And what answer could have been to that question from EU III to EU IV? The main change was the mana system. That is a system that could easily be overhauled and/or changed again. It's a boring system that should be changed.
So, you argue an update of EU IV to EU V would be a good thing based on how the main change from EUIII to EUIV was bad (aka shouldn't have been made)?
As for the majority of users. I'd say those on the forums are where most of the "hardcore" EUIV players are. I see many people here talking about having over a 1,000... or even 2,000 hours on the game. I bet if you looked at statistics for all users (doesn't Steam have these somewhere?), the average would probably be around 100 hours.
But for whom does any such discussed changes matter? Does the "casual" EU IV player, who doesn't follow this forum, writes Steam reviews (sometimes obviously not even understanding some of the basics) and is just in for a quick round of fun playing one of the major powers really care about truce times and such? I highly doubt it.
To clarify, I absolutely do not say it's bad to play "casually" or be less enthusiastic, all I'm saying is Paradox is well advised to continue valuing the opinions of their core audience more that buys new expansions the day they come out and, in the end, finance their whole business model.
Those games add new modes. I doubt Super Soccer for the SNES had manager mode, be a pro, or ultimate team. In addition, the difference between those games is how many iterations? I NEVER buy an annually released game every year. (...) Not enough changes to justify. Even two years is almost too soon.
So did EU IV. Apart from fundamental system changes like the revamped diplomatic system with certain responses, the change from chance to progression based actions, monarch power (for better or worse), the unrest revamp or the fort system, even other "modes" like working (Steam) multiplayer, custom nations or random new world. But some of these have been added later on? Exactly my point: There is no need to add such features over the course of several (full price) iterations like so many other franchises do.
I hate annual updates as much as you. That's why I really love how EU IV is being fine tuned over many years instead of paying much more for a "new" product with several problems that is supported for one year or so with minimal patches but maximally expensive season passes / DLC. And this is absolutely not limited to sports games.
This is not what I want to see from Paradox. EU IV still fun to me, so I don't see the need for it to be fixed yet.
If s.o. disagrees and wants a drastic change of the core mechanics, I'm always very interested to read those thoughts. I'm sorry, but I still think your OP lacks this kind of substance a bit. And as "hardcore" player (aka reading this forum) I oftentimes see several posts demanding "EU IV to die" or something along those lines every week and it frankly gets annoying.
That's by the way where the rating system seems actually beneficial: so developers don't get a wrong idea just because a vocal minority complains (which is always a danger since humans are much more likely to write when they don't like something as opposed to when they're satisfied).
Merchants do work different. I haven't played EUII in 15 years, but I do remember having to send them to trade nodes and hoping to get them to rank up (by getting multiple merchants in the same node). I remember liking that system better than now. Although, I admit the system is likely far more complex now. I read a strategy guide once on how merchants work in this game and I admit I couldn't follow it enough to ever care and use it properly.
EU IV's trade system - while still far from being perfect - has improved so much compared to EU III. It's really not that difficult to understand and playing is much more fun once you understand it. Just watch some youtube videos, it's well worth it!
But missionaries are essentially the same. Send them to a province and wait for them to finish. Settlers are a bit different because the increases in settlers are constant and settlement is guaranteed to start if you send a colonist there. Whereas in EUII, you had to send them and hope the settlement would take based on a percentage chance.
Actually, they are not. One of the main changes from EU III to EU IV was the move from chance to progression based actions. All related system's including missionaries (and colonists) are much much less annoying now, but you can't really appreciate it until you've waited for half a century in EU III for Alexandria to convert when you tried to restore the Pentarchy. -.-
Apart from that - yes, missionaries do still convert. Again, that's to be expected, as we would be upset if they'd insist on following a career in accounting, wouldn't we?
Because EUIV is bigger. More provinces and better graphics. Hence why I would like to see an EUV. So the limits of EUIV can be increased.
Well, better graphics alone, while appreciated, are hardly a reason to upgrade to be honest. The number of provinces in EU IV has more than doubled via patches since 2013, so, again, no reason why EU V should be needed for that. Personally, I get the impression CK II is in need of an upgrade, as it's really beginning to feel outdated to me. But I don't know it well enough to make such a claim. I do know, however, that I haven't seen any convincing arguments that would make me feel EU IV is at that point.
And we all know EU V will come eventually. But that can wait IMO. After Stellaris is released, next thing will be CK III and/or Victoria III. Until then, the only thing that they could do is stop the patches / upgrades - and please don't!
Completely revamping the forts system (which makes no sense in regards to how movements are blocked) and adding mechanics to slow the players is going to cause complaints.
At this rate, I could foresee it eventually being to where your nation can never get above 100 provinces and people would still come to the developers defense and say "it just makes the game more challenging!" No, that would make the game boring.
See, that's the spirit I personally don't like. Why do feel the need to put down opinions you disagree with? If you don't like the game to be a tad realistic / challenging and just enjoy blobbing like it was RISK, that's fine by me. But why do you proclaim your opinion to be truth? It is boring TO YOU. Your boring is my fun.
And, for the record, I find the new fort system to be great. Flawed? Absolutely, movement paths etc. are still a big issue and are likely to continue to be.
Is it better than before, though? Hell yes, you only realize afterwards how boring 'kill main army -> carpet siege all of France in less than a year" wars actually were. Now it's much more realistic and you actually have to pay attention not to get your armies assaulted.
