I want an EU5
The mechanics bloat from seven years of selling DLC's needs to be cleaned up.
The mechanics bloat from seven years of selling DLC's needs to be cleaned up.
- 3
- 1
- 1
I rather EU5 have pops like Johan said he wanted and for it to absorb Victoria features. The game could be from 1444 to 1936 with start dates in 1444 (grand campaign), 1556 (Charles V abdication), 1648 (end of TYW), 1775 (American Revolution), and 1836 (Victoria start date).
Can we just get a good 18th century mechanics first please before attempting victoriansI rather EU5 have pops like Johan said he wanted and for it to absorb Victoria features. The game could be from 1444 to 1936 with start dates in 1444 (grand campaign), 1556 (Charles V abdication), 1648 (end of TYW), 1775 (American Revolution), and 1836 (Victoria start date).
Maybe make a separate game out of the 18th century? But that's a whole other thread.Can we just get a good 18th century mechanics first please before attempting victorians
A subscription you don't have to pay...It's like you have a subscription to the game instead of ownership, which is an atrocity.
Arguably, you don't have to pay a magazine subscription as well. But then you're left with reading the old news.A subscription you don't have to pay...
In a situation where England wins the 100 years war and annexes all of France.Ideas are the only thing wich make countrys feel different once you escaped your starting position. What is a Byzantium without national ideas if you blob enough? A Ottomans wich took longer to get there and the same applies to the majority of nations without national ideas. To take even the most extreme example Ireland. If it wasnt for national ideas then every single irish minor would be redundant since they all play the same and have the same plan of conquer Ireland--->conquer Scottland--->conquer England. Now you have 0 reason to ever play any irish nation after playing one already since they all are identical in everything but name.
In a situation where England wins the 100 years war and annexes all of France.
Do you think this new Franco-English monarchy would be so worried about going all-in in the navy and distancing itself from continental affairs? Or do you think they would assume a dominant position on continental politics and military affairs? I assume the latter.
a DLC that extends EU4 up to at least 1890.
True, but what would happen in that case would be you tag-switching to France with England as a junior partner, so my example doesn't apply and the whole situation would be fixed.No, in that scenario England wouldn't "assume a dominant position on continental politics and military affairs", because the 100 years war wasn't a war of conquest. It was a succession war waged by the person who happened to be king of England to try and claim the throne of France: " English victory" would have resulted in a PU of the thrones, and realistically France would have ended up the senior partner, not England.
I'd like to have the option of an earlier start date to be honest. It would allow for different great powers to emerge more often and make some current ones more difficult to manage.
If they did that, I would be sorely tempted to buy it, play it for an hour and a half, write a hatchet-job review, and refund it.I rather EU5 have pops like Johan said he wanted and for it to absorb Victoria features. The game could be from 1444 to 1936
I agree with this. I don't think expanding the timeline should ever be a goal of the game.The problem with extending the timeline is that the game is already quite long and disabling mechanics not appropriate for the era only to enable them later would lead to many inelegancies, compromises and bugs. There's such a thing as mechanical focus. Might as well proclaim that the game should eventually merge Stellaris, with colonization of other planets and xenospecies. If you go too wide in scope, you inevitably spread yourself too thin in mechanics.
Personally, I'd like a 1618 (or even 1648) -1815 game, with internal focus on the third estate, revolutionary ideologies and proto-industrialization, without neglecting the war aspect leading to a "Napoleon" arising in the grand finale. Current EU attempts it, but spreads itself too thin.
A reason why 1444 is the start date, from 1399 Muscovy and the Ottomans rarely formed and consequently Russia, Turkey and the Balkans remained a balkanized mish-mash.
You're entitled to your opinion but IMO CK does the Middle-Ages better.