Which aspects of other Paradox titles do you hope make it into EU5?

  • 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.
Disagree here a little bit. Major thoroughfares, be them roads or, for example, well-developed river infrastructure, could be of key importance for both economics and warfare (cf. Eastern PLC and, IIRC the Thirteen Colonies in the War of Independence). It could be even neatly tied with the population mechanics discussed above, with infrastructure development being very cost-effective, profitable in an already highly populated areas, while in sparsely populated borderlands it would be much more costly, with nothing to offset the maintenance costs but potentially providing an upper hand in a future war.

Just my two cents.
Off course, but doesn't that relate to development or a possible future similar mechanism? Building a road between two provinces seems so futile in an age where most of the provinces in the most relevant area had dozens of roads connecting each province to another. I see the fun in developing infrastructure in newly colonized regions, but in the (then) developed world not much happened in relation to infrastructure until the trains started coming.
 
It literally does happen. Your problem is that it isn’t predictable, and you think it should be. Fair enough. But it does not follow that EU doesn’t model the situation you described.
It literally doesn't. And it's rich to pretend that the issue is predictability when all that needs to be known is if my ruler has 1 son or 2. That should not be information I should have to guess at or predict. And it does affect gameplay in a way you dismiss, because if I know I only have 1 son and his death would lead to issues, I can alter my play to avert that issue. Get extra royal marriages to try to foster another heir etc.
 
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
They also need to start using multithreading processing. I think someone mentioned that they still use single thread for EU4.
All current paradox GSG titles, including EU4, are multithreaded. Anyone who says otherwise is either misinformed or mendacious.

However, there are many places where they aren't efficiently multithreaded, because the game logic and underlying data model weren't designed with six- or eight-core CPUs in mind, and retrofitting high levels of concurrency to an existing code base is, generously, a major project – to the point that sometimes, it really is easier to start over.
 
  • 6Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I don't know how to say it, but different degrees of wars. If the Oirat get DOWed by say, Chagatai, I don't see a healthy Ming sending 200k through the Gobi desert to help them out.
I like these EU5 threads.... hopefully it's already in the works. :)
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
IR in its final form is a game that I hope EU5 borrows alot from. The pop system would be great for EU, maybe it could even be a bit more simplified. Armies that can be automated and roads as others have mentioned would also be nice.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Something I would like to see is a cut off around 1700. I feel that would help make the game a little better as most players don't really play that late. It could then open the opportunity for a game from 1700-1836. The Spanish war of succession is a pretty good hook. EU5 would deal more with the initial colonization and the wars of religion at least in Europe. In Asia you would have the Qing Golden era too.
 
  • 5
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Something I would like to see is a cut off around 1700. I feel that would help make the game a little better as most players don't really play that late. It could then open the opportunity for a game from 1700-1836. The Spanish war of succession is a pretty good hook. EU5 would deal more with the initial colonization and the wars of religion at least in Europe. In Asia you would have the Qing Golden era too.
The main EU series have always been games covering the early modern period, which is generally considered to have lasted from c. 500 to 1800. Cutting a future game off at 1700 would be absolutely stupid imo.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
The main EU series have always been games covering the early modern period, which is generally considered to have lasted from c. 500 to 1800. Cutting a future game off at 1700 would be absolutely stupid imo.
I don't think it's necessarily stupid, but if you cut it off that early you'd have to "plan for it." I can kind of see an argument for ~1700-1850 making sense as a gameplay era due to the way warfare was generally conducted during that time, but EU has generally made cutoff points based on cultural shifts rather than warfare ones. EU is about the end of feudalism and the beginning of the nation state, while Victoria is about the end of monarchy and the beginning of modern political ideology.

So I think ~1800 is a good cutoff for EU games, but I wouldn't say it's "stupid" to want a game based on some other metric than social change.
 
The main EU series have always been games covering the early modern period, which is generally considered to have lasted from c. 500 to 1800. Cutting a future game off at 1700 would be absolutely stupid imo.
EU might've been "about it" but it never actually did meaningfuly cover them in any way, There's a stark difference in how the world looked, how the economy was built, how wars were fought between 1500s and even late 1700s, but EU never really shows that, and neither I think it could.

The only transitional mechanics EU4 really has is stuff like absolutism, which basically amounts to "remember how you spent your campaign so far conquering stuff? now you can do that but FASTER".

It's hard to make genuinely transformative changes to your gameplay in the middle of your game, but properly depicting that period would sorta necessitate that. It'd be more than fair IMO if EU5 ended in, say, 1683 or 1701, and we had a different series to give the period between these dates and the beginning of Victoria's timeframe the respect that they deserve, and this would also allow EU to focus more on fleshing out systems that belong more in its timeframe, like colonization or growth of global trade.
 
I would really like a road 'building', more severe penalties for attacking on mountains, navigable rivers where applicable and harsher attrition.

There are a couple of small cosmetic changes it would be good to see. I think it would be nice if your nation's flag changed based on whether you were a monarchy, republic or theocracy, where it makes sense to do so.

I'm not bothered about adding pops though, I don't think it would really improve the experience of playing the game in a meaningful way or make it more fun.
 
more ways to cheese the AI, yayy


I'm honestly really confused by this. Mountains already provide a penalty to the attacker worth like -15% discipline, on top of typically harder reinforcing
What exactly are you looking for on top of that?
I just think it should be harder for an attacker to 'win' battles there. They never seem to make a difference in any games I've played...
To be honest, I was more thinking about this from the perspective of smaller AI mountainous nations being able to survive longer than as a way for the player to exploit the poor AI more.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I just think it should be harder for an attacker to 'win' battles there. They never seem to make a difference in any games I've played...

IMHO the fact that mountains are almost impossible to conquer in wars between players without a massive advantage in numbers prove that mountain seeming inconsequential in SP is an issue of AI being bad, rather than mountains not giving harsh enough penalties.

That's the case for a lot of systems in this game, where everything is in place for them to be relevant, except for brainded AI.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
IMHO the fact that mountains are almost impossible to conquer in wars between players without a massive advantage in numbers prove that mountain seeming inconsequential in SP is an issue of AI being bad, rather than mountains not giving harsh enough penalties.

That's the case for a lot of systems in this game, where everything is in place for them to be relevant, except for brainded AI.
This is part of the reason that I think they need to find a middle ground between Victoria 3's regional warfare system that has basically no represented armies or movement and EU4's entirely province and army based system. It's easier to teach the AI what to do if there are fewer individual provinces it needs to worry about, but as we saw with Vicky 3, going too far in that direction just makes the game boring. As I said in another thread, I'd love to see armies moving between states instead of individual provinces, so we can keep the depth of territory changes and development we have now, but also make things a bit easier for the AI to manage.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
A proper court/dynasty mechanic. I don't need a detailed simulation of every feudal lord in my country but I do need a game set primarily in the Renaissance and Age of Absolutism with all of its succession conflicts and centralization to have more meaningful court mechanics than three advisor slots and a ruler who may or may not have a consort and heir. There's plenty of stuff that can be drawn from multiple Paradox games, even EU3's cultural tradition would be a minor step up.
 
  • 6Like
  • 3
Reactions: