I just ran EU4 1.25

[alexo22]

The first 2 years of the game took ~5 times less time then in the current version on the highest speed...
How have we come to this?

 

[Zaddy]

Because the performance degradation has happened gradually over the years. I've seen people praise 1.30 for performing well, when it was (rightly) blasted on release for having abysmal performance. It's easy to forget how poorly the game runs now and accept it as a fact of life.

 

[PDXJon]

The first 2 years of the game took ~5 times less time then in the current version on the highest speed...
How have we come to this?

Of course it runs faster. There have been 4 DLCs and a little over 4 years since then. It’s not like they haven’t added more stuff for your processor to do. Your post seems disingenuous to me.

 

[EarlKonrad]

Of course it runs faster. There have been 4 DLCs and a little over 4 years since then. It’s not like they haven’t added more stuff for your processor to do. Your post seems disingenuous to me.

OP's question is valid. Not everyone understands how computers work. Yes you can assume that more stuff = slower game, but that is a rather vague answer.

 

[st360]

The first 2 years of the game took ~5 times less time then in the current version on the highest speed...
How have we come to this?

"Hi Paradox I love the HRE i think its awesome (Prussia SABBATON SONG LOL) anyway I made a map of 57 new villages in the HRE you should put in as nations.

Also I think this province in Japan should actually be split into 7 provinces, the Shonouyogono clan lived there they are very important they made shoes for the emperors court but they are not represented on the map.

Also I live in Albania and I think it should be split into 5 more provinces for fun. Thanks for reading "

 

[st360]

Of course it runs faster. There have been 4 DLCs and a little over 4 years since then. It’s not like they haven’t added more stuff for your processor to do. Your post seems disingenuous to me.

Disingenuous question:

"Why is my game 5 times slower than 4 years ago?"

 

[PDXJon]

Disingenuous question:

"Why is my game 5 times slower than 4 years ago?"

It’s obvious that a bunch of content was added to a game engine that many claim is antiquated. To compare the current game to a version that is missing a bunch of content is disingenuous. It’s like comparing engine performance between a 6 cylinder engine on a 2000lb vehicle with a 6 cylinder engine on a 3000lb vehicle. These are two completely different games. Comparing performance between different patches on a version would be fair. Comparing performance between between consecutive versions might be fair. Comparing versions after 4 years of content, no way.

 

[PDXJon]

OP's question is valid. Not everyone understands how computers work. Yes you can assume that more stuff = slower game, but that is a rather vague answer.

I disagree. The OP cherry picked versions.

 

[alexo22]

Of course it runs faster. There have been 4 DLCs and a little over 4 years since then. It’s not like they haven’t added more stuff for your processor to do. Your post seems disingenuous to me.

Yes, thank you for explaining to me some basics of computer work (I have applied mathematics education btw).
But can you really answer what those dlc and updates really brought to the game to be considered worthy such performance decrease? Dozens of tribes in NA? Overdetailed map in Montana, Dakota and Alberta? Casual stuff such as monuments?
I mean the game got better (even though I personally think there's many more things to do in the game than making monuments), but certainly the devs didn't take a careful approach regarding the performance.

 

[MatthewP]

I agree. The game is a lot better than it was in 1.25 in most ways but I think the devs should spend a couple patches focusing hard on perf. This is not the way to leave the game.

 

[st360]

It’s obvious that a bunch of content was added to a game engine that many claim is antiquated. To compare the current game to a version that is missing a bunch of content is disingenuous. It’s like comparing engine performance between a 6 cylinder engine on a 2000lb vehicle with a 6 cylinder engine on a 3000lb vehicle. These are two completely different games. Comparing performance between different patches on a version would be fair. Comparing performance between between consecutive versions might be fair. Comparing versions after 4 years of content, no way.

Do you honestly think its normal for any product to have a 500% slowdown after 4 years of updates? So what, after 3 more DLCs we are to expect 1 month of gametime taking 20 minutes in real life?

I don't know where you're getting this "well duh, everybody knows computer games are supposed to be shit after 4 expansions, don't be disingenuous" attitude.

 

[PDXJon]

Yes, thank you for explaining to me some basics of computer work (I have applied mathematics education btw).
But can you really answer what those dlc and updates really brought to the game to be considered worthy such performance decrease? Dozens of tribes in NA? Overdetailed map in Montana, Dakota and Alberta? Casual stuff such as monuments?
I mean the game got better (even though I personally think there's many more things to do in the game than making monuments), but certainly the devs didn't take a careful approach regarding the performance.

You are making the assumption that the devs haven’t. Are you saying they were reckless? This is the problem I have with your post. You aren’t asking a legitimate question. You are being passive aggressive with the developers. It’s all snark.

 

[PDXJon]

Do you honestly think its normal for any product to have a 500% slowdown after 4 years of updates? So what, after 3 more DLCs we are to just expect 1 month of gametime will take 20 minutes in real life?

I don't know where you're getting this "well duh, everybody knows computer games are supposed to be shit after 4 expansions, don't be disingenuous" attitude.

Yes and no. It depends on the system in question. You can’t expect a system that is pushing up against whether or not the game is playable 4 years ago to not have a huge slowdown today. My system runs this game fast. I had to buy a new gaming rig because my old one died a horrible death. I had to get used to how fast 30 days went by while doing diplomatic actions. The game engine is old and bloated, a bit like me, and it’s going to be hard on some systems. It sucks for players that didn’t have issues 4 years ago. I’m not saying that the developers can’t make it run faster. I’m saying that some people need to be more realistic. The reason I think the OP is being disingenuous is because they picked an old version, omitted any system specs, stated the game is 5 times slower, and asked the snarky question “how have we come to this?”

 

[ThePHD]

Haven't played in months because of how slow the game is. Pretty satisfied with my decision.

 

[AvengedK1ng]

Haven't played in months because of how slow the game is. Pretty satisfied with my decision.

Just promise to not make the 39959th thread on 'op natives, cant defend own colonies' when you do play it

 

[alexo22]

Yes and no. It depends on the system in question. You can’t expect a system that is pushing up against whether or not the game is playable 4 years ago to not have a huge slowdown today. My system runs this game fast. I had to buy a new gaming rig because my old one died a horrible death. I had to get used to how fast 30 days went by while doing diplomatic actions. The game engine is old and bloated, a bit like me, and it’s going to be hard on some systems. It sucks for players that didn’t have issues 4 years ago. I’m not saying that the developers can’t make it run faster. I’m saying that some people need to be more realistic. The reason I think the OP is being disingenuous is because they picked an old version, omitted any system specs, stated the game is 5 times slower, and asked the snarky question “how have we come to this?”

Man, you told me I'm being passive aggressive in another reply but your own replies are full of that. That's disingenuous. Just for the record.
But regarding what actually matters. I could pick some other old version, that doesn't matter. I omitted any system specs because they don't matter either.
The point of my statement was to say that the game became seriously slower. To discuss whether updates in the last 4 years were worthy that and to possibly make the devs see this thread among other complaints regarding performance to have them consider taking better path in development of future versions.

 

[AvengedK1ng]

Man, you told me I'm being passive aggressive in another reply but your own replies are full of that. That's disingenuous. Just for the record.
But regarding what actually matters. I could pick some other old version, that doesn't matter. I omitted any system specs because they don't matter either.

I mean they do to see if you're barely breaking even or not

The point of my statement was to say that the game became seriously slower. To discuss whether updates in the last 4 years were worthy that and to possibly make the devs see this thread among other complaints regarding performance to have them consider taking better path in development of future versions.

There were good changes in 4 years, not sure if they cancel out the bad but still okay 4 years on