I do not agree and there are issues with every single point you mention:
- 1.30 had the longest development cycle yet it is riddled with bugs. The EUIV code base has clearly become too bloated to update.
That is not how programming works. At all. Bugs are in most cases not caused by bloated code. Also 1.30 is not riddled with bugs, but there are few but impactful ones. Those bugs usually just relate to a simple wrongfully coded function each and have nothing to do with the whole code. It honestly seems like every other release since the day physical releases became scarce and day one patches the norm.
If you want to look for bloated unmanageable code look for inconsistent behaviour, both in game and especially while modding, both issues that eu4 does not have.
- Imperator: Rome and CK3 have new good looking maps with incredible detail. EU also needs a
There is little that stops PDX from visually updating EU4 map to at least imperator level of quality. If you think about just the map and country borders there are multiple mods that do that already and that is within moddings limitations.
You have ro remember that there is very little difference between the engine versions of EU4 and I:R, CK3. Yes there is Jomini, but i doubt that stops PDX from interchanging code well. I mean just make the GMI mod vanilla and the game looks 3 years younger.
- Much needed overhauls such as switching to a pop based system and a dynamic trade route feature would allow greater nuance in gameplay. Fundamental feature overhauls like this can only come in a sequel.
I know i will get burned at a stake for this but i am not a fan of the pop system I:R used. But that is not the question here. The issue i have is that you present those changes as "much needed". For what i ask? The current systems work and the vast majority of requested features doesn't require dynamic trade routes or pops.
- Buying all EUIV content costs hundreds of dollars or a subscription.
I hear this argument again and again but people still don't realise how useless it is. EU4 has now been developed for 9 years. Unless you want to wait for EU5 until 2030 or want PDX to bankrupt themselves you will have to accept that EU5 will release with WAY less content than EU4 has atm. Until EU5 has covered what EU4 has so far it won't cost any less. That means that you would basically need to buy it all again for the hundreds of dollars you mentioned just for maybe pops and better trade and some graphics.
I agree.
I also hope that the devs move far, far away from the "risk on steriods" model they used for EU4. I understand that there aren't that many players like me, but I suspect most would enjoy more in-depth internal mechanics.
That would be a bad choice for EU due to its scale. There is a reason that ck only uses part of the world and that vicky only covers 100 years.
To properly represent internal mechanics across 4 centuries and the whole world would take more amount of coding and researching than all of eu4 and dlc together. It would move EU from game to simulation. The strength of EU has always been it's higher level of abstraction compared to other PDX titles, hence the bigger playerbase.
I also would like "some" more internal mechanics, but the core should stay "risk on steroids"
