eu4 needs some disasters affecting everyone

Suggestion

In the last couple months I played a lot of CK3 and noticed one thing that would bring a lot of flavour to eu4: disasters. In CK3 you get two of them, first the mongols which spawn at around 1200 and are overpowered af (I mean seriously op, they can conquer the whole map) and the Black Death which will completly decimate all your development and kill a big chunk of the population. Sadly eu4 doesnt have any of these world disasters.

I know that eu4 is more about minmaxing and snowballing but once you are big enough the game is basically over because there are no threats anymore so most of you quit around the age of absolutism. So my suggestion would be to make certain events bigger. The religious war in europe is basically another war between more countries on each side which will end in 99,99% of the time in favour of the player and the Revolution when triggered is basically a small inconvenience which can get stomped in less than 10 years.

Both of these changed europe drastically and so they should be portrayed in the game that the player actually fears these events. This would not only bring some roleplaying aspect to the game but would also make the minmaxing playstyle harder. Loss of development and not only devastation should be implemented to provinces and the wars should be a lot harder

in eu4by sponderbo

229

96%

2mo

Apprehensive-Tree-78

217

2mo

Honestly trade needs to have SOME consequences. Like, you’re trading with the entire world as the UK. And you don’t bring back any diseases? That’s something EU4 has always been lacking. No major disasters or plagues that really hit hard. After like 1600 you are usually a superpower and the games pretty much just map painting.

Evelyn_Bayer414

Zealot

2mo

Supposedly, they gonna add diseases in EU V.

Apprehensive-Tree-78

2mo

That’s a standard for their games now luckily.

esjb11

2mo

And they added shit such as absolutism to make it even more so..

Tutzor

2mo

Just spend some admin, when flu hits your port.

fallingaway90

2mo

storms and seasons could affect local supply a bit more, famines and crop failures could be introduced to the game.

IRL there was "campaigning season" and "hide in your forts and try not to freeze to death or starve season", and the winter attrition in EU4 is almost pointless. instead of units just losing manpower from attrition they should suffer various levels of "decreased combat effectiveness" depending on the terrain and that terrain should have a massive effect on inf/cav/arty effectiveness, I.E. open fields favour cavalry, muddy fields cripple arty, forests make infantry almost unstoppable, etc.

rather than army comp having one "ideal" at each tech level it should be determined by the terrain you're gonna be fighting in, small nations can build units suited to their terrain and effectively defend themselves against big empires that require the flexibility to fight anywhere.

i doubt they'll do it in eu4 but i hope they do something like that in EU5, complete with wind for ships, weather for sea and land, blizzards, hurricanes, heat waves, cold snaps, crop failures, pandemics, a "mini ice age" if 90% of the population of two continents die suddenly due to introduced diseases, etc...

LostSymbol_

2mo

IDK the problem with like blizzard reduces combat effectiveness by 50% is both sides are getting the same modifiers so it won't make a huge difference. Army compositions 9/10 aren't going to be drastically different enough to where modifiers like that matter. Now worse weather meaning more casualties could be interesting. Would extra impact where you wanted to fight.

fallingaway90

2mo

penalties from weather would be affected by how much experience the kingdom has in fighting in that climate, a nation without experience fighting in deserts would suffer far more attrition than an army native to deserts, an army that has never seen snow would be crippled by a blizzard but an army used to fighting in arctic conditions would suffer far less.

splitting army tradition into different climates/terrains adds a huge level of depth to warfare and makes choosing where to fight even more important, along with drilling on specific terrain if you know you're gonna have to fight in areas with lots of that terrain.

if you can't beat an enemy army on their home turf, bait them out to unfavourable terrain, as has been done many times in history.

justin_bailey_prime

2mo

Honestly they could just take it out of players hands a little bit and have armies move more slowly in mild winters and stop entirely in harsh winters, to depict an army setting up camp. Then they start moving again in spring? Wouldn't require player micro but would make winter matter a little more, especially if you were suffering attrition in enemy territory

s67and

2mo

The first thing that came to mind is that Anbennar did this already. The rending of realms is a disaster that affects everyone on 2 continents.

Dinazover

Shahanshah

2mo

And the crimson deluge, though not really that dangerous, affects two superregions. But both of them are magical so I personally don't know if it is possible to make something like that in the base game

j1r2000

2mo

could just steal the serpents rot and use it for the americas

s67and

2mo

You could do something for the Mingsplosion. The collapse of the greatest power in the region should bring both opportunity and instability.

I think Post Finum has one all American natives get about diseases spreading.

Big disasters can be done, you just need to be a bit creative.

Gabe_Noodle_At_Volvo

2mo

There was the year without summer in 1816.

IlikeJG

Master of Mint

2mo

Also Serpent's Rot ends up affecting the entire serpentspine.

Alkakd0nfsg9g

2mo

I like your photo. You remind me of my wife

Evelyn_Bayer414

Zealot

2mo

They need to take some ideas from Stellaris.

I always play or at least try to play Stellaris till the final crisis because everything is super interesting even if I replay one time after another, but in EU4 I mostly never play after the 1600.

The religious leagues war is really interesting, why can't they make something like that but for more late-game events, like the revolution? In the game the revolution is just a country changing government and getting and special CB and the other countries having more rebels, it should be a true disaster that shackles the very power estructures of entire realms and results in the lost of entire dynasties and totally changes the shape of governments and armies forever, not just one big war and some rebellions.

Or more things if one of the hordes manage to become really big. It would be really interesting if some AI goes totally onslaught and start attacking and defeating every single one of their neighbours like it can happen with the marauder Khans in Stellaris.

Or having an event for Ming "awakening" like Stellaris fallen empires.

Now, sure, this would make some of this nations OP in multiplayer, but in multiplayer games people usually put a lot of rules against playing the most OP things anyway.

Jatoffel

Mansa

2mo

They implemented a food production system in "Project Cesar" so I expect huge vulcanic eruption to cause problems. But this might be part of an DLC.

zebrasLUVER

2mo

of course it will be part of dlc, don't be silly. important gameplay mechanics in eu4 are part of dlc, vulcanic eruption is not that important to gameplay, for it to be base game

CousinJacksGhost

2mo

Why don't they implement this in EU4? Its a really good idea. There are other events that affect multiple nations. Disasters would be temporary modifiers so not affect the speed of late game too much.

Sliced7Bread

2mo

Playing as Transoxiana for the first time and I got an event I’ve never seen before called Fire in Samarkand. My capital lost 10 development and gained 100 devastation which caused my income to plummet from 20 a month to 13 a month. It really sucked but maybe these events should happen more often

HistoricalCountry291

2mo

Eu5 has the plague 😁

1 missing reply