Is it about time to start wanting EU5?

[Atey]

What is there to change from EU4 apart from a new engine and minor changes?

Depends on what you expect of the Europa Universalis games. Some like the period and think that EU4 does not authentically represent the transition from the middle ages into the modern era. Some would even go as far as to say there is nothing much to do except for waging war in EU4. All this is to say, many things could be changed for the better.

 

[ArtFart]

Depends on what you expect of the Europa Universalis games. Some like the period and think that EU4 does not authentically represent the transition from the middle ages into the modern era. Some would even go as far as to say there is nothing much to do except for waging war in EU4. All this is to say, many things could be changed for the better.

But EU4 IS EU. It's been around for so long that it has defined the EU name. What we see is what EU is. EU is supposed to be a war raging diplomatic country strategy game which EU4 does. Vic3 is taking the diplomacy, economic simulator, and I am sure there will be mods for the medieval ages on Vic3 within months of release. EU4 is supposed to be a quick paced war raging country simulator. I don't know why people keep asking for it to be morphed and changed. It's even possible to play a tall, diplomatic nation in EU4 now, that wasn't around at the start.

 

[flammable888]

An eu5 will not be as good as eu4.i made a,thread which got deleted when I predicted ck3 would not be ad good as ck2.

 

[Josar]

The thing is, EU5 would almost certainly not have as many features as EU4. EU4 had radical changes from EU3, which were largely for the better. What radical changes would EU5 introduce, that would not make the game worse? Some would say POPS, but I do not think POPS should be represented as they are in Victoria, and CK3 works just fine without pops.

 

[grandadmiralbob]

"Hey honey! Another forum user asked the same question as other people every week. What should I say?"

"Tell them they should wait. A watched kettle never boils. And tell them it is very annoying to see it be asked too often."

Add it to the nerf/buff this, and byz threads.

 

[Atey]

But EU4 IS EU. It's been around for so long that it has defined the EU name. What we see is what EU is. EU is supposed to be a war raging diplomatic country strategy game which EU4 does. Vic3 is taking the diplomacy, economic simulator, and I am sure there will be mods for the medieval ages on Vic3 within months of release. EU4 is supposed to be a quick paced war raging country simulator. I don't know why people keep asking for it to be morphed and changed. It's even possible to play a tall, diplomatic nation in EU4 now, that wasn't around at the start.

I agree that currently EU4 represents the series. This will almost certainly change however as Paradox has always released a new iteration of every successful series when the time came. I don't agree with the premise that EU4 is only supposed to be what it currently is. This is also demonstrably false since Paradox releases new patches and versions all the time and with that they alter the state of this game.

I am sure there will be mods for all Paradox games as is the case now but I am not asking for a Victoria 3 in the early modern period. I don't think EU4 is a particularly bad game after having played it extensively. I can however envision a worthy successor which retains some of the more significant aspects of the current game (most of the micro warfare is pretty good) while updating some of the more gamey and inauthentic aspects (trade first and foremost). I can imagine more lively countries that are not only empty shells used as actors in international politics. Countries which have population to be used in your armies or to be killed when in enemy lands. Countries which are deeply affected by war and can also be truly devastated by it. I can imagine a more fleshed out dynasty, royal marriage and succession systems with actual characters (not CK style, more like Victoria 3 Plus). With these characters, I could represent the shift from personal claims, dynastic politics and medieval diplomacy into the modern era of internal struggle, revolutions (tying back to the population) and nation states.

I could write more and better but this is just a quick rundown of some of the things I would change in Europa Universalis. I don't despise war in EU4. It is quite good. It's the rest of the game that I find severely lacking and in need of more attention. EU4 is a good wargame. EU5 should be more.

 

[Orkonkel]

There's been excessive feature bloat for a while now (shiny new buttons, modifiers stacked atop modifiers, etc, etc).

There's been a lot of new surface stuff added that hasn't really innovated on the Grand Strategy genre or added more depth to the game. There's definitely some mods that iterated on the base concepts (I generally dislike mods, but Meiou and Taxes made me really enjoy playing tall) and added some meaningful complexity to decision-making: a good example is handling estates in a way where if they get too powerful it will take effort to rein them in (i.e strong bonuses from them, but privileges added to nobility will add stacking penalties income or prestige gain etc), but giving them some power base will make them improve the provinces they're present in, etc.

Overall, EU4 is not in a complete state; some of my favourite parts of the map have no meaningful missions/formables; the map could still use some polishes; colonizing the Americas is kind of worse off than it used to be, and so on. That said, it's complete enough, and it's old enough, that I'd prefer ending development on it and starting on EU5.

 

[Vapiritapiri]

And get more DLC's of features that should have been ingame from the start?

 

[ArtFart]

I agree that currently EU4 represents the series. This will almost certainly change however as Paradox has always released a new iteration of every successful series when the time came. I don't agree with the premise that EU4 is only supposed to be what it currently is. This is also demonstrably false since Paradox releases new patches and versions all the time and with that they alter the state of this game.

I am sure there will be mods for all Paradox games as is the case now but I am not asking for a Victoria 3 in the early modern period. I don't think EU4 is a particularly bad game after having played it extensively. I can however envision a worthy successor which retains some of the more significant aspects of the current game (most of the micro warfare is pretty good) while updating some of the more gamey and inauthentic aspects (trade first and foremost). I can imagine more lively countries that are not only empty shells used as actors in international politics. Countries which have population to be used in your armies or to be killed when in enemy lands. Countries which are deeply affected by war and can also be truly devastated by it. I can imagine a more fleshed out dynasty, royal marriage and succession systems with actual characters (not CK style, more like Victoria 3 Plus). With these characters, I could represent the shift from personal claims, dynastic politics and medieval diplomacy into the modern era of internal struggle, revolutions (tying back to the population) and nation states.

I could write more and better but this is just a quick rundown of some of the things I would change in Europa Universalis. I don't despise war in EU4. It is quite good. It's the rest of the game that I find severely lacking and in need of more attention. EU4 is a good wargame. EU5 should be more.

I have to say, I disagree. While it would be cool to have shiny new graphics with a dynasty system, pop system etc it just sounds like you are mashing EU, Victoria and CK together to make this hybrid game. That wouldn't go down well imo. EU should be completely separate from those franchises, as should CK3 and Vic3. If I want a dynasty manager, I play CK. If I want a pop system and economic simulator, I play Vic, if I want a wargame that simulates trade and warfare well, I play EU. That's how it should remain imo, it starts getting pretty confusing if you merge different franchises together, and in the past with movies and other games, it hasn't gone well.

But yeah, EU5, I think, is gonna go down like CK3 did. A really cool engine upgrade with some newer features on top, but deep down we all know CK2 with it's vast amounts of DLC and mods is fundamentally better than CK3. It'll be the same with EU4 -> 5 imo. BUT, if Paradox can make EU5 match the content of EU4, whilst adding significant features on top, then it would be worth getting. Like I would 100% buy a EU4 remaster, with all DLC features included, on a brand new engine that runs as fast as Imperator and CK3 do.

 

[Testeria]

EU5 would have a POPs system, probably similar to what we see in Imperator.
EU5 would have a more complicated economy/trade system, maybe based on MEIOU and taxes.
EU5 would have separate character and spy system, maybe based on ideas from total war: three kingdoms.
EU5 would have less historical and more meme-based "funny" events.

 

[Lykus Cerebros]

EU5 would have a POPs system, probably similar to what we see in Imperator.
EU5 would have a more complicated economy/trade system, maybe based on MEIOU and taxes.
EU5 would have separate character and spy system, maybe based on ideas from total war: three kingdoms.
EU5 would have less historical and more meme-based "funny" events.

Given how much problem that causes in Stellaris and given that Imperator is discontinued I would guess it's more akin to Victoria.
Less individual pops and more abstracted.

 

[Atey]

Given how much problem that causes in Stellaris and given that Imperator is discontinued I would guess it's more akin to Victoria.
Less individual pops and more abstracted.

Yeah, I like Victoria's system better but I think if they choose this path, they would have to simplify it a lot for EU5. Similarly, having more flashed out characters with actual models, dynamic traits and families would be nice but I don't expect anything as complicated as what CK3 has.

 

[Loganplayseu4]

Yeah, I like Victoria's system better but I think if they choose this path, they would have to simplify it a lot for EU5. Similarly, having more flashed out characters with actual models, dynamic traits and families would be nice but I don't expect anything as complicated as what CK3 has.

Yea, I'd prefer simplified versions of these mechanics for EU (if I had control over a unique strategy game, I'd go ham on all aspects), BUT, EU needs them in SOME form to represent the era accurately, since the game covers the transition from feudalism to the nation-state, and it doesn't exactly do the best with portraying that at the moment. Adding POPs to add a basis for rebels and help back state-building, and adding characters to portray personal unions better and show the transition would help a lot.

 

[RaccoonCity]

POPs will fit perfectly in this game because it will make colonization a lot more interesting: European POPs would actually need to leave Europe to colonize America.

 

[MachopPower69]

POPs will fit perfectly in this game because it will make colonization a lot more interesting: European POPs would actually need to leave Europe to colonize America.

Maybe a POP system could balance development like give a development limit on provinces. This could counter over-developing provinces for institutions but institution growth could be based on location and development level.