Do we Really need Europa Universalis 5?

[gronak]

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

 

[grommile]

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.

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.)

 

[love sweden]

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.

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.

 

[frolix42]

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 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.

And the EU4 players already has "replayability" because we can move the start date forward anywhere we want, but the game is poorly balanced after 1444 with many mechanics and events that are broken. The vast majority of players play from 1444 and PDS smartly focuses its development attention on this start date. The mission trees, which have been received positively, are balanced and firmly anchored to a 1444 start.

It becomes an issue of development focus and limited resources for a game that hasn't been the primary focus of PDS for several years, EU4 has been around for 7+ years so it is not a good time in its development cycle to flip the tables over with a a new start date. Adding more content is counterproductive if it is not polished quality content. If moving the start date back were easy, then the many extended timeline mods would be satisfactory (some people really like them, I prefer 1444 because it gives modders focus).

The date 11 November 1444 is precisely selected to be immediately after the Varna Crusade, to ensure that the Ottomans have a hold in south-east Europe. It is as a good a date as any for an interesting game.

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)

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.

 

[Triplebassist]

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.

Not sure if you were being serious, but that does describe HOI exactly

 

[C.N.]

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.

 

[Pbhuh]

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.)

Startdates that offer a good player experience are picked as well.

But it comes down to what you offer the player.

In Hoi4, you generally don't really go for 1939 because you then can't do your own focuses. In Ck2, the 2 startdates that worked were the normal High Middle Ages one, the 1066, and the Early Viking age of 867. I personally loved the Iron Age 900s start they added, because its another one of those amazing periods.

In EU4, startdates that are not 1444, are more or less just scenarios. You have the dutch 80 years war, the league of cambray, the 30 years war, the 7 years war. Etc.

They don't really feel like startdates, they are more, hey you wanna play a cool scenario?

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.

Imperator started with mana, had little content and the launch was a failure.

Nowadays the game is much better, but that sour taste remains.

 

[frolix42]

Not sure if you were being serious, but that does describe HOI exactly

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.

World War 1 and interwar deserves its own game, which should probably be Victoria 3.

 

[pingouin2ter]

I thought we didn't need CK3 after Holy fury but Paradox delivered in a big way. Making EU5 meaningful would be a challenge after so many years in EU4 but I am cautiously optimistic that they could pull it off.

 

[diegosimeone]

What exactly needs to be reworked?

Apart from renewed graphics of course.

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

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.

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.

 

[EarlKonrad]

What exactly needs to be reworked?

Apart from renewed graphics of course.

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.

Now, in terms of rework, I'd say the number one mechanic that needs a rework is colonization, followed closely by WS and occupation and then religious conversion. Both colonization and conversion have been unchanged since release (expect for a few tweaks here and there) and they do show their age.

 

[-DI- RivalET]

We 'need' EU5 for adding things like pop mechanics, multi-directional trade, a more dynamic mission system or advanced military logistics. And improving the integration of current game mechanics and AI would also be nice (and i suspect those two may be related). All of these things seem (to me at least) as though they would up end the game in such a way that the cost/reward for the devs just wouldn't be worth it and they'd be better off starting from scratch ton do these kinds of mechanics more justice.

However, EU4 still has room for improvement, but more so in adding to areas of the map that having fallen by the wayside, which is what the devs seem to be doing in updating NA n SEA. There's still more though like the Horn of Africa, South and Meso America and so on along with some minor tweaks around missions and events and whatnot around the world. But after that, yes i would say it's better to move on from EU4. I don't want/need EU5 any time soon though, i'd rather see Paradox to improve their other current titles or release viccy 3. I'm personally just nowhere near done with playing EU4 yet as i've have only just started to play on higher difficulties and am just about halfway with achievements.

 

[diegosimeone]

I think warfare is a must. Not only in relation to war score, but the way you or mostly your allies, go to attack the enemy on a journey that's 3 months away while you're being attacked at home is fun as a game, but it is completely unrealistic.

When it is not siege related, most armies on the march would just meet at a designated (or not) battlefield and that'd be the main event.

The whole thing needs to be reworked, don't think I can make an elaborate post on it now and though.

 

[Malecord]

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 ?

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.

Like not having population separated from development proper (number of people times how efficiently a person produces taxes, goods, manpower).

Or doomstacks marching all around the world with free passage and no supply issues to reach that useless fort in Siberia. Or seeing Castille commit the whole royal army to conquer Mexico. It's not just an AI issue. It's that shouldn't be possible in the first place.

And a lot of other smaller things too.

 

[MasterPaw]

EU could use better modding capacity like how ck3 allow ui modding

 

[Sete]

Trading, colonization, warfare are 3 major things in the game and they all need a major rework.

Better off having EU V than keep adding to the AI misery on EU IV.

 

[Whirlwindweasel]

In answer to the point of the thread, I think the game is reaching close to its natural end, whereby I'd be surprised if we were here in 3 years time all talking about if EU4 still has a long way to be added to. I'm sure the game is already in development, but I really do hope the development team manage to improve the depth and variety of playing in sub saharan africa, south america (outside of the Andes), and to a lesser extend smaller parts of the rest of the world that need a touch up like scandinavia). I think what a lot of people have said is right that a strip back of mechanics and reevaluation would be good as to what to keep and what not to, and what to model differently, all of these things will be an exciting part of EU5 I'm sure.

One minor thing that's only been mentioned a few times in this thread that I really think could be a strong point for EU5 is a few genuinely supported start dates, that way there's more replayability as there's essentially 3 (or however many start dates are available) whole world maps of tag and scenario choices to make our own. This would allow us to see tags that never genuinely appear in the game that had some historical relevance, and would allow us to play a more fleshed out game in regions where the understanding of history in that region is more limited to closer to the 1820 end of the spectrum than 1440.

 

[love sweden]

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.

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.

 

[Metz]

What exactly needs to be reworked?

Apart from renewed graphics of course.

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).