Suggestions for future EU Improvements

[Blaze86420]

Just wanted to know if any of you EUIII players out there got any ideas for improving this already beautiful game. Now I know Paradox probably won't be releasing a 5th expansion, but I think a lot of us have many great ideas for improving game mechanics and such.

One thing I propose is altering "policy change" to make the game a bit more difficult and realistic. Instead of waiting a decade and then having one insignificant random event pop up, I suggest having a full decade of random events until the policy change comes into full effect. So lets say you move the slider from "Aristocracy" to "Plutocracy", during the 10 years of this policy change you'd have more Noble rebels and pretenders popping up. Your army tradition could also take a hit with many of the nobility losing their status. This would make reforming a large empire much more challenging.



EDIT: Can a mod please move this to the Europa Universalis sub-forum?

[Eneru112]

Make it more like Victoria II. That's the only thing I want really. This game is so unbalanced it's not even funny. They should completely remove some features like the slider and stability thing.

But now that I think about it, I'm not sure it's possible lol. Oh well, I'll just wait for the next game.

[shikaka]

They should completely remove some features like the slider and stability thing.

This is actually a very good idea.
I don't like it that in EU2-3, HoI series, you actually know if you do a slider movement, you will get +0,05% for something. It is not necessery and disillusioning.

I prefer the CK system. If you build a library, your heir will a random chance to become better trained (like midas touched instead of hole in the pocket). When you build it you don't know if it will be actually useful. Likeliest possibility that the answer is yes, but you don't know

[eran]

More years.

[Eneru112]

More years.

You can just change the end date(although it probably wouldn't be very realistic to use artillery from the 1820's in 2000 lol).

[BemusedHorse]

Make the heir system more realistic. I mean I don't know much about this but wouldn't the monarch have a lot more than just the one son? Before factoring in brothers etc.

[empr guy]

yes, i would really like an improvment to the royal familey system. It would seem alot better and realistic if instead of getting a regency council when the king dies his brother takes power or something.

im not sure how taking out stability and sliders would improve the game, it makes you really have to think about decisions, like if you get military access with someone and declare war it gives you a big stability hit which takes away alot of your tax income and can start alot of revolts. I realize it can be abused by giving everyone you want peace with military access but it is still so much better then the TW system where you just conquer the whole time.

[General Brittanicus]

yes, i would really like an improvment to the royal familey system. It would seem alot better and realistic if instead of getting a regency council when the king dies his brother takes power or something.

im not sure how taking out stability and sliders would improve the game, it makes you really have to think about decisions, like if you get military access with someone and declare war it gives you a big stability hit which takes away alot of your tax income and can start alot of revolts. I realize it can be abused by giving everyone you want peace with military access but it is still so much better then the TW system where you just conquer the whole time.

I would definitely like to see an improvement to the royal family system, i always seem to have regency councils on my game's and it is rather irritating not really being able to go on the offensive in any wars while you wait for your diplomacy to be fully enabled again.

I would also agree that it is better than the TW system, but if CA does decide to steal the AI/diplomacy/a whole load of other features from Paradox then they could possible make the greatest game ever. I would personally like to be able to command the battles personally in EU, or at the very least make the battle system a little less random in the way it determines who wins.

[Yoda Twin]

Well most of what could improve EU is kinda stealing the major themes from their other games such as a much more in depth character/heir system from Crusader Kings or a more advanced economy from Victoria. The beauty of EU is thats it the bets of both of all the other games without making overly complicated

[Blaze86420]

Also make the AI more historically accurate, I'm sick of seeing rainbow colored Americas.

[shikaka]

Also make the AI more historically accurate, I'm sick of seeing rainbow colored Americas.

Actually I wouldn't like that.
The reason why I stopped playing agceep (an EU2 historical mod) was that because of historical accurancy, playing was like a train ride, with 1 outcome.

Historical start position and free gameplay from there is great.

[Ulyaoth]

I'm sick of every patch they undo fixes they made in the last one and then make it obvious you have to buy the new expansion to get it fixed again.

[Ältester der Motten]

Who cares, I'm just waiting for Magna Mundi.

[empr guy]

yea, thats why i like EU3 alot better then HOI, in HOI you just build up until the hits the fan when germany invades poland, or when japan attacks china depending on where you are. And even if you do your own thing, the rest of the world just goes along with actual histroy. In EU3 crazy happens but it still plays well since its so non repetative.

[thatguy]

A battle system that doesnt suck dog balls.
It doesnt make sense that, with equal quality troops, my army of 12000 men should loose 8000 soldiers against their army of 4000, who only loose 900.
The sheer volume of firepower and cannon fire should make such a thing impossible, and yet,it happens so often in my games, even on easy, even if I win, I take a disproportionate amount of casualties compared to theres, and in comparison to both our army sizes. Statistically speaking, the larger army should be taking less casulties, because it has a better ability to lay down firepower.

Awful damn combat system, just plain awful.

[empr guy]

they should copy the TW style battles except not be graphics whores so that it lags all to hell. That would possibly make this the best game ever.

[thatguy]

they should copy the TW style battles except not be graphics whores so that it lags all to hell. That would possibly make this the best game ever.

Yeah, all they would need is sprites, similir to the first Medieval, or have it look alittle like Cossacks. Though, I think by the sheer fact so many battles happen, it'd be best to have the option with only the larger sized battles, such as 8000+

[therussian]

they should copy the TW style battles except not be graphics whores so that it lags all to hell. That would possibly make this the best game ever.

Yeah, and also the longest ever.

Can you imagine now many battles that would be? It would take a whole week to play just one wartime year.

[empr guy]

Yeah, and also the longest ever.

Can you imagine now many battles that would be? It would take a whole week to play just one wartime year.

well it it dosent have to be manditory to fight the battles

actually the thing with only 8000+ men battles even give you an option probably wouldnt be that bad.

[thrashing_mad]

they should copy the TW style battles except not be graphics whores so that it lags all to hell. That would possibly make this the best game ever.

That would be impossible to implement because paradox games are not turn based.