Personally, before they shift full focus to working on EUV, I'd like to see most some of these added/changed:
- Updated missions for Ottomans and Mamluks
- Neither tree is at all up to par with the other major powers in any meaningful sense
- Maybe an event reflecting the Battle of Ridaniya and the subsequent annexation of the Mamluks
- Updated missions for Persia and mechanics to make formation of Persia more organic
- Historically, the region of Iran has been unified more times than not, but in-game, you'd be lucky to see the Timurids unite Persia, let alone the historically accurate tag even forming
- Updated missions and added events for Qara Qoyunlu and Aq Qoyunlu to reflect the history of both
countriestribes
- A government reform/formable nation for an Anglo-French union
- Also a way to make completing the Angevin Kingdom easier, since currently, if you win the Hundred Years War immediately, you'll need to annex all of France before you can complete the mission (This takes at least 80 years and hundreds of diplo points)
- Content for the Caucasus
- Even content for Georgia would be nice
- Improvements to colonization
- More dynamic colonial tag names, more dynamic province names
- Maybe a rework of the Rapid Collapse of Society so that the native countries don't immediately fully recover from it after either 25 years pass or after they learn what dividing state land ownership is
- Africa wasn't colonized before the 19th century not because people had better things to do, but because of malaria. Colonizing Africa shouldn't be something most countries can achieve as an afterthought, historically it was a massive challenge and in game it should be reflected as such.
- Update on some of the older disasters (Janissary Coup, Time of Troubles, Wars of Religion, English Civil War, estates seeking independence) to stand on par with the threat that more up to date disasters pose
- I often feel that the game is too forgiving on players who "beat the early game." Historically, most kingdoms and empires faced just as much opposition from within than without, but for some reason after you consolidate your holdings during the first 20-30 years in game, the only threat you might face is a death by boredom if you choose to not expand that much.
- Maybe it's a problem with how diplomacy works in EUIV, with the AI creating vast continent spanning networks of alliances before 1500 that usually lock all methods of realistic expansion, but I feel an issue on the same scale, if not even larger, is the unfaltering stability of the in-game countries. There has never been an empire that lasted even for 200 years without facing absolutely no crisis within that time (that we know of.)
- Upscaling the existing disasters to make it so European hegemons like France, Russia, England and the Ottomans have to sometimes face an issue at home rather than at the front would do wonders in making the game feel more dynamic overall. The AI mishandling its economy shouldn't be the most common way for great powers to collapse.
- General improvements to the late game
- As stated above, the great powers in game consistently almost never collapse or even lose relevance after 1600. Having some form of in game mechanic to force the player to stay on their feet even after becoming an economical and military hegemon (not the mechanic) is more than appropriate in my opinion.
- Institutions spreading across the globe in a matter of decades is ridiculous at best and completely ahistorical at worst. China didn't industrialize before the 1800s, not because they didn't want to, but because they did not have the capacity to do so.
- Aren't the institutions supposed to function as markers for where the center of worldwide innovation is at any given time? Why can everyone else benefit from those improvements in a matter of years?
- Some update on the Religious League War
- In theory, it's supposed to function as a way for all European great powers to go to war over nothing at the midpoint of the game, but it's woefully inadequate in execution. The war between the leagues should be incentivized to start asap, perhaps even as soon as all electors have picked sides in the conflict. Subsequent countries joining the leagues would have to make individual declarations of war against the league leader which would lead to them joining the opposing league. This way countries like Russia and the Ottomans don't just join the leagues at a whim and completely negate any reason for either side to start the conflict in the first place.
- I understand that this might be mechanically impossible to achieve, but even then, the option for great powers to prevent the league wars from beginning by using their sheer projected military power alone is utterly ridiculous and something has to be done to remedy this
- In theory, it's supposed to function as a way for all European great powers to go to war over nothing at the midpoint of the game, but it's woefully inadequate in execution. The war between the leagues should be incentivized to start asap, perhaps even as soon as all electors have picked sides in the conflict. Subsequent countries joining the leagues would have to make individual declarations of war against the league leader which would lead to them joining the opposing league. This way countries like Russia and the Ottomans don't just join the leagues at a whim and completely negate any reason for either side to start the conflict in the first place.
- 37
- 9
- 5
- 1
- 1
.png){kind=avatar}
