and grandeur, who had the best cities, artists, engineers, courts, fabric...
I believe Nations in the game should be the sum of their provinces, cultures, economies, estates and populations, ideologies, technology, government and history. The game already addresses some parts of it, but it could add more layers to the society aspect. While not as super fun and dynamic as it could be, Interest Groups of Vic3 could be a basis, even if at EU period these groups would be fewer and much more stable. It would basically be an expansion and fleshing out of the Estates really. But they should take more part in the wrangling of the nation, and work as a Council does in CK2.
So many kings and emperors had to make concessions or were impeded from making projects because of the power of these groups, and I think it would enrich the game. The same should be true with continental politics as well as neighboring diplomacy; trying to keep either everyone friendly haphazardly, or making deep friends and enemies. Besides, some wars were fought on prestige and grandeur, who had the best cities, artists, engineers, courts, fabric...
- 2
Because of this, Pokemon has endured as long as it has. You can "beat" the game as soon as you arrive at E4. If you'd like to take in the scenery, you can. It also works if you want to collect them all. You don't think it's difficult enough? Nearly every game features post-game stuff of some form that is at least harder than the story. There are also breeding mechanics, EVs, and IVs, but you don't need to understand them to have fun with the game.
Pokemon, in my opinion, prevails because it somehow manages to be linear enough to keep those who are unfamiliar with it interested because you always have a goal, while also being open enough to give the player various options.
- 1
- 1
It is legit criticism: it means that the game (or a piece of art) does not move players' (viewers') emotions.
Sure every game is just a number, but the idea is to convert those numbers into an emotional experience: to make people feel joy, curiosity, pride, accomplishment, etc. Sure You can convert the console game into instruction "press 'd' for 3 seconds, then press 'x', then 'd' again for 2 seconds" but it is much more engaging if You at the same time SEE a hero that runs to save the princess.
When You watch frontline in Vicky3 do You feel any positive emotions? If not - this part of the game is "soulless" and devs failed with it.
One of the ideas proposed to improve EU4 is to change "spending buttons" into "investing sliders". The problem with this approach is that the player still has to see that something happened to get this sweet dopamine boost. In Civilization1 we had this brilliant idea of festives: when all your pops were happy, they made a festive (the game showed You a popup) to honor You. Such a simple idea, but the player immediately knew that he did something right! In Vicky3 there should be newspaper popups when some extraordinary social accomplishment like this happens - because only then player actually knows he did something extraordinary and have feelings about it. Without things like this Vicky (and later EU5) really could be a soulless game.
- 4
- 1
This could be done with estates, that are removed or modified by some new technology or government reform. There just needs to be always bad and good sides to the change - at least short term.
- 1
- 1
There should actually be a possibility for the colony to be unprofitable. Even Alaska was sold because Muscovy could not squeeze enough profit from it.
- 2
- 1
Too reductive. There are reasons why something moves emotions for players. Shovelware and highly rated games both get described as "soulless", but by a different % of people who try them. "Soul" is not predictive, the games are doing different things and eliciting different emotions.
I haven't picked up newer Pdox titles. I was gifted CK3, but have yet to try it. The only video on Vicky 3 I saw was Spiffing Brit's "rock economy" video, which was amusing. I can't legit criticize Vicky 3 though, because I barely touched Vicky 2. Both have different off-putting problems, but in contrast to EU and HOI their core intended experience is also less appealing to me. Thus for me personally, Vicky series won't move me emotionally even if they're closer to perfect than most games (which by all reviews/evaluations from people I trust trying it, they aren't anyway).
Problem with this is that mechanically, colonization is already questionable. Each colony actually costs a fair amount of money, takes ages to return it, and requires investment into idea groups to the exclusion of excellent alternatives. Given how EU 4 works overall, even ahistorically strong colonies are not slot-competitive options in terms of idea group investment.
- 1
That is just about many other qualities: it may be interesting for some people and not for others. It may be difficult for some people and not for others. If a game is soulless for most of the players, it can be objectively called "soulless".
I stopped playing colonization after they forced colonial nation creation on me. 1.18? I don't remember. A long time ago.
I mostly conquer Europe and Asia and quit. Or start in America and just stay there. So You may be right here.
There's still a reason for that, some objective properties of the game that lead to the conclusion.
It was way before 1.18. Pre-1.10, IIRC.
Could be - but as with every complicated piece of art - it is not always visible to the player; and in some instances, it may not be visible at all. We just know it does not work as it is.
I agree with that, but IMO it's still useful to try, because in doing so player will frequently reveal whether the criticism is against things that most agree with vs not. To me, "soulless" is too close to a fully general complaint that could (in principle) be slapped on any game/piece of media. I also suspect that if most players try, they can come up with concrete examples...in fact you even did exactly that yourself in our discussion.
Last edited:
- 1
Conquest of Paradise 1.04. Never really interested in colonisation in Americas after that.
- 1
What would be the most glaring, long-ongoing, antiquated and/or big problems of EU4?
Things that should be addressed in the future game without fail.
And in the other note, what would be the best features, mechanics and accomplishments of EU4?
That should be updated, improved, and kept in the game.
Things that should be addressed in the future game without fail.
And in the other note, what would be the best features, mechanics and accomplishments of EU4?
That should be updated, improved, and kept in the game.
Before recently, I'd have said accuracy of information presented, but that's seeing actual improvement lately.
Thus, I will say that the most uncontroversial thing would probably to cut the number of non-unit moving inputs required to finish a game to 1/10th or so what it is right now, give or take.
- 1
I’m not sure what exactly you’re looking for in an answer here. Several P’dox games have pops: Imperator, Vicky, and Stellaris. Something like those, tweaked for the EU setting/gameplay.
- 1
What would you like them to add to the game? Or is it mainly for appearances?
I am asking as I am not persuaded the gameplay would benefit from pops.
- 2