Then I see EU5 with good eyes
People who think PDX is bad just test Sims and see how incredibly cashgrabbing EA is with Sims when a new version comes out. They release a bare bone game ignoring most of the DLC content from the previous versions.
Europa Universalis 5
- Thread starter Me_
- 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.
People who think PDX is bad just test Sims and see how incredibly cashgrabbing EA is with Sims when a new version comes out. They release a bare bone game ignoring most of the DLC content from the previous versions.
Where did he say this? I have tried finding an interview or announcement stuff thing from Pdxcon with Johan, but I can't find anything.
- Pie chart cultures and religions instead of one per province to better represent minorities (e.g. Jews, German settlers in the east), the christianization of pagans in Scandinavia, Prussia etc.
- Maybe some dynastic flair like in CK.
- Personal unions of more or less equal partners instead of de facto vassals.
- It should make you stronger to centralize your empire instead of having overpowered vassal swarms.
- Just a few more years would give so much more possibilities, e.g. a start date with the first Austria-Bohemia-Hungary PU under Albrecht II in 1438, or the Hussites
- Less fodder for the r/badhistory subreddit
Coherent design standards + coherent implementation of design standards.
Given EU 4's trending, it's hard to have any faith in EU 5. Rather than being in denial, it's more like dejection for the series. There are multiple EU 4 patch changes that appear to be either dishonest or in bad faith, and some of the most obvious issues have been ignored for 4+ years.
What could give confidence at this point? Maybe acknowledgement of the above, with some concrete plan represented such that righting the ship is plausible. I don't anticipate it happening, but it's what I'd like to see to have any faith in a hypothetical EU 5.
Hah. They straight up patched out features of EU 4 then reintroduced them in new forms via DLC.
Given EU 4's trending, it's hard to have any faith in EU 5. Rather than being in denial, it's more like dejection for the series. There are multiple EU 4 patch changes that appear to be either dishonest or in bad faith, and some of the most obvious issues have been ignored for 4+ years.
What could give confidence at this point? Maybe acknowledgement of the above, with some concrete plan represented such that righting the ship is plausible. I don't anticipate it happening, but it's what I'd like to see to have any faith in a hypothetical EU 5.
Hah. They straight up patched out features of EU 4 then reintroduced them in new forms via DLC.
- 1
I want military access to matter in EU5. It should take money or an alliance to get a foreign land to give access for your armies to just march through, and your enemies shouldn't get access just because you have it. The AI absolutely needs to be able to mount a naval offensive because getting access through all of Europe shouldn't be feasible. If they can't get the AI to do that, then they shouldn't make the game.
Case in point. Once upon a time, before your forum join date, military access *did* matter in EU 4. It was not reciprocal, could be denied by countries that didn't like you (getting it with heathens took significant improved relations), and made your diplomacy vs opponent's diplomacy with neighbors in a war an important tactical consideration.
That was a thing that actually existed, in the game we have right now. Then it was patched out, and instead of intuitive + internally consistent rules we have the hot garbage that is military access in EU 4 2019. Where despite all attempts one-sided access still happens with a fair amount of frequency (concurrent wars or especially against tributaries) yet your own subjects can screw you over by allowing Spain to march through the Ottomans/Egypt to Morocco because everyone gives a 2PM vassal access.
And we're supposed to buy that such was an improvement over "having military access means you have military access, and if you lack it you don't".
I wasn't asserting bad patch trend practices lightly. All of this done, of course, as a back-handed way to address "exploits" in what would be more fairly described as AI inadequacy.
I honestly feel like I exploit the AI in the current version because I never need to ask anyone for access. My war opponent will get the access to reach me, and that gives me access for free while costing them diplo points. It sure would be nice if naval superiority meant something in a game taking place during the age of sail...
Things I would like to see in EU5:
Dynamic trade flow
Spherical map
A better transition from levy to professional armies
CK2-style revolts (region breaks off to form its own nation, but is at war with you and can be fully annexed for free)
Dynamic trade flow
Spherical map
A better transition from levy to professional armies
CK2-style revolts (region breaks off to form its own nation, but is at war with you and can be fully annexed for free)
Prior to the ongoing ZoC fort beta, military access restrictions + ability to assault provinces w/o a breach meant that naval superiority had a very real threat of assaulting target down and sending stabhit offers before army could return, should they move their army...and that this threat was one-sided if military access was one-sided.
Yet people still bizzarely claim the game was made more tactical with those changes, which coupled with massive nerf to attrition damage + bottomless mercs also gave undue incentive to constant doomstacking.
It's crazy that this stuff used to be outright better in EU 4, to the point where "do nothing" regarding these mechanics would have left us a more tactical game using fewer developer resources by a wide margin.
Maybe my answer to OP should have been "strong project management" as opposed to whatever processes led to serial gutting of the game, though I suppose that was somewhat implied by coherent standards.
Starting with EU4 you're probably assuming that EU3 was a bit like EU4, only older. But EU3 was quite different - it had a single coherent design and it was a rather compact game with much less content than EU4. There wasn't much content that was left out when EU4 was released that was added later. EU4 DLCs mostly added content that never existed in EU3. The parts that were left out (sliders, dynamic trade, horde gameplay) were never added (presumably by design - generally EU4 moved from strategic towards more tactical gameplay).
So I am not sure how much you can extrapolate from that. Now EU4 has a lot of largely disjointed content and features which could be migrated to EU5 using different models, but this is a first time situation. Ongoing CK2->CK3 transition will probably tell us how PDS is going to approach it.
The impression that I get from the jump of EU3 -> EU4 is that they took the final game with all the DLC's, reworked some of the core systems, cut out some that they thought weren't worth keeping, streamlined (in a good way) the interface, the tool-tips and upped the graphics.
I mean, I do find EU 3 interface and graphics to be rather appealing but EU 4 is such a big step up in terms of knowing what's where and how your actions affect the game. There were things like, for example, pirate raiding that you had to read the manual in order to understand what caused it and how to deal with it.
I mostly agree with that though "reworked some of the core systems, cut out some that they thought weren't worth keeping" sounds like a bit of an understatement
They've essentially removed economy and replaced it with mana. Another seemingly small change that had a large impact was making manpower, mercs and money abundant. In final EU3, manpower was fairly limited and mercs weren't leveling up with technology.
Wiz was game director of EU4 until El Dorado if I recall correctly, which is when he switched to Stellaris
#edit: El Dorado trailer, 12 seconds in
#edit: El Dorado trailer, 12 seconds in
.png){kind=avatar}
For EU5 I only request two features.
The first is the introduction of game rules, as in CK2.
The second is the inclusion of a specific game rule to prevent the game to always devolve into a map painting exercise where the only real objective available is to conquer more provinces, the fastest, the most. It took me more than an hundred hours of modding EU4 to partly change that. It is not possible to mod it further...
The first is the introduction of game rules, as in CK2.
The second is the inclusion of a specific game rule to prevent the game to always devolve into a map painting exercise where the only real objective available is to conquer more provinces, the fastest, the most. It took me more than an hundred hours of modding EU4 to partly change that. It is not possible to mod it further...
On one hand, I support this idea. As you say, playing as anyone anywhere is a big fun.
On the other hand - there is Lithuania, which devs really ignore, giving it no real content, fun and hugely ignoring local history or straight up doing antihistorical things. I would prefer actual attention to Eastern Europe so it wouldn't be less historically accurate than Eastern Africa.
What if EU5 at launch had only the "classic Europa Universalis nine" countries of France, England, Castile, Sweden, Poland, Austria, Portugal, Ottomans, and Muscovy playable, with rest of the world being rolled out in the years afterwards via DLC?
My dreams for eu5
1) Less strange disconnected abstract currency everywhere.
I don't just mean adm/dip/mil. What the hell is power projection and why is it even in game, everything it does is reduntant yet counterinutitive minigame. And so on.
2) Let's just throw the entire system of cores, states, territories, corruption etc out of the window and replace with something more intuitive as well
3) Tech system not based around random ruler stats lol but institutions, universities, inventions, great people, investments, innovationism, open culture etc
4) Logistics, logistics everywhere, logistics replacing the abomination of ZoC. In ck3 there is no ZoC, you just get heavy attrition hit every time your unspplied army enters enemy province unconnected to your territory. Logistics preventing 16th century 50k European armies in Anders and conquest of Subsaharan Africa, or military access across entire Europe, or frontline warfare in central Siberia.
5) Incomparably more developed dynastic politics
6) Internal politics as well
7) More than three types of military units
8) Petty one: artillery described as # of cannons, not "50 thousands of artillery men" (also, many different types of cannons at once so I can specifically produce bombards, mortars, culverines etc) (also unique super artillery - Mysorean rockets, Ottoman giant guns etc)
9) Specific mechanics of Grand Transitions:
- From feudal to non feudal
- From decentralized to centralized state
- From medieval army to proffesional army
- From "darkness" to Enlightenment (scientific revolution)
10) Completely remade entire trade system into something actually interactive and understandable. Also, that trade system being from ground designed so navy is fundamentalny necessary.
11) I always said pops are stupid idea for CK, but not so sure about EU seeing how do they work in Imperator. But no 'realistic' pop numbers pls
12) Either end the game in 1789 or make proper mechanics for revolutions and napoleonic warfare
13) Designated mechanic for 'westernization' that is not insanely euro centric but also not insanely liberal, and actually is able to simulate how hard it would be to quickly copy Western institutions od innovationism. Probably the best aim would be at designated mechanic of supporting secular university network.
1) Less strange disconnected abstract currency everywhere.
I don't just mean adm/dip/mil. What the hell is power projection and why is it even in game, everything it does is reduntant yet counterinutitive minigame. And so on.
2) Let's just throw the entire system of cores, states, territories, corruption etc out of the window and replace with something more intuitive as well
3) Tech system not based around random ruler stats lol but institutions, universities, inventions, great people, investments, innovationism, open culture etc
4) Logistics, logistics everywhere, logistics replacing the abomination of ZoC. In ck3 there is no ZoC, you just get heavy attrition hit every time your unspplied army enters enemy province unconnected to your territory. Logistics preventing 16th century 50k European armies in Anders and conquest of Subsaharan Africa, or military access across entire Europe, or frontline warfare in central Siberia.
5) Incomparably more developed dynastic politics
6) Internal politics as well
7) More than three types of military units
8) Petty one: artillery described as # of cannons, not "50 thousands of artillery men"
(also, many different types of cannons at once so I can specifically produce bombards, mortars, culverines etc) (also unique super artillery - Mysorean rockets, Ottoman giant guns etc)9) Specific mechanics of Grand Transitions:
- From feudal to non feudal
- From decentralized to centralized state
- From medieval army to proffesional army
- From "darkness" to Enlightenment (scientific revolution)
10) Completely remade entire trade system into something actually interactive and understandable. Also, that trade system being from ground designed so navy is fundamentalny necessary.
11) I always said pops are stupid idea for CK, but not so sure about EU seeing how do they work in Imperator. But no 'realistic' pop numbers pls
12) Either end the game in 1789 or make proper mechanics for revolutions and napoleonic warfare
13) Designated mechanic for 'westernization' that is not insanely euro centric but also not insanely liberal, and actually is able to simulate how hard it would be to quickly copy Western institutions od innovationism. Probably the best aim would be at designated mechanic of supporting secular university network.
Last edited:
People might wonder what to do in a game without mana. What really is the gameplay? I have an idea.
I think EU5 should include resource management.
You secure resources via trade/war/diplomacy.
Resources can be iron, horses, grain, salt and so on.
These resources should be consumed when you build and develop things. Armies, buildings, ships and so on.
Certain things require resources for maintenance. Large population require more food. The list goes on.
Also, building things might require the country to contain enough skilled craftsmen within a certain field. (although I am not necessarily talking POPs here, as that might be too much for a EU game)
This way, it would actually be meaningful to conquer (or develop trade routes to) certain provinces for their resources (that you lack).
I think EU5 should include resource management.
You secure resources via trade/war/diplomacy.
Resources can be iron, horses, grain, salt and so on.
These resources should be consumed when you build and develop things. Armies, buildings, ships and so on.
Certain things require resources for maintenance. Large population require more food. The list goes on.
Also, building things might require the country to contain enough skilled craftsmen within a certain field. (although I am not necessarily talking POPs here, as that might be too much for a EU game)
This way, it would actually be meaningful to conquer (or develop trade routes to) certain provinces for their resources (that you lack).