Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

We need to discuss what Paradox should absolutely never do to EU5

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Europa Universalis IV 81874 EUIV: Bug Reports 441 EUIV: Suggestions 19142 EUIV: Technical Support 6713 EUIV: FAQ & Strategy Guides 235 EUIV: AAR's, Let's Plays, and Fan Fiction EU IV: Alternate History Short Story Contest Contr 29
Victoria 3 finally

Victoria 3 finally

Second Lieutenant
1 Badges
May 30, 2021
128
485
  • Crusader Kings II
1638203928213.png

Removing the colour coded warnings with accompying pictures. This is one if not the best thing EU4 has to offer. It should not be removed or dumbed down. New players might get confused at first but new players also play Austria and lose to the Styrians rebels who then win their independence (a true story) so trying to not be confusing is a lost cause. Making a UI objectively worse so the first 10 hours of a game feel better while the other 1000 hours suffer is the opposite of what Tinto should do. For example CK3 UI was in some aspects better then CK2 but certainly not with the warning system wich is inferior to CK2s in almost every aspect. Of all the things wich carry over from EU4 to EU5 this is the most important one.
 
  • 31
  • 13Like
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
I don't understand your problems with those, they were of great help when I started and I still find them more interesting and pretty than the CK3 list for example.

edit: Ah it seems I misunderstood the message. My bad I indeed agree with OP
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
Something that they should NOT do ?

Definitely DO NOT have such a simple attrition design / low impact for attrition. An army marched several hundred miles across desert / mountains / jungle should be utterly ruined. Make it possible to play Ethiopia (for example) without getting destroyed by the Ottomans because they are an ally of one of your tiny enighbours, and can march 200,000 men to mid Africa in 1699 with no losses. the amount of preparation the Victorian Anglo-Abysinnian war took should be your guide; the Brits sent 14,000 men - with a whole navy of supply ships, they built a railway, brought elephants from India. The army still couldn't operate away from it's supply lines.
 
  • 25
  • 6Like
Reactions:
Paradox shouldn't carry over mission trees. Especially not mission trees that grant claims.

Might be a bit more controversial, but I don't think shouldn't carry over the current province development system. It's really gamey/ahistorical, and needs a complete overhaul. Bring back EU3's population system if you have to, but the current dev system really shouldn't be retained.
 
  • 22
  • 8
  • 4Like
Reactions:
Agreed with OP, those allow at-a-glance information. The game needs more information presented that efficiently, not less. There is still a lot of room for QoL improvement in general.

Fort ZoC hard-blocking movement never should have existed, and certainly shouldn't make it into EU 5.

Amongst UI issues, the game outright lying about what will happen should of course be corrected when possible also.
 
  • 8
  • 4
  • 3Like
Reactions:
No TAG magic. Anything that is entirely dependent on your current TAG regardless of your situation, because it
- Adds more maintenance work for them as it means more content in total
- Adds more special cases / rules to learn for one specific run to players
- Creates local imbalance slowly leading to power creep with each DLC
- Breaks at the seam when TAG switching is a thing
- Prevents minors to get their own cool stuffs when they could deserve it for pulling the same move as the one true TAG
- Desn't work with anything past 1600 because the world rarely get the situation close enough from what caused the events leading to TAG magic IRL to happen

Also unrelated: Global currencies for global effects, local currencies for local effects. No Mana for local dev, but don't go the Civ way either of local science production leading to global progress
 
  • 11
  • 7
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Ooo - another - DO NOT carry over the magic money tree. It'll stop the AI getting into debt so easily, and stop the player being able to exploit things like Tech adoption / mercenaries. By all means keep loans in, but perhaps have a 'broker' type third-party AI that intermediates between a player that wants to lend, and one that wants to borrow. That way money remains finite, and taking a loan can be part of the diplomatic game - just like it was in history !
 
  • 13Like
Reactions:
Methuen of Melnibone said:
Something that they should NOT do ?

Definitely DO NOT have such a simple attrition design / low impact for attrition. An army marched several hundred miles across desert / mountains / jungle should be utterly ruined. Make it possible to play Ethiopia (for example) without getting destroyed by the Ottomans because they are an ally of one of your tiny enighbours, and can march 200,000 men to mid Africa in 1699 with no losses. the amount of preparation the Victorian Anglo-Abysinnian war took should be your guide; the Brits sent 14,000 men - with a whole navy of supply ships, they built a railway, brought elephants from India. The army still couldn't operate away from it's supply lines.
Click to expand...
I agree in principle, but I wonder if this is one of those “be careful what you wish for” things. Newer paradox games like ck3 and imperator have more explicit supply systems. But as far as I can tell the outcome in each case seems to be that the game tries to balance between the ability of a player to circumvent systems and the inability of the AI to manage anything complex and ends up with a supply situation that is simple and minimally impactful for the player but often ruinous for the AI. At least in EU4 attrition is a thing that has significant effects (looks at your war deaths from attrition vs. battle sometime).
 
  • 5
  • 4
  • 2Like
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
MatthewP said:
I agree in principle, but I wonder if this is one of those “be careful what you wish for” things. Newer paradox games like ck3 and imperator have more explicit supply systems. But as far as I can tell the outcome in each case seems to be that the game tries to balance between the ability of a player to circumvent systems and the inability of the AI to manage anything complex and ends up with a supply situation that is simple and minimally impactful for the player but often ruinous for the AI. At least in EU4 attrition is a thing that has significant effects (looks at your war deaths from attrition vs. battle sometime).
Click to expand...

I understand your fear. I'd make it as simple as 'if you are more than X inches from home, attrition increases by n" - that way you don't say 'provinces from home' and then imbalance Germany vs. Russia. To counteract this malus, you'd have to build supply depots, and have manpower to feed into a 'corps of logisitcs' type special unit that isn't on the board. The only other workaround would be to supply via sea; via a new unit 'supply ships', which function like privateers - an enemy blockade interdicts them (you don't see the ships on the board, it's a button).

The AI could be programmed to always do that perfectly, so that at least there was a level playing field. The player could try to ignore it, but would find themselves fighting with no living soliders.

It'd neatly localise wars, too (like in history) - no more Verden marching off to lay siege to Petersburg or some rubbish.

I'm sure there's a million problems with that, but I just want to stop some of the more stupid scenarios I see now :)
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Methuen of Melnibone said:
I understand your fear. I'd make it as simple as 'if you are more than X inches from home, attrition increases by n" - that way you don't say 'provinces from home' and then imbalance Germany vs. Russia. To counteract this malus, you'd have to build supply depots, and have manpower to feed into a 'corps of logisitcs' type special unit that isn't on the board. The only other workaround would be to supply via sea; via a new unit 'supply ships', which function like privateers - an enemy blockade interdicts them (you don't see the ships on the board, it's a button).

The AI could be programmed to always do that perfectly, so that at least there was a level playing field. The player could try to ignore it, but would find themselves fighting with no living soliders.

It'd neatly localise wars, too (like in history) - no more Verden marching off to lay siege to Petersburg or some rubbish.

I'm sure there's a million problems with that, but I just want to stop some of the more stupid scenarios I see now :)
Click to expand...
Wait are you actually saying going from Germany to Russia is ridiculous when the Napoleonic wars happened during the games timespan.
 
  • 7
  • 2Like
Reactions:
EU5 should only offer fixed start dates and have them be well set up. Can be initially 1444 for the Grand Campaign, 1492 to focus on early colonization race, 1555 for a growing early modern Europe game, 1618 for the Thirty Years War, 1701 for the War of Spanish Succession, and finally 1776 for the American Revolution.
 
Don't fix trade nodes and trade flow.

In EUIV I could own the entirety of Europe, yet somehow be unable to have a single merchant in Gibraltar bring a bloody cow to London.

Hell, I could own the world and be unable to bring the same cow from Gibraltar to Fez right next door because trade is magically stuck in one direction.
 
  • 10
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Making mana generation still based on generally static ruler stats.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back