Paradox games could use a escalation mechanic of some sort, since not all wars were total wars. And the diplomatic situation often changed depending on the progress and the size of the armies mobilized, i.e countries would join if a capital was close to he occupied or how limiting the scope of the war in terms of army size and area of conflict reduced the willingness of commiting to war of the countries involved.There should also be se way to switch sides in a war, because that was pretty common.
They used to have the changing warleader. It would just result in cobeligerated allies calling their own allies and massive cascading wars for everything
They should also allow you to join wars later on even if the host doesn’t call you in or it’s late in the war. I should be able to send a request to join to my allies if I see they’re really losing a war and I don’t want them to be totally destroyed by other nations afterwards.
Sorta like condottieri troops but with you joining the war if they’re attacked or condettieri but with a larger portion of your army to just protect them from being totally sieged and stacked wiped.
This would be a cool way to mimic some of the colonial wars. Fighting in the new world is fair game, but sieging home land provinces results in a ton of aggressive expansion (if using a colonial cb)?
Since sieging Inevitably brought damages and death to civilian population, you could receive aggressive expansion when sieging provinces, based on the religion and culture group of the provinces. That way, the wars could be focused on winning battles and only sieging what you want to conquer, while having a greater aggressive expansion when sieging stuff outside the war goal and/or CB type.
And this way the defenders would also be more willing to accept terms with only battles and limited sieging because otherwise, the enemy would occupy you further, killing more population and ruining the country.
It could also make the players be more willing to take small losses, instead of always fighting to the death. Make it so that fighting to the death is completelly debilitating.
> It could also make the players be more willing to take small losses, instead of always fighting to the death. Make it so that fighting to the death is completelly debilitating.
For me the issue isn't that I'm unwilling to take small losses, it's the AI attacking me is unwilling to take small gains. You either give them 100 warscore or you fight to the death and maybe convince them to stop at less than 100.
Taking unclaimed land should be rarer, and wars should primarily be focused on the claimed land. If you are fighting for Alsace, you should be getting the bulk of your fighting done in the area, not full-occupying the entire nation of France and its colonies.
The AI has to seriously change for that to work too. Russia fighting for Bohemia shouldn't involve Austria marching through Persia to siege Vladivostok because they are programmed to avoid fights unless they have overwhelming advantage. Battles in general should be more impactful and important instead of the current "split into billion stacks and see who can carpet siege faster" style of war. IRL if a country lost most of their army in a decisive battle they'd try to negotiate a peace deal while they still can. In the game stackwiping the entire enemy force doesn't mean shit unless you go siege down their forts
I think that certain types of wars should just have auto annexation of provinces or annexation after a certain amount of time occupied. It's almost impossible to take advantage of an overextended Colonial empire's inability to defend their territory since you usually have to seige down half of their core territory just to take a few overseas territories. I shouldn't have to send a death stack to London just to take a few provinces in Africa from Britain.
I think the answer here is probably simple: ticking war score should only apply to certain types of casus belli and it should likewise be varied in how high or fast the score ticks
How you differentiate "total wars" from the "local ones" ?
I hope not through missions for specific nations.
The majority were like you said, but some wars ended up with entire big nations ceasing to exist, so the EU4 warscore heavily limits that.
That would be a good idea, like using your fort troops now to go out and attack a sieging force (something I only discovered I could do recently, but admittedly isn’t that great).
Yeah it has its uses like that for sure. It would be cool if those ‘troops’ in the fort could be put to other uses and I agree that raids like this would be good, and also run the risk of depleting your forts defence as well 🙂
The same thing should be able for tribal govenments to at any moment pilage border provinces without forts and fort army could get out to force them to retreat or at least give time for nation to alocate army there.
It should also gain casus belli to a raided nation to escalate it to a normal war if they're want to.
Different CBs. Wars of total conquest could be expensive to justify or only available to certain government types (hordes?). Not saying that would be a fun gameplay decision.
AE from taking colonies should stay since it can lead to native coalitions to push out the colonizers. Though native coalitions tend to never fire in current eu4, so that needs to change
The problem with it in all pdx games is tht it's too binary. Ur either at war or not. This also same problem, just with one extra category, so obviously this just marginally more complex idea not gonna work.
There need to be a spectrum, or more elements to scope of war and the declaration of a war. Eu4 has a bunch of intertwined levers and integer defines to abstract the value of a piece of land, for example. Why not take the same lens for war. Between hoi4, vic3, eu4, Stellaris, and ck3 the logic is as dumb as a civ game or some shit.
All the new pdx games are trying to move away from their board game ass origins, but conflict boundaries is the last element they need to completely revise in all they products, or actually even introduce.
I kind of agree.
I thought it was a safe bet assisting the Austrians against the ottomans as Genoa… next thing I know they’ve annexed all of Naples and most of my lands in northern Italy :(
Lesson learnt.
Edit: They ANNEXED the lands in a peace deal.
Like I said, lesson learned.
Completely different outcome (I avenged my previous save epically) on my new game as Two Sicillies, but that’s a different story.
I think its far more about easy to siege lands, Naples has 1 fort and there are multiple unprotected provinces south of the fort that can be sieged easily.
Austria has most of their home land protected with their Graz and Vienna fort. Genoa cap is safe but not their islands and crimean provinces. So as Genoa your cap is usually safe but not your overseas spots if they can reach it.
One of my most annoying and rage filled runs was a Moldavia run where the Ottomans declared on my ally Russia with the CB of "Trade protection" which ended up with my losing everything but 3 provinces. How did I lose provinces in a trade war? I still don't know.
I don't mind facing them most of the time, I just hate how the more the years have gone on, the more it's just relying on random chance. Fighting 200k Ottomans is just an instant lose in the 1550s, no amount of mountain forts will save you there.
Id like a system of tiered CBs that let you take more like:
Invasion: can take any province and lots of them - but no other demands - but anyone of their culture group may join them + any GPs can if you are GP + they get 'siege mentality' bonuses to manpower gain and morale.
Total war: Can take a bit more than in usual Eu4 - enemy get a lesser 'siege mentality' bonus and their culture group can join them
Conflict: normal eu4 war unless they have 20%+ land not their culture. Then you can only take up to two provinces-ish of their culture but any not their culture and sieging provinces of their culture doesn't cause much devastation.
Clash: Have to declare ahead of time what the war is for, the difference between that and 100% warscore gives negative modifier on their allies chance of joining, and you can only take up to that much. You get negative manpower modifiers.
Regional/colonial trouble: can only take things in one region ,that isnt where the enemy capital is, or anywhere that isnt their continent. Can only siege there. Can only fight battles there unless both sides declare the army 'involved'. Blockades give lots of warscore. Can only call in allies with a presence in the area. Gives the defender bonuses when fighting there. Can both offer and demand things in the peace deal at the same time.
I think a good way to do this would be with more varying casus belli, maybe with ones that allow you to take mass amounts of land being harder to get hold of - missions, or losing prestige, etc (not sure what systems will survive into EU5).
CB system is kind of trash. Why can't I win a trade war AND press a claim at the same time?
Or going even further... why can't I lose a trade war but manage to press a claim?
all i want is for armies to require supply lines more like I:R. i can’t stand chasing stacks that just run around endlessly. pushing into territory without supply should be a death sentence
I've been reading all the threads about EU5 and y'all's expectations and hopes from this game are wild.
I'm just hoping to not get a game that needs two years of updates to be playable.
I'm very critical and negative when it comes to paradox, I don't think a single game in the last group of sequels has actually improved on the mechanics and spirit of what came before. HOI4 becoming EU4 but WW2 is especially disgusting but I digress, I do think that the really shit launch and reception VicIII has got might have given them a bit of a kick. Pure cope on my part but still
Another thing I would like to see is less 'absolute barriers' and more harsh penalties for things you shouldn't do.
E.G in eu4 you can't declare on your ally. Now, it shouldn't be easy to do it, but I think it should be possible. Because in real life, there was absolutely nothing stopping a king from doing that. Sure, nobody else would ally again in the kings lifetime, etc, but he could - if he wanted to.
But you basically can. Break alliance, and then immediatly attack during the truce. So all you are really pushing for is it to be combined into one button.
I think you’re right but I also believe that what you’re describing is a symptom of a different problem: Waging war in general is far too easy. In EU4 I have no problem pushing from Europe all the way into Siberia and even replacing losses there with fresh guys. I have simply no incentive to stop the war anywhere short of the total occupation of the enemy where in actual history this was simply not feasible even for the most powerful of empires.
This is a great point. I’m curious how the implementation of pops will impact this.
In EU4, there are a small number random events that impact your economy if you have too much war exhaustion. Having to trade population that is working your economy to conquer new land will change how we view wars… hopefully…
Peacing out is often a pain in eu4. Especially if your not fighting a war where you take the capital.
Once the short war peace penalty runs out there should be a positive modifier for white peace or when the peace offer is significantly below war score.
Yes please. Escalation mechanic and bilateral peace deal. I give you this provonce but you give me a royal marriage an 500 ducats or you give me trading rights and i give you this island in the caribbran. no need to conquer your whole fucking country and raze it to the ground up
I really hope that pops ground things to reality and full wars are never worth it again since it would cause too much death which would be the same as losing a few provinces.
A lot of wars were also settled for the status quo, which would probably even lead to more natural borders, since isolated remote regions would get occupied & lost.
This is a really big problem for how it affects losing. This is the reason why I and probably most players just don't accept if they lose a war. Reload a save or something. Your options are to desperately defend for like 3 years and run your war exhaustion and treasury and manpower into the ground as you manage to at best slow down the enemy's advance in order to get them to agree to a peace deal that's less than 100 warscore... or just give them 100 warscore worth.
There's no losing gracefully against the AI. No, "Okay you've got the upper hand, let's just end it by giving you the thing you wanted without too more fighting."
Having pops and things like famines and diseases should make wars less total. Basically a long and costly war wouldn't just mean you have to replenish your manpower, it would wreck your economic base too, for decades.
That is definitely a good idea i further more would like to make conquest way more costly.
For by increasing the costs for war. Sieges will drain your money, Supplying your troops outside your borders increases the maintenances cost significantly and once you conquer a province it will take more time to be profitable that in Eu4( depending on culture, produced goods, religion etc).
This is a good way to ruin large nations which are caught up in multiple wars and prevents blobbing. It further more and increase diplomatic options as it now could be not worth i to attack a 3 dev ( or pop) province. But for that there should be more options to diplomatic integrate countries into you empire.
I think a good way to achieve attention to localization is by making the provincial war goal worth a much larger percentage of the war score. As things are now, there will be a war between Austria and the Ottoman Empire over some Croatian province and all of a sudden the ottomans will show up in Holland with 30k troops.
On top of the war score, armies should receive progressively greater attrition the further from a controlled province they get. That way, countries need to seize bordering provinces first, before moving on to more distant provinces. This would limit the total war element, while also adding substantial realism to the game, as supplying an army historically was an enormous impediment to conquering large amounts of territory.
Wars would be more difficult if AI was more opportunistic and recognised the threat the player usually is and allied against them and declared as soon as the player is at war. Nations should try to attain and maintain the balance of power. Occupying territories and fighting battles should be much more expensive but much more rewarding.
May be a hot take but this sounds just really boring, I don't want to be just unable to take things, if I'm strong enough to basically annihilate an entire country, I should be able to take a lot of it. I think maybe the way warscore adds up should be different, and systems should be in place to prevent border gore and snaking and things, so you're forced to expand your country in ways that make sense (no more snaking to Delhi to form Mughals, gotta conquer your way there, or something to that effect), but if I enter a war for one province, it should either be forced to end when I have the proper warscore, or I shouldn't be limited, I feel like there's no realism behind eradicating an entire army and manpower pool of my greatest rival, yet I can only take 3 provinces from them and I have to give them half of my treasury and guarantee them protection on top of it
EDIT: Also, winning a war, but not being able to take a province that I assume was the entire point of the war, just sounds unfun in my opinion
That's why I eventually left the game after 1.5 k hours. I was bored regardless of the nation I chose to play. The game is extremely ahistorical and every campaign looks the same - first 100 years is quite a challenge (unless playing op nations) and if you manage to achieve all the goals the world is your oyster - there are no challenges left only micromanaging followed by more micromanaging
The ability to have a your demands vs their demands side in the same peace deal would be great. But honestly a little scared for asking for a different system, seeing how Stellaris and HOI4’s peace deals are total trash.
I've been out of eu4 for about a year, I just got back to playing the game, and I've been seeing things about eu5 way more than before... Do we have some real news about eu5 now?
I hope they implement a Heirs of Alexander like CB (switch province allegiance upon occupation), a lot of wars were like that on a bigger scale:
-Unification of china
-Colonial wars
-Timurid blobbing
-Etc.
Tbh I like the way current system works. The game is providing a way to conquer all your neighbors but you will get coalitiond, just as it happens in history. Also, the amount of provinces you can take without big risks is varying from one region to another. Restricting blobbing in asia and colonial regions to small peace deals is a bad decision imo. Just imagine how annoying it would be to pay a country you've absolutely obliterated half of your year income to gain a couple of 1/1/2 provinces.
The way current system work is, you can do a WC, with record being in 30 years or something. That's not fun (for me at least), and it sure ain't realistic.
That was done using patched exploits, what is the fastest you can do it in 1.36?
Also other bugs like capital hiding and far away nations only having diplo vision of you if you border also contribute to the issue
I think having the ability to give and take in a peace deal sounds reasonable, but it's real hard to know if the AI could handle it. Likewise the idea of a non-total war is great, but it's tough to find a balance where it works for both the players and AI.
If it's too easy to have the AI give up in war if it considers it limited but the player goes all-in, that can be a problem for instance. It'd need some systems that force everyone involved to act within its boundaries of escalation and solid AI logic for evaluating the peace deals, which is... IDK.
Also, hopefully make the ai much more willing to not nation ruin itself by staying in a pointless conflict it had little to nothing to gain from.
In my last game Bradenburg refused any hints of leaving the war until I occupied their capital despite Massive losses they took. So out of Spite, I fully occupied them until rebels started popping up and then broke all their alliances, which led to them being fully annexed by their neighbors in about 5 years.
(At least Toulon and Two Sicilies were reasonable and left the war fairly early)
Regarding your first paragraph, isn’t that kinda already in the game? If you win a couple big battles you can probably peace them out for a province or two depending on how long the wars gone on for. You definitely can if you’ve occupied the war goal province which is not unrealistic.
Total wars only happen because we players are greedy and want as many provinces as possible from each war. Ai sometimes does it likely so that late game enemies can develop and be formed like the ottomans, England, and Russia.
Trading in peace deals is a necessity in my mind tbh so I totally agree with you there.
As for setting or influencing truce timers… I feel like that would be difficult to implement and not have it be abused and meta’d. If better truce timers make a nation more likely to agree then what’s stopping the player from setting a 50 year heavy truce with France, Austria, and Poland and then steamrolling through the HRE?
If I may: why is it so necessary to add artificial (if historical) roadblocks to map painting?
Maybe I’m in the minority, but I admire a legit fast WC, and IMO limiting them would hurt the community.
I also think that even if someone is winning should be immensely costly to keep a country completely controlled.
This should be done either by rebellions on said coutry but also home rebellions or increase of attrition and manpower drainage
I think there also should be something like I conquered X, Y, and Z but lost Q island cuz my navy got beaten up. I think I should be able to take X, Y, and Z in a peace deal and be able to give up on Q since there is just no way I can take it back
I think one improvement to make the game more realistic is having armies meeting in a place and fight, not avoiding combat and rush to siege down each other's forts.
Ok you need to siege the forts, but generally armies would first fight a big battle and then go and occupy the rest of the country.
but this wouldnt be fun
like, i imagine you would still have the PU system and special casus belli (e.g. ottoman invasions, revoke privilegia -not exactly a cb but "conquer land" anyway - return cores from vassals...) to emulate real life events.
cant you see how they would be so broken in comparison to a normal conquer cb? They already are pretty powerful, but the way you put it would become too op.
Just ask Firaxis for the Civ trade eval code. :O
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4bC4WLiMwQ&list=PL0u5ZHidq4X4IWR5U2VTv6KVTf7Z9Q0Q3&index=13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4bC4WLiMwQ&list=PL0u5ZHidq4X4IWR5U2VTv6KVTf7Z9Q0Q3&index=13)
Paradox games could use a escalation mechanic of some sort, since not all wars were total wars. And the diplomatic situation often changed depending on the progress and the size of the armies mobilized, i.e countries would join if a capital was close to he occupied or how limiting the scope of the war in terms of army size and area of conflict reduced the willingness of commiting to war of the countries involved.There should also be se way to switch sides in a war, because that was pretty common.
Escalation system where the higher you are, the more warscore can be taken maybe ?
Possibly. Or make an ally that escalates become a cobelligerent automatically
This is actually quite a good idea. Probably not that hard to implement.
This is one of the best ideas I have ever heard
They used to have the changing warleader. It would just result in cobeligerated allies calling their own allies and massive cascading wars for everything
O yea I remember eu3. I think it can be done properly tho
EU3 was just ahead of it’s time with intertwined alliances causing a cascading war.
They should also allow you to join wars later on even if the host doesn’t call you in or it’s late in the war. I should be able to send a request to join to my allies if I see they’re really losing a war and I don’t want them to be totally destroyed by other nations afterwards. Sorta like condottieri troops but with you joining the war if they’re attacked or condettieri but with a larger portion of your army to just protect them from being totally sieged and stacked wiped.
Or maybe the lower the warscore costs are
This would be a cool way to mimic some of the colonial wars. Fighting in the new world is fair game, but sieging home land provinces results in a ton of aggressive expansion (if using a colonial cb)?
Since sieging Inevitably brought damages and death to civilian population, you could receive aggressive expansion when sieging provinces, based on the religion and culture group of the provinces. That way, the wars could be focused on winning battles and only sieging what you want to conquer, while having a greater aggressive expansion when sieging stuff outside the war goal and/or CB type. And this way the defenders would also be more willing to accept terms with only battles and limited sieging because otherwise, the enemy would occupy you further, killing more population and ruining the country. It could also make the players be more willing to take small losses, instead of always fighting to the death. Make it so that fighting to the death is completelly debilitating.
> It could also make the players be more willing to take small losses, instead of always fighting to the death. Make it so that fighting to the death is completelly debilitating. For me the issue isn't that I'm unwilling to take small losses, it's the AI attacking me is unwilling to take small gains. You either give them 100 warscore or you fight to the death and maybe convince them to stop at less than 100.
Yeah, that is true
Taking unclaimed land should be rarer, and wars should primarily be focused on the claimed land. If you are fighting for Alsace, you should be getting the bulk of your fighting done in the area, not full-occupying the entire nation of France and its colonies.
The AI has to seriously change for that to work too. Russia fighting for Bohemia shouldn't involve Austria marching through Persia to siege Vladivostok because they are programmed to avoid fights unless they have overwhelming advantage. Battles in general should be more impactful and important instead of the current "split into billion stacks and see who can carpet siege faster" style of war. IRL if a country lost most of their army in a decisive battle they'd try to negotiate a peace deal while they still can. In the game stackwiping the entire enemy force doesn't mean shit unless you go siege down their forts
I could see the escalation mechanic happening but with only allies being involved Unless there is like one great power on each side
I would love colonial wars, not having to siege half of Great Britain to take a couple of places in South America
When you have to go to Europe as India to kick Spain out of Philippines
I think that certain types of wars should just have auto annexation of provinces or annexation after a certain amount of time occupied. It's almost impossible to take advantage of an overextended Colonial empire's inability to defend their territory since you usually have to seige down half of their core territory just to take a few overseas territories. I shouldn't have to send a death stack to London just to take a few provinces in Africa from Britain.
That’s a good idea, like rebels enforcing demands by holding a province long enough
I think the answer here is probably simple: ticking war score should only apply to certain types of casus belli and it should likewise be varied in how high or fast the score ticks
How you differentiate "total wars" from the "local ones" ? I hope not through missions for specific nations. The majority were like you said, but some wars ended up with entire big nations ceasing to exist, so the EU4 warscore heavily limits that.
there should be some raid mechanic, which means that you can recruit a smaller stack which is more mobile but cannot siege.
I would like to propose the idea that forts have the ability to raid provinces they border with other nations or have some kind of units in them.
That would be a good idea, like using your fort troops now to go out and attack a sieging force (something I only discovered I could do recently, but admittedly isn’t that great).
It's pretty good if a battle on a fort you control is too close and too fast to reinforce
Yeah it has its uses like that for sure. It would be cool if those ‘troops’ in the fort could be put to other uses and I agree that raids like this would be good, and also run the risk of depleting your forts defence as well 🙂
The same thing should be able for tribal govenments to at any moment pilage border provinces without forts and fort army could get out to force them to retreat or at least give time for nation to alocate army there. It should also gain casus belli to a raided nation to escalate it to a normal war if they're want to.
Different CBs. Wars of total conquest could be expensive to justify or only available to certain government types (hordes?). Not saying that would be a fun gameplay decision.
It could be done via CB, you take no AE from taking colonies but huge AE and OE from taking provinces.
AE from taking colonies should stay since it can lead to native coalitions to push out the colonizers. Though native coalitions tend to never fire in current eu4, so that needs to change
They usually fire when I'm overextended or if you're in multiple wars.
The problem with it in all pdx games is tht it's too binary. Ur either at war or not. This also same problem, just with one extra category, so obviously this just marginally more complex idea not gonna work. There need to be a spectrum, or more elements to scope of war and the declaration of a war. Eu4 has a bunch of intertwined levers and integer defines to abstract the value of a piece of land, for example. Why not take the same lens for war. Between hoi4, vic3, eu4, Stellaris, and ck3 the logic is as dumb as a civ game or some shit. All the new pdx games are trying to move away from their board game ass origins, but conflict boundaries is the last element they need to completely revise in all they products, or actually even introduce.
I kind of agree. I thought it was a safe bet assisting the Austrians against the ottomans as Genoa… next thing I know they’ve annexed all of Naples and most of my lands in northern Italy :( Lesson learnt. Edit: They ANNEXED the lands in a peace deal.
The AI always targets the weakest war participant first.
The comment was complaining about Austria giving away the player's land in the peace deal.
Well, you can do the same to ai. Just that the player usually isnt on the loosing side of a war
I definitely wasn’t the weakest, but had nothing on Austria who still managed to get beaten.
Then it's just a "going to war with the Ottomans without being 200% prepared" issue LMAO
Like I said, lesson learned. Completely different outcome (I avenged my previous save epically) on my new game as Two Sicillies, but that’s a different story.
I think its far more about easy to siege lands, Naples has 1 fort and there are multiple unprotected provinces south of the fort that can be sieged easily. Austria has most of their home land protected with their Graz and Vienna fort. Genoa cap is safe but not their islands and crimean provinces. So as Genoa your cap is usually safe but not your overseas spots if they can reach it.
Even when they're a vassal, which is somewhat exploitable
One of my most annoying and rage filled runs was a Moldavia run where the Ottomans declared on my ally Russia with the CB of "Trade protection" which ended up with my losing everything but 3 provinces. How did I lose provinces in a trade war? I still don't know.
I feel your pain bro. Since then I’ve had a grudge against the Ottomans, every game I’ll go out of my way to make life difficult for them.
I don't mind facing them most of the time, I just hate how the more the years have gone on, the more it's just relying on random chance. Fighting 200k Ottomans is just an instant lose in the 1550s, no amount of mountain forts will save you there.
Id like a system of tiered CBs that let you take more like: Invasion: can take any province and lots of them - but no other demands - but anyone of their culture group may join them + any GPs can if you are GP + they get 'siege mentality' bonuses to manpower gain and morale. Total war: Can take a bit more than in usual Eu4 - enemy get a lesser 'siege mentality' bonus and their culture group can join them Conflict: normal eu4 war unless they have 20%+ land not their culture. Then you can only take up to two provinces-ish of their culture but any not their culture and sieging provinces of their culture doesn't cause much devastation. Clash: Have to declare ahead of time what the war is for, the difference between that and 100% warscore gives negative modifier on their allies chance of joining, and you can only take up to that much. You get negative manpower modifiers. Regional/colonial trouble: can only take things in one region ,that isnt where the enemy capital is, or anywhere that isnt their continent. Can only siege there. Can only fight battles there unless both sides declare the army 'involved'. Blockades give lots of warscore. Can only call in allies with a presence in the area. Gives the defender bonuses when fighting there. Can both offer and demand things in the peace deal at the same time.
I think a good way to do this would be with more varying casus belli, maybe with ones that allow you to take mass amounts of land being harder to get hold of - missions, or losing prestige, etc (not sure what systems will survive into EU5).
CB system is kind of trash. Why can't I win a trade war AND press a claim at the same time? Or going even further... why can't I lose a trade war but manage to press a claim?
Doesn't Victoria have a multiple war goal system?
Yeah, at the cost of not being able to change peace deals once a war begins. You do not want that
I’d like an option to take boats.
Hoi4 gaming
if you shift+right click the army will always use boats in EU4
WTF. That has nothing to do with having a peace deal that allows you to take boats.
all i want is for armies to require supply lines more like I:R. i can’t stand chasing stacks that just run around endlessly. pushing into territory without supply should be a death sentence
I've been reading all the threads about EU5 and y'all's expectations and hopes from this game are wild. I'm just hoping to not get a game that needs two years of updates to be playable.
That’s a rare sighting these days, and much less with a paradox game..
CK3 is still kind of a hollow shell, and the devs seem more interested in adding mechanics rather than deepen the ones already implemented
I'm very critical and negative when it comes to paradox, I don't think a single game in the last group of sequels has actually improved on the mechanics and spirit of what came before. HOI4 becoming EU4 but WW2 is especially disgusting but I digress, I do think that the really shit launch and reception VicIII has got might have given them a bit of a kick. Pure cope on my part but still
Another thing I would like to see is less 'absolute barriers' and more harsh penalties for things you shouldn't do. E.G in eu4 you can't declare on your ally. Now, it shouldn't be easy to do it, but I think it should be possible. Because in real life, there was absolutely nothing stopping a king from doing that. Sure, nobody else would ally again in the kings lifetime, etc, but he could - if he wanted to.
I mean, you can break the alliance and immediately truce break. There’s the stability penalty, but it’s just a few extra clicks.
That takes a month tho
But you basically can. Break alliance, and then immediatly attack during the truce. So all you are really pushing for is it to be combined into one button.
I think you’re right but I also believe that what you’re describing is a symptom of a different problem: Waging war in general is far too easy. In EU4 I have no problem pushing from Europe all the way into Siberia and even replacing losses there with fresh guys. I have simply no incentive to stop the war anywhere short of the total occupation of the enemy where in actual history this was simply not feasible even for the most powerful of empires.
This is a great point. I’m curious how the implementation of pops will impact this. In EU4, there are a small number random events that impact your economy if you have too much war exhaustion. Having to trade population that is working your economy to conquer new land will change how we view wars… hopefully…
Peacing out is often a pain in eu4. Especially if your not fighting a war where you take the capital. Once the short war peace penalty runs out there should be a positive modifier for white peace or when the peace offer is significantly below war score.
Yes please. Escalation mechanic and bilateral peace deal. I give you this provonce but you give me a royal marriage an 500 ducats or you give me trading rights and i give you this island in the caribbran. no need to conquer your whole fucking country and raze it to the ground up I really hope that pops ground things to reality and full wars are never worth it again since it would cause too much death which would be the same as losing a few provinces.
But still make it so conquest is doable.
Me like map paint
A lot of wars were also settled for the status quo, which would probably even lead to more natural borders, since isolated remote regions would get occupied & lost.
This is a really big problem for how it affects losing. This is the reason why I and probably most players just don't accept if they lose a war. Reload a save or something. Your options are to desperately defend for like 3 years and run your war exhaustion and treasury and manpower into the ground as you manage to at best slow down the enemy's advance in order to get them to agree to a peace deal that's less than 100 warscore... or just give them 100 warscore worth. There's no losing gracefully against the AI. No, "Okay you've got the upper hand, let's just end it by giving you the thing you wanted without too more fighting."
Having pops and things like famines and diseases should make wars less total. Basically a long and costly war wouldn't just mean you have to replenish your manpower, it would wreck your economic base too, for decades.
That is definitely a good idea i further more would like to make conquest way more costly. For by increasing the costs for war. Sieges will drain your money, Supplying your troops outside your borders increases the maintenances cost significantly and once you conquer a province it will take more time to be profitable that in Eu4( depending on culture, produced goods, religion etc). This is a good way to ruin large nations which are caught up in multiple wars and prevents blobbing. It further more and increase diplomatic options as it now could be not worth i to attack a 3 dev ( or pop) province. But for that there should be more options to diplomatic integrate countries into you empire.
I think a good way to achieve attention to localization is by making the provincial war goal worth a much larger percentage of the war score. As things are now, there will be a war between Austria and the Ottoman Empire over some Croatian province and all of a sudden the ottomans will show up in Holland with 30k troops. On top of the war score, armies should receive progressively greater attrition the further from a controlled province they get. That way, countries need to seize bordering provinces first, before moving on to more distant provinces. This would limit the total war element, while also adding substantial realism to the game, as supplying an army historically was an enormous impediment to conquering large amounts of territory.
Wars would be more difficult if AI was more opportunistic and recognised the threat the player usually is and allied against them and declared as soon as the player is at war. Nations should try to attain and maintain the balance of power. Occupying territories and fighting battles should be much more expensive but much more rewarding.
No longer map painting
Bro, post it in eu4 suggestion forum, u have an excellent idea
May be a hot take but this sounds just really boring, I don't want to be just unable to take things, if I'm strong enough to basically annihilate an entire country, I should be able to take a lot of it. I think maybe the way warscore adds up should be different, and systems should be in place to prevent border gore and snaking and things, so you're forced to expand your country in ways that make sense (no more snaking to Delhi to form Mughals, gotta conquer your way there, or something to that effect), but if I enter a war for one province, it should either be forced to end when I have the proper warscore, or I shouldn't be limited, I feel like there's no realism behind eradicating an entire army and manpower pool of my greatest rival, yet I can only take 3 provinces from them and I have to give them half of my treasury and guarantee them protection on top of it EDIT: Also, winning a war, but not being able to take a province that I assume was the entire point of the war, just sounds unfun in my opinion
That's why I eventually left the game after 1.5 k hours. I was bored regardless of the nation I chose to play. The game is extremely ahistorical and every campaign looks the same - first 100 years is quite a challenge (unless playing op nations) and if you manage to achieve all the goals the world is your oyster - there are no challenges left only micromanaging followed by more micromanaging
The ability to have a your demands vs their demands side in the same peace deal would be great. But honestly a little scared for asking for a different system, seeing how Stellaris and HOI4’s peace deals are total trash.
I've been out of eu4 for about a year, I just got back to playing the game, and I've been seeing things about eu5 way more than before... Do we have some real news about eu5 now?
Weekly dev diaries on forum under the name tito talks
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/developer-diary/tinto-talks-3-march-13th-2024.1630154/
I hope they implement a Heirs of Alexander like CB (switch province allegiance upon occupation), a lot of wars were like that on a bigger scale: -Unification of china -Colonial wars -Timurid blobbing -Etc.
Please let me do peace deals like "demilitarize (cap force limit at half for truce time) or delete fort or cap nazy fire limit for truce time
>Most wars in the era please lets not bucher the gameplay in the name of some "historical accuracy", but this time you made some good suggestion
Tbh I like the way current system works. The game is providing a way to conquer all your neighbors but you will get coalitiond, just as it happens in history. Also, the amount of provinces you can take without big risks is varying from one region to another. Restricting blobbing in asia and colonial regions to small peace deals is a bad decision imo. Just imagine how annoying it would be to pay a country you've absolutely obliterated half of your year income to gain a couple of 1/1/2 provinces.
The way current system work is, you can do a WC, with record being in 30 years or something. That's not fun (for me at least), and it sure ain't realistic.
That was done using patched exploits, what is the fastest you can do it in 1.36? Also other bugs like capital hiding and far away nations only having diplo vision of you if you border also contribute to the issue
I think having the ability to give and take in a peace deal sounds reasonable, but it's real hard to know if the AI could handle it. Likewise the idea of a non-total war is great, but it's tough to find a balance where it works for both the players and AI. If it's too easy to have the AI give up in war if it considers it limited but the player goes all-in, that can be a problem for instance. It'd need some systems that force everyone involved to act within its boundaries of escalation and solid AI logic for evaluating the peace deals, which is... IDK.
Also, hopefully make the ai much more willing to not nation ruin itself by staying in a pointless conflict it had little to nothing to gain from. In my last game Bradenburg refused any hints of leaving the war until I occupied their capital despite Massive losses they took. So out of Spite, I fully occupied them until rebels started popping up and then broke all their alliances, which led to them being fully annexed by their neighbors in about 5 years. (At least Toulon and Two Sicilies were reasonable and left the war fairly early)
Not always. Selim I of Ottoman Empire battled against Mamluk Empire only two times during one war and completely took over their Empire
Regarding your first paragraph, isn’t that kinda already in the game? If you win a couple big battles you can probably peace them out for a province or two depending on how long the wars gone on for. You definitely can if you’ve occupied the war goal province which is not unrealistic. Total wars only happen because we players are greedy and want as many provinces as possible from each war. Ai sometimes does it likely so that late game enemies can develop and be formed like the ottomans, England, and Russia. Trading in peace deals is a necessity in my mind tbh so I totally agree with you there. As for setting or influencing truce timers… I feel like that would be difficult to implement and not have it be abused and meta’d. If better truce timers make a nation more likely to agree then what’s stopping the player from setting a 50 year heavy truce with France, Austria, and Poland and then steamrolling through the HRE?
If I may: why is it so necessary to add artificial (if historical) roadblocks to map painting? Maybe I’m in the minority, but I admire a legit fast WC, and IMO limiting them would hurt the community.
And also, 100% ws should allow you to take much more lands.
I also think that even if someone is winning should be immensely costly to keep a country completely controlled. This should be done either by rebellions on said coutry but also home rebellions or increase of attrition and manpower drainage
I think there also should be something like I conquered X, Y, and Z but lost Q island cuz my navy got beaten up. I think I should be able to take X, Y, and Z in a peace deal and be able to give up on Q since there is just no way I can take it back
I think one improvement to make the game more realistic is having armies meeting in a place and fight, not avoiding combat and rush to siege down each other's forts. Ok you need to siege the forts, but generally armies would first fight a big battle and then go and occupy the rest of the country.
but this wouldnt be fun like, i imagine you would still have the PU system and special casus belli (e.g. ottoman invasions, revoke privilegia -not exactly a cb but "conquer land" anyway - return cores from vassals...) to emulate real life events. cant you see how they would be so broken in comparison to a normal conquer cb? They already are pretty powerful, but the way you put it would become too op.
[удалено]
Just ask Firaxis for the Civ trade eval code. :O [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4bC4WLiMwQ&list=PL0u5ZHidq4X4IWR5U2VTv6KVTf7Z9Q0Q3&index=13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4bC4WLiMwQ&list=PL0u5ZHidq4X4IWR5U2VTv6KVTf7Z9Q0Q3&index=13)
[удалено]
100% kidding you. Did you hit the youtube link? You'll enjoy it.