How Many More Planned DLCs Are Left?

  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Hi everyone, I am just dropping in here from CK2, I know CK2 has like 1 major expansion left. But I am curious how many DLCs does EUIV have planned left after Mandate of Heaven?

Cause I am planning to get the game but I would like get all the DLCs that are expansions and the unit/content packs... basically everything that isn't the music/song packs and e-books. I would like to get all of the dlcs at once without having to buy them piece meal like I have been doing with CK2. Because its hard to figure which ones to buy and how to buy them... because Paradoxes weird DLC bundles for some of the expansions and their content packs, while some others don't have those bundles.
IMHO, Paradox are stuck in an eternal loop of DLC for their current crop of games, there is no end to them until there is a new game (CK3, EU5...).

EU4 and CK2 are very good games and they don't "need" a graphical update, since they are all about mechanics.

The problem is, if/when they develop CK3/EU5, they 'll be forced to make a Civ5/6 style of development cycle : release a game without the mechanics of the previous games in order to patch them as DLCs (formerly known as expansions)

So for the next few years, expect Vicky2, but no follow-up to EU4 and CK2 before long. I doubt theyll stop the DLC cash cow stopping from those 2 popular games.
 
It's not like they're going to run out of content. There's always more world to add to the world.

I think its more of "When does what Paradox want to add to the game become limited by the engine" at which point a transition to EU5 will need to be done
 
The problem is, if/when they develop CK3/EU5, they 'll be forced to make a Civ5/6 style of development cycle : release a game without the mechanics of the previous games in order to patch them as DLCs (formerly known as expansions)
The starting point for EU4's development process was the fully-expanded version of EU3, and the features that were removed from EU4 relative to EU3 DW have, for the most part, not reappeared.
 
To be honest, I like M&T quite a bit and enjoyed it in EU3. The problem is it slows the game down so much from a performance standpoint, and that's just prohibitive.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MEIOUandTaxes/comments/5yu346/updates_20170305_through_10_wogudwkd12_and/
Read this. Performance issue has got a huge overhaul. And this is only the latest update. But basically, it will minimize calculations of provinces from each day to once a year.

To get back on topic of DLCS: I still think EU4 has a lot of potential dlcs, or places that they can flesh out, regardless of whether MT2.0 lives up to the hype or not.

Models and other flavor content, events, and small features can be useful, not just for the players but for modders. Having said that, I think dlcs in general have become very bland and offer rather little content for their pricetag. I think bundles need to be updated often and the price lowered. A lot of potential players don't feel like paying 1000$ for all the dlcs, but may feel obliged to buy them to be able to play the game. Of course, you usually don't need a single dlc (there are some dlcs like common sense and cossacks that you kind of need for MT2.0, since they use devs and estates), but new players may not know about that. Or like Mare nostrum. What core features did that DLC add to the game? Pirating, Condots and like erm trade leagues. While those things are ok( atleast the looting and trade leagues, if you ever play those nations), I feel like it's kind of milking since those things since they give an unfair edge to the people who bought the dlcs. Looting and trade leagues have like 0 downsides, so it just kind of give an unfair boost to those who own the dlcs, regardless of how unimportant nations in northafrica and the trade nations are. And does it really add that much flavor? And even if it does, is it worth 15 dollars? While I am ok with this policy, because it allows the devs to work on bug fixing more and core issues while it still being afforable rather than trying to create too many new games and then not update them (vicky 2), I just feel a bit skeptical. I don't know, I don't mind paying money for features I really feel gives flavor to the game itself rather than specific nations an unfair edge, even if the nations in the grand scheme of things are rather irrelevant. Some people might just like playing those nations, just for fun or in SP, and want those few features, and if it keeps the game alive and it keeps receiving updates, then I guess I am fine with that. . . I mean, aslong as it doesn't really infringe too much on the core game itself, then I guess it is a sacrifice worth making to keep the game running. And then there are always the modders. :=)

Atleast paradox don't force people to buy expansion packs and charge people 20 dollars a month like blizzard.
 
Last edited:
I'm just afraid that the game engine will eventually just not be able to handle all the stuff piled on top of the core game.
I would be pretty hyped for the time when EUV would be made, stronger engine, and all the best features that came to EUIV over the years simply being part of the core game.
 
I'm just afraid that the game engine will eventually just not be able to handle all the stuff piled on top of the core game.
I would be pretty hyped for the time when EUV would be made, stronger engine, and all the best features that came to EUIV over the years simply being part of the core game.
I don't think the features themselves are what strains the engine. More of the lag is because big lategame armies and having to calculate provinces. The game should become better at handling armies, in all pdx games, but I am no expert of late game lag.
 
I think its more of "When does what Paradox want to add to the game become limited by the engine" at which point a transition to EU5 will need to be done
They're always working on Clausewitz, so unless it's a near-perfectly optimized engine, I'm sure they can continue rolling out DLC while covering slowdown (at least in part) with engine optimizations.

That's exactly what they did when they overhauled ROTW provinces for one of the earlier expansions (Art of War, I think?).
 
At some point Paradox will have to redesign Clausewitz fundamentally to allow a high degree of parallel processing ("making it use multicore"), and when they do they'll be far better off if they largely remake all their titles from scratch rather than trying to adapt the old code base. So if not before we'll get new game iterations when that happens.
 
At some point Paradox will have to redesign Clausewitz fundamentally to allow a high degree of parallel processing ("making it use multicore"), and when they do they'll be far better off if they largely remake all their titles from scratch rather than trying to adapt the old code base. So if not before we'll get new game iterations when that happens.
I don't know. It would be hard to remake eu4 just because you wanted to change the engine. That could be YEARS in the future, and by then other companies may exist, and the interest in paradox games will probably have cooled. I won't speak about the future. Just like people who played EU3 may lack interest to pick up eu4, clauswitz was an improved engine. While I do agree they should have changed the clauswitz engine at ck2 and beyond, rather than continuing to use it for eu4 and hoi4 aswell, that was a decision they made then. Maybe they didn't feel like they could have raised the price enough to afford a better engine, IDK, but it's a decision we will have to live with. I am not saying that the late game lag is an end of the world, and maybe through better scripting they will be able to clear off the game-breaking lag or atleast enough to make it appeal. . . Again, who knows. Would have loved a new engine, but it can't be helped now.

It would be like if valve decided to wake up from their eternal slumber and finally release half life two episode three, with the same engine and everything. Not even hardcore gamers would accept that kind treatment. But a new engine, assembling a team, and the general lost in hype for a hl3 at this moment makes hl3 unprofitable. That is just how life is. A lot of things with potential never got fully developed, but that is the fate of many hobbies and such that we have in life. . . :/

In hindsight, if we would have known we would be playing paradox games like we do today, then we could probably been able to pay extra for a new engine, but that is just with the help of hindsight, not business policy.
 
World of Warcraft still uses the same engine, yes, it's been heavily upgraded, but still the same.


I don't know if it's comparable to the Clausewitz engine, but it's still a thing we should keep in mind.
 
World of Warcraft still uses the same engine, yes, it's been heavily upgraded, but still the same.


I don't know if it's comparable to the Clausewitz engine, but it's still a thing we should keep in mind.
World of warcraft is ancient, but the issue here is not because wow graphics are Great, they aren't, but a question whether late game lag in paradox games are Acceptable. Though I agree with you that the WOW engine is ancient, it's graphics have improved some over the time, and it's large scale environment makes up for it.
 
World of warcraft is ancient, but the issue here is not because wow graphics are Great, they aren't, but a question whether late game lag in paradox games are Acceptable. Though I agree with you that the WOW engine is ancient, it's graphics have improved some over the time, and it's large scale environment makes up for it.
wow had a great revamp of graphics on legion. Idk why would anyone playing on ultra call those new graphics bad.
 
wow had a great revamp of graphics on legion. Idk why would anyone playing on ultra call those new graphics bad.

Bad is definitely subjective. So is good. At least in terms of graphics. :p Games like WoW (and Wildstar, for that matter) have heavily stylized graphics that make no attempt to be realistic. EU4 is kind of in that same camp if in a totally different way. The map is meant to be accurate, of course, but it's also stylized in its own way. Unless you think trees are so large that they can be seen individually from low orbit, in which case I'd encourage you to walk outside more. As such (and considering the fantastic mods out there which overhaul the look of the map, Typus Orbis Terrarum being my favorite), the need for the latest and greatest graphics doesn't really apply in this case.

Could Paradox make a really refined map? HOIIV shows they can definitely do that. That game is gorgeous if you like maps. But I rather like the general style of EU4 with its bright and colorful design and abstractions. It's just enough realism mixed with enough style that I don't feel like I'm browsing Google Earth.
 
Both CK2 and EU4 have no limit on when we plan to end. As long as you play and buy, we'll keep making expansions.

This concerns me... at some point, a version of the engine used by either games will eventually show its age. I've heard people saying that CK2 is already showing its age but I don't know if that is necessarily true or not. Basing this on "play and buy" has a potential to stretch out the game for a pretty long time despite its age. It's almost like pushing the limits here.

Unless... existing games can be upgraded to newer version of engines? But I am not sure how feasible that is. Is "buy and play" really the only factor in decision on whether to continue developing the game before moving to the next generation?
 
I think EU4 should have upgraded to EU5 a year or two back. Having a shorter cycle would have the following benefits:
A) Make the game more accessible, financially, for new players. All that DLC all at once is very expensive for a new player, and describing their improvements is...difficult.
B) Prevent feature bloat, as it would allow them to cut features that aren't working, or consolidate them together. Right now they can't do so, as people paid for the feature in DLC. For example, Native American mechanics, which were in the very first dlc they released, are quite flawed and need a complete overhaul. With the current DLC structure this is impossible.
C) Allow them to make more radical overhauls to core systems more frequently.
D) Allow professional reviews to more accurately account for the current state of the game.

Personally, I think they should have moved up to EU5 around when Art of War or Common Sense came out. Alternatively, they could do as other developers do, and just re-release the game in full every year or two with the same content they're doing now. I think for most players the cost would come out the same, and it would be waaay cleaner and more organized.
 
In response to A:

Who buys three-year-old games at full price, other than console gamers?

In response to B:

Paradox have, in fact, redesigned paid features. The current Random New World implementation is almost completely unlike the one that was released as part of the Conquest of Paradise DLC.

In response to C:

1.4 (alongside CoP): Total revamp of the colonization game with the addition of colonial nations.
1.6 (alongside WoN): Introduction of Power Projection and Administrative Efficiency.
1.8 (alongside AoW): Total redesign of how trade good prices are determined. Redesign of the Reformation. Redesign of the Papacy. Introduction of Local Autonomy.
1.10 (alongside ED): Liberty Desire extended to all subject nations, not just Colonial Nations.
1.12 (alongside CS): Redesign of how forts work. Redesign of how province value is defined. Redesign of the building system.
1.14 (alongside TC): Redesigned CoP's Random New World system. Redesigned mercenaries. Redesign of colonial trade good assignment system.
1.16 (alongside MN): States & Territories system replacing the old Distant Overseas mechanics. Introduction of Corruption.
1.18 (alongside RoM): Redesign of how cultural acceptance works. Introduction of the Institution system for determining technology costs.

In response to D:

Who cares what professional reviewers say? No, seriously, who cares? Professional video game reviews have needed to be regarded with suspicion for decades; the only ones you can reliably trust are the ones that say "dear god this game was a container of manure".
 
I think EU4 should have upgraded to EU5 a year or two back. Having a shorter cycle would have the following benefits:
A) Make the game more accessible, financially, for new players. All that DLC all at once is very expensive for a new player, and describing their improvements is...difficult.
B) Prevent feature bloat, as it would allow them to cut features that aren't working, or consolidate them together. Right now they can't do so, as people paid for the feature in DLC. For example, Native American mechanics, which were in the very first dlc they released, are quite flawed and need a complete overhaul. With the current DLC structure this is impossible.
C) Allow them to make more radical overhauls to core systems more frequently.
D) Allow professional reviews to more accurately account for the current state of the game.

Personally, I think they should have moved up to EU5 around when Art of War or Common Sense came out. Alternatively, they could do as other developers do, and just re-release the game in full every year or two with the same content they're doing now. I think for most players the cost would come out the same, and it would be waaay cleaner and more organized.

I refuse to pay for a new game every 2 years. And Para dont have the team to create a new game every year. They will spent their time in little changes to show that EU17 is different from EU16. And i don't talk about the budget for a new game which is so higher (marketing etc) and the fact that people will start to say "why buying EU24, it's the same thing than EU23", the reviewers will say it's shit, that we will not have new patches (because they will work on the next game), the split between players (some will stay on EU3215, when a other portion will love EU3216) etc etc...

It's not Call of Duty. Right now, i can play without DLC, just enjoying new free patches if i want.

The current strategy is not bad, according to SteamSpy, EU have more player now than 6 months ago.
Maybe they should release Pack with previous DLC for new players.
 
Last edited: