✅Advocate of new provinces✅
- Jun 1, 2015
If it meant that we could have a map as detailed as Imperator: Rome and a decent pop system I'd be all for it
The realm rejoices as Paradox Interactive announces the launch of Crusader Kings III, the latest entry in the publisher’s grand strategy role-playing game franchise. Advisors may now jockey for positions of influence and adversaries should save their schemes for another day, because on this day Crusader Kings III can be purchased on Steam, the Paradox Store, and other major online retailers.
The longer the period you try to cover, the more obvious it becomes that your mechanics don't satisfactorily cover the whole period.I don't think adding an earlier starting date destroys anything, it just adds another layer. It should be optional, just like jt was in EU3.
You are absolutely wrong about that Portugal thing on every regard. Also we do actually have a system like that in EU4 already. Its called idea groups.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.
Or an hypothetical situation where the pope divides the world into Portuguese and English spheres of influence, and Castile sits out of Colonialism. Why should they get colonial-focused ideas?
Why must Prussia have inherently the best military quality? What was stopping any other country from militarizing its state?
There are always driving forces behind a nation excelling at a particular thing. Britain had a good navy because they are an island.
France pioneered a large and professional armies because they were surrounded by enemies at all times.
Sweden had good military tactics and because their small population forced them to rely on strategy over numbers.
Spain began expanding overseas to keep up with Portugal, and Portugal began doing so because expanding in Europe became impossible after Castile and Aragon united.
Now, I'm not against national ideas per say, i agree with your point of view that they make countries play out differently, and with for example eu4's limitations they are necessary.
But if eu5 has new mechanics that can more accurately simulate the political/economic position each country found itself in, then via those mechanics it should be possible to make every country play differently in a less artificial (and stereotypical) way.
I don't think it's a question of replayability versus historicity, because if the date is moved back from 1444 then the earlier date just becomes a new oppressive meta.I guess it depends on what you rate more between replayability and historicity. Not that you get zero replayability, but the actors let's say around each save are usually the same and the strategy is pretty much standardized and the emerging powers tend to be the same in almost every save.
It's great to be a historical game but it should also allow for more alternate situations. The current starting date pretty much consolidates the strongest nations.
I guess when having access to this kind of games it would be nice to have various outcomes when it comes to high profile situations as well. Why does every save need to have the same great powers all the time? We have the ability to decide if we want lucky/random nations, which enhances either aspect. I don't think adding an earlier starting date destroys anything, it just adds another layer. It should be optional, just like jt was in EU3.
I was initially against the 1444 date honestly but I've grown to like it. But I still would prefer if I had the choice to have a start date 100-150 years back, without having to look for extended timeline mods.
I really agree with this, I would much rather have a deeper game than a longer one. Splitting EU into two different games, 1453 to 1648 and 1648 to 1836, appeals to me. Even a game balanced around a 12 year (or less) campaign could be satisfactory if it were well made and had an interesting start date like 01 Jan 1936.I agree with this. I don't think expanding the timeline should ever be a goal of the game.
If people believe the game ends "too fast" (which i highly doubt it, since most games end before the age of Revolutions) then i guess they could always decrease the minimum time from every day to "Morning, Evening, Night" and go deeper instead of wider.
Increasing the overall timeframe will either extremely overbloat the game mechanically or fundamentally misrepresent every epoch while trying to represent all. It's already immersion breaking enough to have Bicorn-wearing Naval-reformers in the 1400's or Plate Armor clad Engineers in the 1800's, or Musketeers being the symbol for line infantry in the 1400's, let us not agravate the problem.
If anything i belive Eu4 could be reasonably divided into 2 games: One (Lets call it... "Europa Ascensionem") still using a more "Crusader Kings" type dynastic mechanics, with a focus on levies and mercenary armies, that would go from the late middle-ages (The start of the 100 years war in 1337 should be a good choice) to the end of the war of the Holy League in 1699. This would cover an often uncovered period in history, which is the CK's High-Medieval lategame (Ck games suffer an even greater problem of late-game boredom than Eu4).
And then "Europa Universalis" proper should focus no longer on Dynasties, Levies and Mercenaris, but proper Nation-States and standing armies, thus obviously starting by the treaty of Westphalia in 1648 and then it could streach a bit later all the way untill Victoria's start in 1836 (or maybe all the way to the unification of Germany in 1871)
Startdates that offer a good player experience are picked as well.The longer the period you try to cover, the more obvious it becomes that your mechanics don't satisfactorily cover the whole period.
(I pretty much always played the 1399 start in EU3, but I didn't miss it when we came to EU4 and got 1444 instead.)
And if you give people multiple start dates, they display a very strong tendency to always choose the earliest available, which is only overcome by cases like CK2's Charlemagne DLC where the extra start date (769) is generally agreed to be Bad. (This is why CK3 doesn't have 769.)
Imperator started with mana, had little content and the launch was a failure.The question that should be asked: How do you avoid EU 5 becoming the next Imperator? Imperator does after all has many of those features that people wishes for in EU 5 - no mana, pops, different trade, characters, more internal development, more advanced combat system, supply.
Some people argue for an earlier start date for HoI as well, like a 1933 or 1914 start. There too I just want a focused, quality game rather than twisting an existing game to do something it wasn't made for. National mission trees are even more integral in HoI than they have become in EU4, and those are rather dependent on a fixed start.Not sure if you were being serious, but that does describe HOI exactly
Yeah, and I'm not against idea groups, idea group, goverment reforms, religion, Estates and all the other ways to gain modifiers are exactly what can specialise nations beyond the railroaded national ideas.You are absolutely wrong about that Portugal thing on every regard. Also we do actually have a system like that in EU4 already. Its called idea groups.
Would be easier asking what doesn't need to be reworked. Long story short, by design most of the DLC features doesn't interact with one another so instead of having one big cohesive game we have a game where most of the DLC content is self contained.What exactly needs to be reworked?
Apart from renewed graphics of course.
We don't need eu5 per se, but there are some very limiting core design choices in EU4 that should at least be addressed in future, be it in a new iteration or a heavy redesign patch.I'm curious to know everyone's opinion if we need another Euopa Universlis soon? Compared to CK2 to CK3 were the graphic design and engine was needed, do EU4 need that soon or we are good for many more years? What is the current Popular Sentiment in this ?
Cause a even a shitty 3 minute history youtube video wich was made by reading the wikipedia page once can tell you that Portugal looked for a new route to India to make trade since the Ottomans and the arabic world in general now had the monopoly of eastern trade in Europe. Saying Portugal did it cause they couldnt expand in Europe anymore really shows you take EU4s depiction of history too seriously without ever researching the real one yourself.Yeah, and I'm not against idea groups, idea group, goverment reforms, religion, Estates and all the other ways to gain modifiers are exactly what can specialise nations beyond the railroaded national ideas.
Now, I'm not in favour of removing national ideas, but i believe transitioning past them in Eu5 could be achievable without making all nation play the same.
But please do tell me why I am absolutely wrong about Portugal in every regard.
Trade, colonization, and the implementation of demographics and internal mechanics that relate to politics and development of industry. War and unit recruitment could also be more strategical and realistic (diversification).What exactly needs to be reworked?
Apart from renewed graphics of course.