It's time to start EUV

[3ishop]

Then have each pop represent a certain number of real life people.

Really wont work well. To give examples around the game start Largest city in China has around 600,000 people living. Paris seems around 150,000, London 45,000. Of course this is just the city areas and not the region around it but then again it's also the capital provinces. Some regions would realistically be looking at say 1,000. So that's not really going to translate well to them representing real numbers of pops unless you want to have provinces with thousands of pops in game.

I think technology has solid base right now,

Everyone having the same "tech" really doesn't work for me and a lot of it being made up for the game is rather annoying for a game based off history.

 

[Mike1984]

Isn't that already how EU 4? You accumulate a lot of Monarch Power (effort) and spend it either on tech to get a bunch of goodies or idea sets which let you customize your nation? The only difference I can see is that inventions are passive and have a chance to happen while ideas require investment before they pay off.

It is, but the problem is that the way the currency works is really weird. It makes no sense for technology to be tied to the same resource that you use to develop, stabilise and expand your nation.

But, the biggest problem is that it just doesn't work as intended outside of Western Europe. The idea of higher tech costs for non-western nations is to ensure that they're behind in tech, but that's not what actually happens. Instead, you race to tech up as much as possible (especially military tech) and forgo other uses of monarch power to allow yourself to do so. The reason being that, whilst Western European nations get a penalty for being ahead of time, other nations don't have an equivalent for being ahead of where they're "supposed" to be, meaning that there's much more divergence in tech amongst nations with high tech cost. That changes the game dynamic in a very fundamental way and makes rushing military tech the obvious strategy.

But, equally, some arbitrary limit for where you can tech up to would be extremely frustrating for players, so I don't think that's the solution either. The system just needs to be one that the player has less direct control over.

 

[EarlKonrad]

It is, but the problem is that the way the currency works is really weird. It makes no sense for technology to be tied to the same resource that you use to develop, stabilise and expand your nation.

But, the biggest problem is that it just doesn't work as intended outside of Western Europe. The idea of higher tech costs for non-western nations is to ensure that they're behind in tech, but that's not what actually happens. Instead, you race to tech up as much as possible (especially military tech) and forgo other uses of monarch power to allow yourself to do so. The reason being that, whilst Western European nations get a penalty for being ahead of time, other nations don't have an equivalent for being ahead of where they're "supposed" to be, meaning that there's much more divergence in tech amongst nations with high tech cost. That changes the game dynamic in a very fundamental way and makes rushing military tech the obvious strategy.

But, equally, some arbitrary limit for where you can tech up to would be extremely frustrating for players, so I don't think that's the solution either. The system just needs to be one that the player has less direct control over.

Doesn't it make sense? Monarch Power is tied to the quality of your government for the most part (Advisors and Monarch) and represent que ability of it's bureaucracy to invest on many different aspects of the country, or something like that. Mil tech relates to military advancements and cost mil power, diplo tech relates to better ships and trade and cost diplo power, and adm tech is all about better administration and cost adm power. I think the abstraction works quite well. EU is all about nations as actors.

Regarding institutions, this topic has been discussed to death so I don't have much new to add. I'll just say that from a gameplay perspective it is quite solid. If you play on Europe you don't have to think much of it but if you play ROTW you can both snipe institutions and have to strategize how to spawn institutions or conquer provinces with them. ROTW having tech parity with Europe is only really a problem if you are playing ROTW and force spawn institution or if an European nation expand close to nations without institutions.

 

[Mike1984]

Doesn't it make sense? Monarch Power is tied to the quality of your government for the most part (Advisors and Monarch) and represent que ability of it's bureaucracy to invest on many different aspects of the country, or something like that. Mil tech relates to military advancements and cost mil power, diplo tech relates to better ships and trade and cost diplo power, and adm tech is all about better administration and cost adm power. I think the abstraction works quite well. EU is all about nations as actors.

That's true, but I don't see why coring a province or developing provinces should put you behind on tech. However, the real issue I have with it is that it works fundamentally differently if you are in an area that's supposed to be behind in tech.

Regarding institutions, this topic has been discussed to death so I don't have much new to add. I'll just say that from a gameplay perspective it is quite solid. If you play on Europe you don't have to think much of it but if you play ROTW you can both snipe institutions and have to strategize how to spawn institutions or conquer provinces with them. ROTW having tech parity with Europe is only really a problem if you are playing ROTW and force spawn institution or if an European nation expand close to nations without institutions.

The thing is, even if you're behind with the institutions, you'll still invariably aim to be level on military tech. And I find that the AI usually is as well, with the occasional exception.

 

[Ivashanko]

While I agree I also feel like if they did EUV it would be a good 5 years before it gets enough content to be any good and I also feel a EUV would be lacking the modifier stacking that I love so much

That really depends on how they change the foundation of the EU series. If EU5 is a mostly outward looking 'risk on steriods' type of game then you're probably right. If they center it around internal mechanics (whether those be pops or estates) then the next game might be different enough to feel like it has more content then EU4.

 

[Pbhuh]

Isn't that already how EU 4? You accumulate a lot of Monarch Power (effort) and spend it either on tech to get a bunch of goodies or idea sets which let you customize your nation? The only difference I can see is that inventions are passive and have a chance to happen while ideas require investment before they pay off.

So i need to explain myself better.

In victoria 2 and stellaris you research something and it takes time for it to complete.
In eu4 you just spend monarch points for instant research.

On the notion of passive bonuses.

In this sense i mean less immediate bonuses, eu4 gives army morale, trade efficiency etc.

Immediate bonuses.

I rather have i guess, +5% pop growth speed, -5% building time, -10% advisor cost.

Etc. Small bonuses that are more passive, not instant boosts. They are useful, but not massive.

Besides that you need things like inventions and upgrades, new army types, new boats, new buildings etc.

I think technology has solid base right now, but Imo institutions work strangely for me. Maybe tying them with pops instead of dev will resolve the problem, but looking at India and China I doubt it. Requirements to get are set mindfully in terms 'what should I do to get colonialism', but outcome is mostly ahistorical, because Europe was "overtaking" rest of the world with some acceleration(slowly at the beggining of EU4 and pretty hard at the end). Yet in the game it's other way around, we have some sort of westernization in XVIII century, because everything after Printing Press is pretty easy to get everywhere in the world. I don't even mention dev pushes, with pops it should be way harder to push institutions.
Also establishing colonies with pops will make more sense and prevent colonization rush with Australia fully colonized in 1600s.



I would consider splitting also in : rural, townsmen, clergy, nobility. And tie it nicely with estates.(with DLCs special pops like cossacks could be added)

The issue with technology is that a tech 20 player has such power creep against a tech 5 player in economy and trade. Technology in eu4 sorta represents dynamic pop growth.

Military it makes sense with efficiency, but with manpower and force limit growth, and with economically and trade, less so.

Now with regards to pop types.

Inherently its not needed. Eu4 is not viccy2, estates are based on landownership, not population. Hence peasants and serfs aren't included.

Now think of it another way, why include it when there are more abstract systems that can do an easier job of it.

The estate thing nowadays is abstract, the estates no longer own a province.

And I like it a lot more.

 

[EarlKonrad]

So i need to explain myself better.

In victoria 2 and stellaris you research something and it takes time for it to complete.
In eu4 you just spend monarch points for instant research.

On the notion of passive bonuses.

In this sense i mean less immediate bonuses, eu4 gives army morale, trade efficiency etc.

Immediate bonuses.

I rather have i guess, +5% pop growth speed, -5% building time, -10% advisor cost.

Etc. Small bonuses that are more passive, not instant boosts. They are useful, but not massive.

Besides that you need things like inventions and upgrades, new army types, new boats, new buildings etc.



The issue with technology is that a tech 20 player has such power creep against a tech 5 player in economy and trade. Technology in eu4 sorta represents dynamic pop growth.

Military it makes sense with efficiency, but with manpower and force limit growth, and with economically and trade, less so.

Now with regards to pop types.

Inherently its not needed. Eu4 is not viccy2, estates are based on landownership, not population. Hence peasants and serfs aren't included.

Now think of it another way, why include it when there are more abstract systems that can do an easier job of it.

The estate thing nowadays is abstract, the estates no longer own a province.

And I like it a lot more.

From what I gather you are arguing for something like EU3's tech where you had a monthly investment amount that would slowly fill a bar and when it reached a set amount you would increase your tech.

EU used to have many systems like that that required few to no inputs for a long time and would work in the background. It was a conscious decision with EU 4 to make the player a more direct agent and having more things happen instantly, like tech. It went from "accrue X monthly till it reaches 100%" to accrue a lump-sum of X till you can click it".

Personally, I like the second approach more. It offers you a choice between stockpiling points to spend on tech or using them on a myriad of other things that are also important.

 

[Pbhuh]

From what I gather you are arguing for something like EU3's tech where you had a monthly investment amount that would slowly fill a bar and when it reached a set amount you would increase your tech.

EU used to have many systems like that that required few to no inputs for a long time and would work in the background. It was a conscious decision with EU 4 to make the player a more direct agent and having more things happen instantly, like tech. It went from "accrue X monthly till it reaches 100%" to accrue a lump-sum of X till you can click it".

Personally, I like the second approach more. It offers you a choice between stockpiling points to spend on tech or using them on a myriad of other things that are also important.

True, it's all options with regards to design.

I like eu4's direct system to a degree, but feel it's inappropriate to get such high basic boosts, which I feel are better represented with pop growth and perhaps their wealth.

 

[3ishop]

From what I gather you are arguing for something like EU3's tech where you had a monthly investment amount that would slowly fill a bar and when it reached a set amount you would increase your tech.

EU used to have many systems like that that required few to no inputs for a long time and would work in the background. It was a conscious decision with EU 4 to make the player a more direct agent and having more things happen instantly, like tech. It went from "accrue X monthly till it reaches 100%" to accrue a lump-sum of X till you can click it".

Personally, I like the second approach more. It offers you a choice between stockpiling points to spend on tech or using them on a myriad of other things that are also important.

Yeah just click and forget isn't a great mechanic, but the other Pdox games systems it's more choose, click and then wait for that perk. Victoria, Stellaris, HoI you choose specific techs that you will unlock which makes up for the passive progress I think. You can also cut up the benefits of the tech that way which means more regular but smaller unlocks.

 

[AlphaMikeOmega]

IMO, EUIV's tech system depends too heavily on the ruler's skill. For military tech, this is not unreasonable (given how leaders would directly choose what to arm soldiers with, and even invent tactics as Gustav I Vasa did). With Admin & Diplo tech, though, apart from for some technologies directly related to government, I don't see why the ruler would have a significant impact.

The tech system in CKII has the advantages of letting countries specialise more, letting technology levels vary by province (rather than by polity), and making technology less dependent on the ruler/government and more dependent on things like buildings.

Personally, I tend to prefer game choices that prioritise realism. When I want to blob, or to achieve world domination, I play Civ.

 

[Failtier]

From what I gather you are arguing for something like EU3's tech where you had a monthly investment amount that would slowly fill a bar and when it reached a set amount you would increase your tech.

EU used to have many systems like that that required few to no inputs for a long time and would work in the background. It was a conscious decision with EU 4 to make the player a more direct agent and having more things happen instantly, like tech. It went from "accrue X monthly till it reaches 100%" to accrue a lump-sum of X till you can click it".

Personally, I like the second approach more. It offers you a choice between stockpiling points to spend on tech or using them on a myriad of other things that are also important.

I'd say the way how tech research is represented in EU3, Vicky2 or HOI4 is more process-oriented, meaning you need to initiate something at a giving point of time whereas in EU4 tech (and mana in general) is clearly handled like in a board game. If you want, you can hoard your mana up to a certain amount because there is nothing to initiate, you just buy whatever you need at a given point of time.

In the end, it is a question of taste, but I always detested the idea to bump up your capital to 40 development in 1 day due to strategic reasons. What is that supposed to represent? Well really, nothing. It is only an immersion breaking game mechanic. From a perspective of strategy games, it does make sense, but it is so utterly ahistorical that I wish a more organic system which is, in turn, difficult to implement because how do you stack modifiers then?

After all, EU is not a simulation, it is a board game.

 

[PDXnoob]

As a newcomer to Paradox games, via CK3, I'd just like to briefly share my opinion on this topic.

EU4 has grown into an unwieldy conglomeration of numerous DLCs and addon packs. I am unwilling to invest my time or money to travel through this ageing maze, no matter how much the game appeals to me. The time for me , and countless other players, to get into EU4 has long passed.

Offer me a unified EU5 with the best that EU4 has to offer and I'll preorder immediately.

 

[K'shar]

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.

Hopefully more of us than we think, friend.

 

[fr-rein]

EU5 could use a mix of population and development model - like in CK3, perhaps a bit more nuanced. It is not full in pop system, utilizes development from EU4 (but unites 3 different numbers), ties buildings to development, includes factor of prosperity.

 

[dect69]

Paradox should work on EUVI because MEIOU and Taxes 3.0 is basically EUV

 

[ImAdrian]

As a newcomer to Paradox games, via CK3, I'd just like to briefly share my opinion on this topic.

EU4 has grown into an unwieldy conglomeration of numerous DLCs and addon packs. I am unwilling to invest my time or money to travel through this ageing maze, no matter how much the game appeals to me. The time for me , and countless other players, to get into EU4 has long passed.

Offer me a unified EU5 with the best that EU4 has to offer and I'll preorder immediately.

Please note that there is a subscription as well (not sure if it was made official yet, but I see it in my game sometimes). For 4.99$ a month, you have access to EU4 + all the DLCs.

 

[Deliberus]

ok and what will the focus be exactly? Is it something for Hardcore Harry who micros everything or Casual Collin who just wants to recreate the Roman Empire?

 

[PDXnoob]

Please note that there is a subscription as well (not sure if it was made official yet, but I see it in my game sometimes). For 4.99$ a month, you have access to EU4 + all the DLCs.

All I see on the Paradox site is a collection (up to 2017) for AUD$226.95 ... seriously ?!?! Over 200 Aussie pesos for a game released in 2013 and some of its DLCs ?! Frankly that is ridiculous.

And tbh I wouldn't be interested in subscribing even if it were available. As I said - the time for me to join EU4 has long passed.

EDIT: The $226.95 includes all(?) DLCs etc. ... doesn't change my main point, which is that there are lots of games competing for my time/money ... and no matter how appealing EU4 is, it won't make the cut in 2020.

 

[Cancerofthehead]

As a newcomer to Paradox games, via CK3, I'd just like to briefly share my opinion on this topic.

EU4 has grown into an unwieldy conglomeration of numerous DLCs and addon packs. I am unwilling to invest my time or money to travel through this ageing maze, no matter how much the game appeals to me. The time for me , and countless other players, to get into EU4 has long passed.

Offer me a unified EU5 with the best that EU4 has to offer and I'll preorder immediately.

Honestly, it isn’t a bad as you say. Currently, you can very reasonably play EUIV with just the base game and then pick and choose what DLC based on what you are playing (ie playing Russia? you probably want Third Rome. playing in India? Grab Dharma.) This is something that couldn’t be said two years ago.

After a few abortive attempts I actually started playing 3 DLC ago (during Rule Britannia, the missions arewhat actually pushed me over the edge). I would say it is mechanically easier to get into this game than CK3. In particular while each DLC adds mechanics they are generally mechanics focussed on a subset of the globe (ie if you play England, you don’t need to worry about most of the mechanics added in Golden Century or Dharma. I tried CK and couldn’t get into it and decided to go back to EUIV.

Obviously everyone is different and EUIV may just not be for you. And the cost of entry is absurd for the full game (and quite high for a smaller portion considering its age) but I don’t think piling on of systems and mechanics should be that big of an issue for getting into the game.

 

[ImAdrian]

All I see on the Paradox site is a collection (up to 2017) for AUD$226.95 ... seriously ?!?! Over 200 Aussie pesos for a game released in 2013 and some of its DLCs ?! Frankly that is ridiculous.

And tbh I wouldn't be interested in subscribing even if it were available. As I said - the time for me to join EU4 has long passed.

EDIT: The $226.95 includes all(?) DLCs etc. ... doesn't change my main point, which is that there are lots of games competing for my time/money ... and no matter how appealing EU4 is, it won't make the cut in 2020.

Its expensive if you put it that way, but in reality you wouldn't buy all dlcs at their full price and all at once.
There are sales in which you can pick up dlcs for like 75% off. There are also third party sellers who pretty much sell these DLCs at a big discount all year round.
And only 3-4 dlcs are a must have, the rest are dependent on what nation you play.

You also don't need unit packs or cosmetics.
So if you either wait for an official sale or buy from 3rd parties, you can pickup everything you need for like 20$