Instale o Steam
iniciar sessão
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chinês simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chinês tradicional)
日本語 (Japonês)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandês)
Български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Tcheco)
Dansk (Dinamarquês)
Deutsch (Alemão)
English (Inglês)
Español-España (Espanhol — Espanha)
Español-Latinoamérica (Espanhol — América Latina)
Ελληνικά (Grego)
Français (Francês)
Italiano (Italiano)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonésio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandês)
Norsk (Norueguês)
Polski (Polonês)
Português (Portugal)
Română (Romeno)
Русский (Russo)
Suomi (Finlandês)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Relatar um problema com a tradução
Regras e diretrizes para discussões
Denunciar esta mensagem
That said, probably one of the most widely desired additions for an eventual sequel is likely some sort of population system like what's present in Victoria and/or Imperator: Rome. The current development system works decently enough as a game mechanic, but at the end of the day it's far too abstract and incredibly unrealistic. Meanwhile, the current religion and culture mechanics utterly ignore the various ethnic and religious minorities (and in some cases majorities) that were present in many different locations in EU4's timeline, from German settlers in Hungary to the entire west coast of Anatolia being predominantly Greek.
An updated combat system would also be a worthwhile change. CK3 is arguably far less focused on war than EU4 is, and it still has much more in-depth mechanics for customizing your own army composition (though battles themselves are frankly even more shallow than EU4's, to be fair). Having to decide whether to spend several times as much of your money on outfitting your troops with newfangled gunpowder weapons, or sticking with the tried-and-true pike, sword, and horse and being able to afford a larger army for it could make for an interesting dynamic (though as with every strategy game mechanic I'm sure highly experienced players would be able to find a way of making things utterly broken somehow).
My personal hope for an eventual EU5 would be for it to have a more dynamic trade system. EU4's engine is only capable of handling static, one-way trade routes, which (much like development) makes sense as a game mechanic but is incredibly unrealistic, and is also rather paradoxically railroaded by real-life historical events that may not actually happen in the timeline of your EU campaign. Example - the only real reason why most North American trade can only be routed to England and France is because those are the only ones who colonized there historically. Spain not being able to route trade from Chesapeake Bay to Sevilla only makes sense because they didn't colonize there IRL - if you're playing in a timeline where they DID colonize there, why shouldn't they be able to access that region's colonial trade?
Anyway, what I would like to see for EU5's trade system is for trade routes to be dynamic - a trade route from the New World to the Old World should only be established after an Old World nation colonizes there, and the flow of trade should be able to get shifted or even reversed if other nations can exert enough trade power over the node. Even end nodes, if they exist at all, shouldn't be absolute (though it should also be a massive effort to make it happen) - for example, if England languishes in mediocrity while the Hanseatic League flourishes, it should be possible for Lubeck to become a trade end node instead of the English Channel. Of course, that all assumes that trade nodes themselves would have similar borders or even similar functions in EU5 to how they work in EU4. Maybe EU5 could be so dynamic that trade nodes don't exist at all, and trade routes would be based purely on the interactions between individual nations.
Whatever the case may be, my point is that I want trade mechanics in EU5 to be much more fluid, dynamic, and influenceable by the actions of both the player and the AI than they are in EU4. Anything from Spain being able to colonize Canada and actually benefit from it, to Japan being able to make Musashi the indisputable trade capital of the world towards which everything from Mexican gold to Arabian coffee flows.
Probably my biggest desire. A huge factor in Europe's historical economic development was the fact that they were not the endpoint of all the world's trade; they were distant buyers trying to find a way to buy high-end goods from China and the Indies. When they got a reliable way to do that they poured currency into China until they were basically running out of silver- and that didn't reverse, with currency flowing into Europe from China, until near the end of the game's timeframe. I'd love to see something like that represented, with the endnodes switching from China to Europe based on dynamic happenings and basically flipping the flow of the trade river in the process.
This is what I would like. Trade nodes are a gamey, rigid, unrealistic, and ultimately unsatisfying way of simulating trade (not that any previous game in the EU series was better at it). Advanced players know that they are the key to real wealth and therefore real power, and they know how to use them to guide expansion, but their rigidity is just silly.
As Chatbot mentioned, why shouldn't Spanish ships be able to carry trade from New York to Seville? They certainly could have in RL. Why should any western European power looking to profit from Africa and Asia be forced to control the Ivory Coast when they could island hop or use South American bases for their ships instead? And so on.
Even though I'm great at using the trade node system, I don't like it.
Maybe something more fluid like Stellaris' trade system. There's no real restrictions there on where you can send trade- any starbase in range of trade value being generated can aim that trade at your capital (or at another sttarbase, as long as the connection isn't blocked by another empire. The challenge is more in protecting it from piracy along the way.
The downside is that there's no such thing as competing for trade- trade in Stellaris happens pretty much entirely within your own borders, and there's no way (discounting commercial pacts) for one empire to profit from the trade between two planets belonging to another empire.
Screw eye candy, the game already has performance issues and it adds nothing to actual gameplay. Personally, I'd rather have them go the other way and eliminate the various unit sprites and graphical "goodies". I don't play strategy games for eye candy...
It also bothers me that when I have a young ruler the game often forces a marriage to a local noble woman instead of letting me secure a royal marriage. I'm not sure why that's even a feature but it would be great if it wasn't.
That usually only happens to me when my ruler is unmarried for a while. Typically I gain a consort from the first round of royal marriages after accession though, so it's not all that common.
The Zone of Control for forts needs some revamped logic. It is just odd that when multiple units coming from different direction meet on a fort that they each would need to withdrawal from the same individual direction that they entered from. Perhaps each 'entrance' province gets opened up to all of the armies on the fort such that if you own both sides you could effectively pass through it, or that you could enter from one province on your near side and then depart from an adjacent province on your same side, but not pass completely through a line of interlocked ZoCs.
Some of the countries' map color shades can be similar enough to be confusing, so I'd like to be able to choose/change individual map colors on the fly.
I would like the see the map as a globe instead of whichever map-projection system is currently used.
Otherwise, I love the game just as it is. I'd want to see all of the other EU4 functionality (across all expansions and flavor packs) remain in the new base EU5. The engine would get a performance revamp to incorporate all of the years of lessons-learned, and some pieces of the functionality may change slightly due to rewrites, but we shouldn't outright 'lose' anything.
It happens to me frequently when a regency ends and the ruler turns 15 or 16, before I get the chance to send out a royal marriage offer the local noble woman events pop up and there's no option to refuse it
And they could add in equipment manufacturing too to really make it sweet and similar to HOI4. That would take Eu4 to next level and probably alleviate a lot of boredom the grizzled veterans are feeling in late game (temporary relief anyways).
That's because EU4 makes tactical combat a minor and abstract part of the game. There's no functional difference between longbowmen and men at arms aside from their pip distribution because both are infantry. There's no tactical map you deploy them on, where you try to hide ranged units behind screens of melee troops or in trees or whatever. Those kinds of things are for more battle-focused tactical combat games. The EU series has never been about that.
In other words, it's not "Mickey Mouse military." It's a very deliberate design choice to minimize that part of the game.
I know that. I was saying I want a more meaningful military aspect than this ultra simple abstract design. The thread is for saying what we want in Eu5.