Forum Lobby

Will their be "empire building" in later versions of the game?

Asking this question could be premature seeing that game development hasn’t gone past the Neolithic era, and any real form of “empire building” wouldn’t make sense historically speaking until later time periods, but I can’t help but be curious about to what extent an empire building game mechanic will be part of the game?
Will you eventually have the ability to found multiple settlements, and create nations so to speak? I sort of envision a dynamic border changing mechanic similar to past RTS games like Rise of Nations.


I also would like to know.

This is very related to a debate we will open soon about the game mixing this and historical fidelity vs gameplay.


Looking forward to being a part of that discussion once it is opened. Love what you guys are doing with this game. Thank you for the response.

Could there be an option in the settings that would make the game more realistic & follows history more accurately? Then if i turn it off, i can play for the sake of playing without everything being so historically accurate. Then even though i’m a few “eras” behind, i could make anything i want outside of a fixed timeline, like tools, clothing etc. as long as i have the resources & materials

Looking forward to the discussion.

@FudgeLand Let’s wait for the developers to ask the questions and see what we can suggest, but for now - something like the system in EUIV would be great: a choice between AI factions following history or an open/random simulation where anything can happen; as a second step you then also decide whether the random simulation should still be weighted so that it’s more likely that the big factions succeed, making for a more “realistic” alternative history play.

1 Like

I think this is an important discussion. The result will show how a possible game play will look. With regard to the development of the engine, this discussion should be conducted sooner rather than later, right?

Also looking forward to this discussion. I guess it should be be passionate, animated and interesting for the future developments of the game.

@Marko I’d suggest correcting your reference to Europa Universalis 4 as Hearts of Iron IV.
For people that didn’t played them: in _EU_4 you’re playing any nation in the world, at any date between 1444 and 1821. As soon as you unpause the game, you’re in an alternative history of the world.
In _HoI_4, you play one of the country in the world from 1936 or 1939. The principle is the same, but you may specify if you want the nations to stick to real history tendencies (e.g. USSR, either managed by the player or the I.A. stays the leader of the Comintern faction) or not (e.g. USSR may leave the Comintern faction due to political change towards democracy/neutrality/fascism).

I do believe that my comments apply to both games, which share the settings (historical tendency options) I sketched. Of course, you’re absolutely right that HoI IV due to its much much tighter timeframe can stick that much closer to the historical reality. However, even HoI IV starts incrementally diverging from actual history from the get go, through both your actions and those of the AI. You cannot escape the butterfly effect :slight_smile:

Agreed, Paradox games are more about plausability than historicity.

I just wanted to correct (respectfully, not trouble :slight_smile:) the fact that the “Historical AI Focuses” are in _HoI_4, not _EU_4.

No worries! Thanks for the correction, if true :slight_smile: I still remember those settings from EU4, I know Hearts of Iron, but I never played it, so I cannot misremember. I didn’t say the setting is called “Historical AI Focuses”, but an equivalent exists in EU4 as well.

P.S. I now googled it a bit: there is a system of “lucky” nations, either following history or random, plus some other settings and setups that can be either historical or random at the beginning of the game. The later HoI IV system is understandably more advanced.

Yeah, I see now what you may be writing about – and this is totally relevant to the current topic.

In _HoI_4, there’s this “Historical AI Focuses” feature, as noted earlier.

In _EU_4 it is absent, and basically every event or decision is a choice offered to the nation inspired from real events linked to culture, religion, nation politics, etc.
However, there’s also the “Random New World”: when playing any country in the world that launch world exploration and colonization you are offered the choice to have randomized Americas or accurate ones. The first case allows for a historical sense of discovery as this consist in sending explorators towards unchartered seas, unknown nations, resources, geographical features, trade routes, and adapting to any discovery made there.

Am I right supposing you’re speaking about that? Whatever the case, that should be a thing to discuss in the upcoming historicity debate that should happen as soon as Uncasual Games feels ready to set the scene for the bloody fights respectful and highly civilized debates that will happen then :relaxed:


Oh, that too. I forgot about the Americas. Very relevant!

Otherwise, no, not quite :slight_smile: I’m talking about the option to play a game much more likely to eventually be dominated by the powers that were historically successful, such as England, France, Castille/Spain, Muscovy/Russia, Poland, Austria, etc. Or one where any AI side has an equal chance, resulting in a random, much more diverging alternate history down the line.

This could also apply to AC. Say the Bronze Age Middle East starts with a number of settlements more or less on an equal footing. The option could be to have random development from then on, or for the historically big cities to be favoured, so that once you develop yours and start interacting more with the world around you, you are more likely to encounter a situation closer to the historical one with the famous cities having the upper hand.

Yup, I remembered that when reading your edit, but it was too late.
You’re true. That’s been a tool used to keep history more or less plausible, completed with the Great Powers feature. Perfectly right!

In the current state, I think the devs want a sandbox mode only, so this is not relevant for the first release. After all, in such a context, you’ll probably want to become Uruk, not being a farmer village in the dependency of Uruk.
Probably the most famous example of this in Mesopotamia is Babylon, which is known since Sumerian texts as a tiny village for centuries, until the Old Babylonian period when an Amurrite chief called Sûmû-abûm settled there. After a time, the famous Hammu-rabi managed to conquer the whole of Mesopotamia and to create a lasting empire, allowing the local god Marduk to become a prominent figure in the pantheon, etc.

But in case the devs decide one day to have scenarios this would be an easily reproducible trick that would allow a better historicity, so that’s nice you mentionned it. It could be done for instance for a “new town” scenario, such as Dûr-Untash-Napirisha (current Tchoga Zanbil), when the Elamite king Untash-Napirisha vainly tried to create a new capital from nothing. And this example is repeatable whatever the case, for the Sumerian colony of Habuba Kabira in current Syria, Roman/Greek/Phenician colonies all around the Mediterranean or inland, etc.

(Well, will have to refrain posting more for now. My avatar is far too present in the last threads diplayed on the home page :confused: Pleasing discussion though!)


No, please just make, is interesting :+1: