Do we Really need Europa Universalis 5?

[grommile]

what about a DLC that make 1700-1821 playable first.?

AFAIK the main reason people don't play the last 120 years of the game is that they're bored because they're already a hegemon beyond the AI's ability to dislodge and so approximately the only challenge remaining is "can I keep my focus for long enough to paint the whole map?"

That can only reasonably be fixed by a free patch.

(I also seem to recall reading that someone who actively seeks out hegemony can get to the point of unassailability faster (modulo making the "paint the whole map" bit impossible) in MEIOU than the base game – something to do with the AI not coping gracefully with MEIOU's limitations?)

 

[DanielPrates]

Heck no, we don't need eu5. Not when Vic3 is so long overdue. I say this mostly because we are living different times and I fear any game's next installment becoming a new Stellaris, viz, a game with great potential that instead grows to be an improved mobile game for modifier addicts.

The truth is, consumers are getting... dumber? Not all but a lot, and the age of complex games for adult-minded players seems to be passing away as consumer demographics change and companies try to keep profitable. I want to be wrong about this but eu4, ck2 and vic2 may have been a watermark of sorts.

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

I don't think its reasonable to move into Eu5 before exhausting Eu4's potential.
As it stands, there are several places in Eu4 which have not gotten its due content (South America, Africa, and other places here and there) and several mechanics which could get a rework (Colonisation, Naval Warfare, Logistics, Technology) and most importantly, a way to make post-1700 more appealing for most people.


With that said, Eu5 is innevitable due to inherent Eu4's limitations (lack of population, uni-directional flow of trade) but not anytime soon.

 

[Runite Drill]

Yes. Please give me multi-directional trade and advanced peace deals.

 

[Meglok]

How about we finish EU4 before we transition to 5? There is so much left to do that CAN be done with the current engine.

That said, from a marketing standpoint you always want to leave stuff on the table to excite the base and move sales towards new products. So it wouldn't surprise me to see 5 relatively soon from some of Johan's comments. If you see an announcement about a new engine get ready for EU5 from Tinto and hopefully Vicky3 from Sweden.

 

[Blobhemian]

I certainly don't need it for now. EUV would mean we would have to wait a year or two after release – for major issues and bugs to be fixed and basic features re-added. That's not the experience I want. Instead I'd like to see EUIV properly polished, it's already masterfully designed at its core and it's not newer graphics that would make it better. It's different from CKII for example. CKII had issues with repetitivness, cheesing, balance and designs of some core aspects such as combat, trade or economy, and a whole new platform was needed to change that. EUIV doesn't suffer from too many core issues, it's mostly superficial stuff such as balance of some DLC mechanic, patch-related AI bugs or lack of content/depth in certain areas. Those issues are solved by polishing and patching, starting anew is what causes them.

 

[Battlex]

I certainly don't need it for now. EUV would mean we would have to wait a year or two after release – for major issues and bugs to be fixed and basic features re-added. That's not the experience I want. Instead I'd like to see EUIV properly polished, it's already masterfully designed at its core and it's not newer graphics that would make it better. It's different from CKII for example. CKII had issues with repetitivness, cheesing, balance and designs of some core aspects such as combat, trade or economy, and a whole new platform was needed to change that. EUIV doesn't suffer from too many core issues, it's mostly superficial stuff such as balance of some DLC mechanic, patch-related AI bugs or lack of content/depth in certain areas. Those issues are solved by polishing and patching, starting anew is what causes them.

CK3 didn't bring the necessary changes it should have, but eu5 could

 

[Blobhemian]

CK3 didn't bring the necessary changes it should have, but eu5 could

That's sadly true in most cases. Economy is a mess and so is combat, there is still no proper trade, diplomacy allows for massive cheesing. But that doesn't take away from the fact that new design was needed in those departments. At least CK3 delivered in other areas, so overall it's still an improvement despite not fixing its predecessor's shortcomings. That further proves that we need to cherish EUIV and hope for its long-term development instead of risky EUV ventures.

 

[grommile]

EUIV doesn't suffer from too many core issues,

EU4 with all its DLC has – like CK2 with all its DLC – a significant amount of heavily siloed, poorly integrated material that compromises the game's quality, polish, and balance (especially if you turn off some of the DLCs).

Some of that has been partially addressed, with bits and pieces of older DLCs being folded into the base game, but there's definitely some serious design debt that's going to be hard to remedy within the context of the evolutionary development model.

(BTW, the experience of playing CK3 is the main reason I am a lot more sympathetic to the "EU5 soon plz?" crowd than I used to be.)

 

[love sweden]

That is not a valid excuse to keep eu4 going. You'll keep paying for eu5 just the same, don't you worry. It's like you have a subscription to the game instead of ownership, which is an atrocity.

You dont own your games on Steam. Ownership is when the developer can do nothing to stop you from playing your game whenever you want when Steam the developers can decide to take away your right to play the game.

 

[Pbhuh]

I don't think its reasonable to move into Eu5 before exhausting Eu4's potential.
As it stands, there are several places in Eu4 which have not gotten its due content (South America, Africa, and other places here and there) and several mechanics which could get a rework (Colonisation, Naval Warfare, Logistics, Technology) and most importantly, a way to make post-1700 more appealing for most people.


With that said, Eu5 is innevitable due to inherent Eu4's limitations (lack of population, uni-directional flow of trade) but not anytime soon.

Content is just fluff, it doesn't mean much.

Eu5 wouldn't be a content change, it would be a mechanical overhaul, it would have a much better engine, it would run smoother, it would know what its aim is attempting to be.

Eu4 not having all the content that everyone wants is just hoping to continue a game forever, but eu4 is getting old, mechanically bloated etc.

Its likr Crusader Kings 2 v Crusader Kings 3. Ck2 has more added content, but the game got slow, its Engine was growing old, it became harder to just add stuff, hence jade dragon was made instead of just doing a China patch.

Eu4 may very well have the same issues.

 

[Blobhemian]

EU4 with all its DLC has – like CK2 with all its DLC – a significant amount of heavily siloed, poorly integrated material that compromises the game's quality, polish, and balance (especially if you turn off some of the DLCs).

I agree with this sentiment, but the problem I see with this is that EUV would simply solve it by entirely cutting a lot of of those features instead of implementing them with clear concept. I personally like to a) explore various options how to solve stuff in the game b) roleplay. The various minor features, buttons and options add to that experience, despite being oddly placed in the UI or not interacting with as many other mechanics as they could. From my perspective it's still better to have them in that state instead of not having them at all.

 

[RichardOlcese]

LOL at the springtime of nations without pops.

If you want a popsicle go buy it yourself at a store.

 

[DanielPrates]

Yes. Please give me multi-directional trade and advanced peace deals.

But that's just the thing, you are not only more likely NOT to get the improvements you want, but also running the risk of seeing your favorite mechanics turned into "cards" or (ugh) microtransactions or whatever the game industry now sees as a moneymaker.

The zeitgeist is all in favour of games getting worse over time, not better, and I shudder when I see some (most?) of the choices taken by paradox in recent years. What fresh hell awaits in store for us hidden in eu5's concept?

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

Content is just fluff, it doesn't mean much.

Eu5 wouldn't be a content change, it would be a mechanical overhaul, it would have a much better engine, it would run smoother, it would know what its aim is attempting to be.

Eu4 not having all the content that everyone wants is just hoping to continue a game forever, but eu4 is getting old, mechanically bloated etc.

Its likr Crusader Kings 2 v Crusader Kings 3. Ck2 has more added content, but the game got slow, its Engine was growing old, it became harder to just add stuff, hence jade dragon was made instead of just doing a China patch.

Eu4 may very well have the same issues.

Content is fluf in the sense that it can be always be increased or argued to not be enough, but in my case i'm not arguing for content to be increased forever but merely for most places to be on the same "reality". Since content is being added region by region, this means that those left out become relatively barren end up leaving the game unfinished.

Eu4 is getting mechanically bloated for sure, which is why i'm not asking for more mechanics but a rework of the current ones. There is still room for a lot of improvment with what we already have without adding more mechanics. We should only move into Eu5 when the limitations of the current mechanics make futher improvement unviable. Which i don't belive is the case yet.

 

[Iferius]

We need EU5 for major overhauls. Things like a spherical map or a major redesign of mana/development/population.

 

[klingonadmiral]

Yes. Please give me multi-directional trade and advanced peace deals.

Advanced peace deals is never going to happen, for the same reason nobody in their right mind includes tech trading anymore.

 

[love sweden]

If EU5 does not have national ideas then I dont want a EU5 cause thats the one thing wich makes playing another nation unique instead of playing the same big blob but in a different location and religion.

 

[Pbhuh]

If EU5 does not have national ideas then I dont want a EU5 cause thats the one thing wich makes playing another nation unique instead of playing the same big blob but in a different location and religion.

There is ideas and religion etc. That make things unique and there is Starting position.

I hardly think ppl play Byzantium for the fact which ideas it has. Its all about the position where we find it in.

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

If EU5 does not have national ideas then I dont want a EU5 cause thats the one thing wich makes playing another nation unique instead of playing the same big blob but in a different location and religion.

There are far more organic ways of making countries play differently and excell at different things, than railroading them a particular set of (arbitrary) bonuses.