-
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.
Some features were similar and directly ported from EU3 codebase,all over had been completely reworked,like the new trade system,the changes to war and the new coring system,among others,but even at release,EU4 was a much better game than EU3 in my opinion.
- 2
- 1
- 1
This thread is not really about what features the next game should have, but about whether EU4 is too bloated from time to effectively make better. I have no idea what EU5 will have in it, but I do think that from what players, and the man Johan himself said, that EU5 is needed if this series is to see new innovation.
- 12
- 2
I'd rather keep playing an already fleshed-out game with consistent updates than restarting with something underdeveloped, waiting for updates to make it playable. Akin to Imperator Rome and Crusader Kings III.
- 13
- 4
- 1
Honestly, CK3 may not be as fleshed-out as CK2, but I'd say it's genuinely more playable.
- 16
- 3
- 1
For me,CK3 is better than CK2 in it's current state with all it's dlcs because the base mechanics are better.Unlike many others,i don't care on the lack of content,The feeling i have of CK3 compared to CK2 was the same than EU4 vs EU3 back in 2013.
- 14
- 3
Still enjoy playing EU4 and love seeing new features and content added to it
- 5
Unlike some (and i gather theres quite a few) im actually still enjoying EU4 quite alot, i play it more often atm than any other PDX title -for now atleast-. so im not too bothered if theres a new EU coming or not, however i can see why PDX wanna keep working on EU4 considering theres so many dissenting voices saying they dont like this or that, so i see the sense in them trying to 'fix' the main issues before they jump ship. Kinda like CK2, they kinda stopped development on CK2 when the feature-creep got too much but also when they felt they could leave CK2 and be proud of where it ended... and i dare-say CK2 ended at a perfect time, they fixed the vast majority of the performance issues that was introduced as the years went on (Reapers Due), then added some requested things like artefacts and societies and ended with Holy Fury which completely overhauled the Crusades and overhauled pagan religions and added a huge number of other things which left the game at a perfect place to end (ofc, then SnowCrystal released the iron century mini-thing that was so well received i remember doom and gloom being said when it was revealed they were going onto another project -i think it was Imperator?- ) but anyways, i can see why they are still swinging at EU4 at this point, its a great game theres just... issues that need addressing, but sadly with all the time and work thats went into it they are kinda limited on what they can to do solve the issues. but i remain extremely interested in where they take EU4 and dont see the need for EU4 to end just yet.
So yeah, all in all i wouldnt mind an EU5, id prefer Vicky3 first in all honesty, but if they took a whack at EU5 first id kinda understand. Victoria 2 is more of a cult Classic at this point whereas EU4 was one of their most successful titles.
So yeah, all in all i wouldnt mind an EU5, id prefer Vicky3 first in all honesty, but if they took a whack at EU5 first id kinda understand. Victoria 2 is more of a cult Classic at this point whereas EU4 was one of their most successful titles.
- 3
EU4 will never die, and never be replaced. What we need is Victoria 3. Everybody knows that. So, please, people, stop talking about about EU5 and start demanding VIc3. OK?
- 7
- 2
- 1
Doing EU5 would mean a 10-year wait to get the perfect map painter game.
- 4
- 2
- 1
Reading this forum, it's like a hivemind willing the devs to get EU5 off the ground.
- 6
- 2
I have a feeling devs would like to make eu5, too, but the company has just not decided it's a worthwhile investment while eu4 dlc still sells. johan doesn't choose what games to make as far as I know, he just plays a role in development, so if they tell him it's still eu4 he'll work on eu4
- 5
I too think that the devs probably want to make an EU5 as they've spoken before about how the EU4 system basically limits them. Let us remember as of this year, we are talking about an 8 year old game.
But I also understand the business model probably advocates for more DLC.
In my opinion, EU4 is still very fun to play (I mean I only seriously got into this game as of 1.30) but there will inevitably come a point that the game is very dated.
But I also understand the business model probably advocates for more DLC.
In my opinion, EU4 is still very fun to play (I mean I only seriously got into this game as of 1.30) but there will inevitably come a point that the game is very dated.
- 5
I'm ok with EU5 on the condition that its similiar amount of content ck2-ck3 transition.
- 3
- 1
It will be the case,just like EU4 compared to EU3,CK2 compared to CK3 etc ... .Imperator was the exception rather than the rule on that regard.And his main issue was not even the lack of content.It was mainly than,despite it's a sequel of EU:Rome,it was in my opinion far worse at 1.0 than EU:Rome was,now I:R is better,but this had take time.
Last edited:
- 2
Why? EU4 reached its peak around 6 years ago & has been in decline for years. Similar thing happened to EU3, which got worse as it went on. Map painting is yesterdays game, as people want more strategy & things to do. Ask Imperator.
I presume they have been working on EU5 for awhile, just like CK3, so it wont be a shock at all when announced.
- 4
- 3
