I think we should have it, but not yet. Not for at least a few more years. Latin America and Africa and some other regions really need to get proper treatment, to level off the game. Ideally with some big improvements to the whole colonization process (you can see my signature). But I would really like to see an EU5 where we have pops, dynamic trade flows, better ai, more consequential geography, more opportunities for "big picture" things like institutions and ages, among other things.
Do we Really need Europa Universalis 5?
- Thread starter Lord Lorkan
- Start date
-
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.
I would like an EU5 in a few years. My big gripe is the trade system. It was one of the reasons I became interested in EU4 and got it in the 1st place, but now it isn't dynamic or realistic enough for me.
I think a new trade system, the usage of pops or some other system to represent development, and a ROUND world map are the things I would want the most from a hypothetical EU5. And a graphical update. Imperator: Rome and CK3 have made me horny for a more beautiful world map and interface.
Those are things EU4 can't or won't do.
I think a new trade system, the usage of pops or some other system to represent development, and a ROUND world map are the things I would want the most from a hypothetical EU5. And a graphical update. Imperator: Rome and CK3 have made me horny for a more beautiful world map and interface.
Those are things EU4 can't or won't do.
- 4
- 1
About start dates not used in EU4, I imagine that players usually want to shape their countries, in terms of idea groups so they don't like very much taking a country later than 1444 where some idea groups have already been chosen. As written above, later start dates are mostly "scenarios".
Why are graphics dated? It is a pure strategy game, fancy graphics are futility. The simpler the graphics the better, since it allows more people being able to play the game. Why making it to require very good GPUs just to stare at a map?
- 2
- 2
- 1
Little anecdote to that: i regularly play most pdx strategy games (note: ck2 instead of 3, waiting for christmas) and when my partner who had no idea when the games were released looked over my shoulder and judged which looked "the best" she chose eu4 over stellaris, ck2, imperator and obviously vicky2. Interestingly she also said that the EU4 UI looks the least confusing out of all these.
Just for a little outside perspective.
- 3
- 1
- 1
You kept saying the same about CK2. You obviously don't understand how a gaming company works.
There is and will always be things to do on a game. Thankfully, PDX is a bit more ambitious and instead of listening to posts like this, took a leap to work on those things but on a newer, better game that allowed for su much more than CK2.
The same goes for EU5. We dont really "need", any game. But thankfully there are out there ambitious companies with new ideas to implement better features and give better gaming experience. And thus, EU5 is being made and will be delivered, hopefully, as a much better game than EU4 so we won't have to worry about many of EU4 issues and some others will be adressed in a much better that isn't possible in EU4, just like it happened with CK2 and CK3.
- 2
- 1
The Islamic control over the Eastern Trade in Europe affects every single country in Europe, not just Portugal. And it did so for several centuries before.
Portugal didn't pioneer overseas expansion when they did just for that simple reason, it was for a number of reasons.
And besides, their overseas expansion was more than just looking for a trade route to India, just look at the conquests in Morocco, the Conquest of Ceuta took place before any naval expedition to explore in the Atlantic, there is no correlation between wanting to circumvent the Islamic controlled silk route (which they did unambiguously want, I'm not disagreeing with your analysis, I'm just saying its too simplistic) and taking Ceuta.
Also, it was undoubtable that the Portuguese had hit a hard glass ceiling in regards to European expansion, this is not Eu4's depiction of history, this is a fact. You must be delusional if you believe Portugal could simply go on a conquest spree in Iberia after the "Iberian wedding", in fact just look at history itself, from 1071 to 1471 Portugal waged a dozen of offensive wars against Castile or León and then as soon as the Crowns of Aragon and Castile united under marriage in 1479, never again would Portugal ever attempt an offensive war against Spain (and for good reason, they were outnumbered in Population 6 to 1, and Spain often had far more valuable allies such as France). There is no two ways about it, they were trapped in the corner of Europe, the only options were Overseas expansion, or "becoming Spain's Scotland" if you understand what i mean.
I'd bet money on it. There's no way they've released CK3 but they havent even started working on the new gen map and the design process at least for EU5. Even more so when they've opened a new studio for (allegedly) EU4. Two studios working on the same project? Nah.
- 3
- 1
This thread brings me back to 2019 summer, with all the same threads crying against a CK3. BUT PLEASE YOU CAN STILL CHARGE US 20 DOLLARS FOR A FEW MORE PROVINCES AND MODIFIERS WE DONT NEED CK3.
I suppose all those people YET AGAIN saying the same here will give up CK3 and would go back to CK2 and paying 20 pounds for the same old stuff. Why have nicer better fundations and base mechanics to build upon when you can just keep buying DLCs for the same thing for new mission trees and events ad eternum right?+
Thankfully PDX knows better than all those people who think they are smart for rejecting a new title and they brought us CK3, which a way better game and has had enormous success and good reviews.
You really think that after the success of CK3 and selling more copies than any other of their games ever they are gonna listen to you telling them its better not to make a new game? Hahaha. Thank god they know better and are more ambitious than many here.
I suppose all those people YET AGAIN saying the same here will give up CK3 and would go back to CK2 and paying 20 pounds for the same old stuff. Why have nicer better fundations and base mechanics to build upon when you can just keep buying DLCs for the same thing for new mission trees and events ad eternum right?+
Thankfully PDX knows better than all those people who think they are smart for rejecting a new title and they brought us CK3, which a way better game and has had enormous success and good reviews.
You really think that after the success of CK3 and selling more copies than any other of their games ever they are gonna listen to you telling them its better not to make a new game? Hahaha. Thank god they know better and are more ambitious than many here.
- 3
- 1
There were many reasons for Portugal's overseas expansion, but the main one was to add a bit of green to otherwise all-white Cascadia.
- 1
- 1
Really? I know has its flaws but the graphics are pretty good. Though in my opinion EU4 has the best looking UI of the games (never played Stellaris or Victoria), maybe that's what they were looking for.
- 1
Normally I'd agree with you but after playing CK3 I can appreciate having a very nice looking world, nice looking units/characters and a beautiful map add a lot to the experience in my opinion
- 1
Eventually yes we will, remember that EU4 is almost as old as Ck2, and to quote the Developers it gets harder to teach an old dogs new tricks as time goes by.
- 1
Yes. There is hardly any meaningful content left to add which the PDX DLCs depends on and the major annoyances in EU4 are hardcoded or because of design decisions and can't be changed through patches and DLC.
- 3
- 1
Good meme, but i don't understand where the Portugal=green association comes from, is it due to their moden flag? Because Historically the colour associated with Portugal has always been blue.
Even after adoption their modern flag, they still used blue uniforms.
If you are justifying Portugal being green for the marines colour I'm glad EU devs dont know about Cacadores.
I think it was a graphics choice. The four main colonizers being Red, Blue, Yellow, and Green makes it easier to see at a glance who is where when they border each other in the Caribbean or Indonesia. Those colors are common enough that they aren't overly distracting while distinct enough that the information they provide can be easily processed
- 4