It sucks that most players don't finish their games post 1700's when so much reworking has been done to revolutions.

[MachopPower69]

I think the obvious reason is because after the religious wars, the game feels boring after you easily steamroll enemies with your huge empires and the FPS dropping significantly.

I wish there was better performance midgame, or a way to reduce the lagspikes like nerfing land force limits, limiting army sizes or something because everyone knows the game slows down easily when you revoke the privilegia and declare war on another nation with a huge swarm of subjects dropping the frames because of the mass of armies and recruitments in the provinces.

I'd like to see the game have better performance until industrialisation or revolutions because to me they feel like they are being more forgotten or hard to reach because the game gets too easy after a point in the game. You can respectably disagree with my statement, but you know that you give up and play another nation once you reach 1600 because the performance and entertainment drops

 

[moyang]

Is going revolutionary with a blob possible now? I tried going revolution in 1.32 but spread was too slow and they disappeared when they had ~10% spread.

 

[MatthewP]

The game performs fine on my machine and it doesn’t solve the problem of being too powerful. It’s still fun if you’re going for a WC or some other goal, but it’s just resource optimization and ordering at that point and it’s not everyone’s cup of tea.

Anyway, it’s always good to have better perf, just don’t expect it to suddenly make the endgame much better.

 

[bebrst]

I think the obvious reason is because after the religious wars, the game feels boring after you easily steamroll enemies with your huge empires and the FPS dropping significantly.

I wish there was better performance midgame, or a way to reduce the lagspikes like nerfing land force limits, limiting army sizes or something because everyone knows the game slows down easily when you revoke the privilegia and declare war on another nation with a huge swarm of subjects dropping the frames because of the mass of armies and recruitments in the provinces.

I'd like to see the game have better performance until industrialisation or revolutions because to me they feel like they are being more forgotten or hard to reach because the game gets too easy after a point in the game. You can respectably disagree with my statement, but you know that you give up and play another nation once you reach 1600 because the performance and entertainment drops

Agreed! Unless you are really into bobbing for blobbings sake in most games there is not much thrill left after the religious wars. For players like me who prefer a "somewhat" historic gameplay/expansion the only thing left after that is to play world police to limit the expansion of some empires. There was too much power creep introduced, it is too easy to overrun half a continent in the first 150years
That's why I think so many players find the excitement in this period and then stop.

I fully understand that some players really do enjoy the min maxing and going on a WC and respect to all who manage this and have the patience and skills to do so! This play style should absolutely be there, but I am just saying that from my perspective bobbing and snowballing is too easy too early in many cases and hence limits the fun for those preferring a different playstyle.

 

[Hector of Troy]

I think the obvious reason is because after the religious wars, the game feels boring after you easily steamroll enemies with your huge empires

That has always been a thing. And it´s one of the main reasons that made me stop playing EU4.

Once you reach the point the game becomes a cakewalk (and that usually comes sooner than later), you either push for a WC, if that´s your thing, or you get bored, quit it and start afresh.

 

[holyvigil]

1.33 caused such a large drop in rich nation performance post 1650s. 15 seconds of waiting 5 seconds of playing is so boring.

 

[Miroku20X6]

I think EU5 would be well served to have maybe 2-3 supported start dates like CK3. If they had various achievements and good support for maybe a 1618 (30YW) start date, then more people would be inclined to start from that point in history, getting to dabble in absolutism and Revolution before having already blobbed crazy hard.

 

[please add multithreading]

I think EU5 would be well served to have maybe 2-3 supported start dates like CK3. If they had various achievements and good support for maybe a 1618 (30YW) start date, then more people would be inclined to start from that point in history, getting to dabble in absolutism and Revolution before having already blobbed crazy hard.

No one played the other starter dates in CK2 since they were balanced like shit and didnt offer nearly the same gameplay variety. For CK3 I do not know since I only played at release but most likely the same case there.

 

[Nostalgium]

I think EU5 would be well served to have maybe 2-3 supported start dates like CK3. If they had various achievements and good support for maybe a 1618 (30YW) start date, then more people would be inclined to start from that point in history, getting to dabble in absolutism and Revolution before having already blobbed crazy hard.

Either this, or simply split it into two games. I honestly think 1650-1821 - the rise of Absolutism and the Revolution and development of modern states post-Peace of Westphalia - would be best served as its own game.

 

[romothecus]

Either this, or simply split it into two games. I honestly think 1650-1821 - the rise of Absolutism and the Revolution and development of modern states post-Peace of Westphalia - would be best served as its own game.

This is the real answer, and why it's good that Vicky 3 is just 100 years. Long GSGs just break down for the player; everything is getting easier as you play, not harder or more intereseting. And in EU4 that means really, really insane tedium. Unless you have something really railroady and climatic like Realm Divide in Shogun 2, games just become mop-up, not progressive challenges.

Cutting the game off at 1685, whatever, some interesting year between 1650 - 1750, would really make a lot more sense. Maybe 1714 so that you have a guaranteed outcome for Spanish Succesion, maybe 1699 for the end of the Wars of the Holy League, whatever. But stuff is too fundamentally different after that. Roll it into Vicky or just make it its own game until 1836.

 

[egolend]

The lack of later ballenced starts is what puts me off - It also means there is less content and with the mission trees makes little sense at all. Otherwise you have a very limited group of games where you are a sensable size to engage properly with that content. I would happily trade the any date start feature for a few ballenced later starts.

 

[Nostalgium]

Cutting the game off at 1685, whatever, some interesting year between 1650 - 1750, would really make a lot more sense. Maybe 1714 so that you have a guaranteed outcome for Spanish Succesion, maybe 1699 for the end of the Wars of the Holy League, whatever. But stuff is too fundamentally different after that. Roll it into Vicky or just make it its own game until 1836.

I chose 1650 precisely because of the Peace of Westphalia, which is largely seen as the birth of the modern state in Europe, the official end of the Religious Wars in Europe, and the absolutely without-a-doubt final nail in the coffin for the Holy Roman Empire as anything but a prestige title. Europe has irreversably changed, the final vestiges of the Medieval period are dead (if not in name), and the road ahead for both Europe and the world are drastically different after this point.

 

[MachopPower69]

Unpopular opinion, but nerfing governing capacity for AI by a bit but increasing the consequences of overextension, rebels and relations could also slow down blobbing. Sure, it can get annoying, but OE and GC is usually ignored by AI like the Ottomans or Austria.

 

[BlazeKnight_]

The reason people don't like playing past x date is because the AI is terrible at the game.

The primary drive behind fun gameplay (well, for most people) is interacting with other tags. Once you become big enough, you can stop caring about interacting with other tags properly. And then the flaws of EU4 gameplay show. Nobody wants to play mindless map painter simulator where you have to micromanage hell while brainlessly smacking random AI nations around.

If developers want EU4 mid-game (not even late) to be any fun, they need to make the AI more intelligent. There are AI improvement mods on workshop that do better than PDX's AI using the limited tools of modding.

 

[grommile]

Unpopular opinion, but nerfing governing capacity for AI by a bit but increasing the consequences of overextension, rebels and relations could also slow down blobbing.

I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve or why you think your proposal supports the goal.

The player becomes invulnerable because they're better at the game than the AI (and because the AI can't be smarter than itself, so is prone to deadlock scenarios).

Making the game itself harder amplifies the player's advantage.

 

[Lykus Cerebros]

Unpopular opinion, but nerfing governing capacity for AI by a bit but increasing the consequences of overextension, rebels and relations could also slow down blobbing. Sure, it can get annoying, but OE and GC is usually ignored by AI like the Ottomans or Austria.

Given that a player can deal with being over GC while AIs can't this would accomplish nothing in my opinion. At best it introduces an artificial limit that forces you to keep around vassals while waiting for the hard coded limit to go up.

 

[namewhichisnottakenyet]

A lot of work has been put into revolutions, yes, but the outcome is kind of meh.

Before the Emperor update, playing as the revolution was a massive endgame power spike which could be achieved rather easily (just tank your stability, cause the disaster to trigger and have rebels - ANY rebels - siege down your capital) without any serious harm done to the country overall. Afterwards you had a massive buff to most military stats and could declare war on every other nation with the Revolution CB being sort of like Imperialism, just better (50% cost reduction for every province taken).

Sure, it was gamey and not exactly historical to have such a relatively clean and bloodless transformation into a revolutionary state, but from a min-maxing perspective, there was little reason not to do it. It was a boon for every world conquest attempt. You even kept the HRE emperorship if you had passed Erbkaisertum at that point.

After Emperor, if you want to become revolutionary, you have to hope that the single RNG center of revolution just happens to spawn nearby. If you're not going for a WC and the revolution spawns at the other end of Eurasia, you're pretty much out of luck and likely unable to ever get any revolutionary spread in your country. If you ARE going for a WC, you will likely be in range of the center with at least some part of your empire by the early-mid 1700s, but chances are that the revolution just kind of peters out before it has spread sufficiently throughout your multicontinental empire blob and it only affects you by making a bunch of your provinces useless for several decades because of your high absolutism. But if you do manage to become revolutionary after all, it's pretty likely that you unintentionally spread the revolution to neighboring countries making them ineligible for the Revolution CB and forcing you to fabricate claims like it's the 16th century again. Also, absolutism is replaced by revolutionary fervor which needs to be built up again, tanking your admin efficiency for several years, and you will no longer have access to some key estate privileges. That arguably makes it more of an annoyance with no direct way of countering or circumventing - if you don't want to become revolutionary, you just have to eat the maluses on revolutionary provinces, try to destroy all revolutionary states and hope that the End of the Revolution event triggers before the end of the game.

With all of these caveats and statistical uncertainties, the revolution is no longer all that great for min-maxing and world-conquering. A historical player may prefer the new revolution mechanics because the revolution is pushed back in time for several decades (the real world french revolution only happened in the 1790s after all whereas in pre-Emperor EU4 it could easily happen in 1715) but still, it only spawns in one place, spreads slowly and there are very limited options for the player to directly intervene.