Do we Really need Europa Universalis 5?

  • 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.
Besides engine and graphics improvements that would come with EU5 , EU4 kinda became too gamey for me so if EU5 could add mechanics that hit a sweet spot between simulation and a gameplay I'd be all for it.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Just another question: Would you buy EU5 in the next upcoming 2 years?
Yes, I would buy EU5 at release if attractive incentives/discounts were offered.
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I am afraid that we may lose added content we already give for granted in EU4 for EU5.
EU4 is immense so I fear they will go the route many developers in the industry do when making a sequel, deleting features and content just to hype and sell their reintroduction later on.

If EU5 keeps the content of the EU4 DLCs, with the appropriate tweaks and improvements on their integration and UI, and adds new core elements people demand, be it pops/diversity mechanics/better trade/whatever, I will happily jump in and keep supporting it during its lifetime like I do with EU4. But if it's just a blank canvas clearly designed to get DLC/immersion packs of content we already have in EU4, I will probably just abandon the series in disgust. Just looking back at the money I've spent in EU4 makes me fear this scenario and puts my loyalty to the brand to test.

I think EU5 should ask itself: "can I go beyond EU4?" Not: "can I just reinterpret EU4 with this and that new core mechanic?"

Hopefully Paradox takes its time to guarantee the first option happens, which may require a lot of work from them. They probably learnt a lesson with Imperator that the initial sour taste can remain even if the game improves later on.
They have time, the community is not actively demanding EU5 yet and is willing to support EU4 for some years still. Sales are going pretty strong too I believe. So they can take their time to make EU5 the best it can be.

Edit: I'd really like to know why some people disagree with what I've said. Do people want to have a less interesting HRE at launch so they can buy Emperor again? Genuinely curious.
 
Last edited:
  • 4
  • 3Like
  • 1Love
  • 1
Reactions:
Do we need it? Yes, most definitely, but do we need it now? I'd say probably not.
Like many, I also think EU4 has some room to grow before being done.

That said, I don't think "room for growth" will end up being the determining factor here.
Like someone pointed out earlier, EU5 is very likely in development already, perhaps even for a while now, so I think the timetable of the sequel is going to be dictating the final nail in EU4's development.
Like it was with CK3, I think they are going to stop developing EU4 as soon as they feel EU5 is close to a good enough state to be announced, "room for growth" being of secondary concern.
It makes sense to me, that they'd keep selling new DLCs for the current game right up until close to when they feel ready to announce the next game, keeping the gap between games (and potential profits) as small as possible.

Then again, I could ultimately forgive PDX for CK3 coming before Vic3, but if EU5 does as well the "Vic3 never" meme will stop existing and become full fledged reality.
Not gonna say I'll lose interest in GSGs altogether, but my confidence in PDX would take a serious blow, hard to tell if I'd still be motivated to keep up with these games.
It's like that saying, "fool me once...".
Bottoms line is, we may need EU5, but we need Vic3 far, far, FAR more.

If you go too wide in scope, you inevitably spread yourself too thin in mechanics.
Yeah, you basically become Civ.
When it comes to exploring history, Civ is an ocean with the depth of a puddle, while PDX games are a lake as deep as the Marianas trench.
Having come to PDX games from Civ myself, I could never even imagine going back.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Also, I see a lot of people talking about reworks for trade, colonization and pops, but to me right up there with these is tech, and how homogeneous it tends to be around the world.
 
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
Also, I see a lot of people talking about reworks for trade, colonization and pops, but to me right up there with these is tech, and how homogeneous it tends to be around the world.
There is a great idea of "lower" tech groups being a percentage of Western (can't remember anymore how or where it's defined) that applies very nicely to later start dates. The Institutions penalty just doesn't live up to such standard.

E.g. In 1718 start Austria and Russia are tech 23, while Ottomans and Qing are 21 and 19 respectively.

It's not a huge difference, but it would be nice if it could at least be matched in-game.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Yeah, you basically become Civ.
When it comes to exploring history, Civ is an ocean with the depth of a puddle, while PDX games are a lake as deep as the Marianas trench.
Having come to PDX games from Civ myself, I could never even imagine going back.
I'd describe Victoria as a deep game, and Stellaris clearly tries to be one, although it doesn't quite deliver. But I don't view EU4 as being particularly more complex than Civs.
 
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
There is a great idea of "lower" tech groups being a percentage of Western (can't remember anymore how or where it's defined) that applies very nicely to later start dates. The Institutions penalty just doesn't live up to such standard.

E.g. In 1718 start Austria and Russia are tech 23, while Ottomans and Qing are 21 and 19 respectively.

It's not a huge difference, but it would be nice if it could at least be matched in-game.
There are a number of ways to make it work, some more static, others more dynamic.
Institutions could've been a way to go in theory, but the implementation was very lacking indeed, the system doesn't achieve what it was supposed to at all.

If we're talking about suggestions, I myself would favor a system which represents how higher wages brought by wealth from trade in Western Europe ended up being the biggest determining factor for the increased development, urbanization, centralization, and eventually industrialization from the mid to later parts of this period.
The AI in EU4 is barely even able to expand into the east indies by itself and bring that wealth home in the first place, so that'd need to be addressed as well of course.
A pop system and a new trade mechanic could do wonders to achieve that.

I'd describe Victoria as a deep game, and Stellaris clearly tries to be one, although it doesn't quite deliver. But I don't view EU4 as being particularly more complex than Civs.
That's why I said "when it comes to exploring history".
I didn't mean "deep" in the sense of game complexity, but in how these games represent their time period.
Comparing the renaissance era of Civ with EU (or the modern era with HoI, or the medieval era with CK, etc etc) should make it very clear how superficial and shallow Civ's depiction is.

Perhaps it's unfair to compare several games with only one, but that is precisely the point, Civ spreads itself too thin trying to represent everything from ancient antiquity to the near future in only one game, while PDX games focus in only one period per game, and as a result have a far more focused, immersive and deep representation of each one of them.
And hey, we already have a running version of the imperator-CK3 converter, allowing us to cover with PDX games most of what Civ does, through a true behemoth of a mega campaign.
 
After looking at Civ 6 again Im actually very fearful about EU5 since Paradox might try to make it mobile accessible like Civ 6 wich basically dumped itself down to a empty shelf compared to the full house that was Civ 5.
 
  • 4
  • 2
Reactions: