It means another game that lacks basic features at the launch where it all has to be paid in DLC's that lock away again basic features that should have been in the game when it came out.
- 20
- 4
- 2
Why would anyone want EU5?
- Thread starter Vapiritapiri
- Start date
-
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.
- Status
As someone’s who just got the complete game, I have to agree. It’s absolutely fantastic as it is, and if EU5 comes out, I’ll probably play both until EU5 has the same level of immersion and layered strategy as 4 does. I’m not even 20 hours in and I’m in love.
- 11
- 1
Was ck3 launch better than final ck2 in your view?
- 3
- 2
- 1
Got ck3 when it launched and it hooked me in a way ck2 never did.
- 5
- 3
- 1
- 1
A new game would be an opportunity for very core mechanics to get overhauled. Most importantly for EU5, getting it to work better with modern CPUs may require reworks of things as fundamental as how day/month ticks are processed. It will be a step down in the amount of stuff in the game, but it should be a better base to build on. Not that I'm personally clamoring for it, but they should do it eventually.
- 13
- 4
i cant answer that cos i don't know how you define 'better'
but you used the word first!
true. they took the bones of a great game and the graphics alone made it a much more enjoyable experience. but IMHO it's almost pointless to compare any two games when one is newly released and the other's had 7 years of content updates.
- 1
- 1
- 1
Army logistics finally being a thing so you can sack tabriz but not conquer it in 1500
- 3
- 1
Well I mean, eu4 is almost 10 years old now
and the amount of dlc it’s had over that time could be intimidating to some looking to get into the series
and the amount of dlc it’s had over that time could be intimidating to some looking to get into the series
- 5
- 2
Direct it all to Sevilla! Spanish Dominance shall grow beyond our wildest dreams!
- 1
For me it would be hope for a better AI.
As we experience, DLC after DLC, with independent gameplay features added on top of each other (not related to each other) the game becomes more and more dependent on micro decisions and stacking of modifiers.
The more you add, the more you need to "teach" an AI to deal with. You need another round to rebalance it.
I can imagine, in game development cycle, AI develpment comes always last. With strict deadlines, AI improvements are probably the most ignored part of strategy games (see below).
So newly added feature systems, disconnected from each other (because of DLC approach). are negatively impacting any AI.
Nowadays, this largely makes me want to play really old versions, like 1.11.4, where gameplay was straight forward and AI capable to handle (not perfectly but not as visibly broken as of today) most of the game mechanics.
1.11.4 because it was before "Common Sense" DLC with dev boosting in provinces and also before the "new" fort mechanics. After forts have been introduced in 2015 we apparently still need to figure out how AI should place and pay for them. Not a good sign in my opinion.
I know there have been efforts at improving AI in recent patch, but correct me if I am wrong, long time players perceive these as "one step forward, two steps back". It feels like EU4 became an uncontrollable machine and improvements are being tried at tweaking balance parameters and hoping for the best.
Rather than actually improving the problems at the core.
A fresh start would mean more developers and the possibilty to learn from issues from the past.
But as it is, regarding AI in general in the market, not everybody wants a strong, competitive AI anyway. Only a small amount of players actually wants a competitive AI, while others want a casual experience of "winning another game easily".
But I haven't given up hope entirely yet.
As we experience, DLC after DLC, with independent gameplay features added on top of each other (not related to each other) the game becomes more and more dependent on micro decisions and stacking of modifiers.
The more you add, the more you need to "teach" an AI to deal with. You need another round to rebalance it.
I can imagine, in game development cycle, AI develpment comes always last. With strict deadlines, AI improvements are probably the most ignored part of strategy games (see below).
So newly added feature systems, disconnected from each other (because of DLC approach). are negatively impacting any AI.
Nowadays, this largely makes me want to play really old versions, like 1.11.4, where gameplay was straight forward and AI capable to handle (not perfectly but not as visibly broken as of today) most of the game mechanics.
1.11.4 because it was before "Common Sense" DLC with dev boosting in provinces and also before the "new" fort mechanics. After forts have been introduced in 2015 we apparently still need to figure out how AI should place and pay for them. Not a good sign in my opinion.
I know there have been efforts at improving AI in recent patch, but correct me if I am wrong, long time players perceive these as "one step forward, two steps back". It feels like EU4 became an uncontrollable machine and improvements are being tried at tweaking balance parameters and hoping for the best.
Rather than actually improving the problems at the core.
A fresh start would mean more developers and the possibilty to learn from issues from the past.
But as it is, regarding AI in general in the market, not everybody wants a strong, competitive AI anyway. Only a small amount of players actually wants a competitive AI, while others want a casual experience of "winning another game easily".
But I haven't given up hope entirely yet.
- 2
- 1
EUIV has limitations. EUV would be a fresh start, and implement features that currently are impossible.
- 3
- 1
But it'll surely be better by 2030 than EU4 is now. By then, I'll probably make enough money to cover the accumulated DLC cost.
- 5
- 1
Well that might be but at launch will it have the same amount of content?
- 1
CK3 managed to release with the vast majority of CK2 features included on launch, I think EU5 could do the same thing.
The trade system could use a full overhaul that isn't really viable with EU4. Dynamic trade would be fantastic, instead of this deterministic system where trade flows "west" at all times.
Colonisation and "empty" lands could also be made more interesting and realistic. Look at how Vicky3 is going to improve colonisation over Vicky2, for example.
Estates have been in a weird place perhaps since they were first released. Estates could have been the pops of EU, but they were scaled back to their current state. If the game is designed from the foundation to include estates as a key mechanic instead of being an optional DLC mechanic, I think they'll be better implemented.
The advisors could also receive another look. Plenty of room to make them more interesting than they currently are. Give them agendas, attach them to estates, allow us to improve their skills over time.
Those are just a couple things that EU5 could improve that EU4 can't really touch. A newly-released game is going to be inferior in some ways to a game that has had 10 years of post-release work on it, but taking a fresh look and fixing/improving what those 10 years could not is worth it.
The trade system could use a full overhaul that isn't really viable with EU4. Dynamic trade would be fantastic, instead of this deterministic system where trade flows "west" at all times.
Colonisation and "empty" lands could also be made more interesting and realistic. Look at how Vicky3 is going to improve colonisation over Vicky2, for example.
Estates have been in a weird place perhaps since they were first released. Estates could have been the pops of EU, but they were scaled back to their current state. If the game is designed from the foundation to include estates as a key mechanic instead of being an optional DLC mechanic, I think they'll be better implemented.
The advisors could also receive another look. Plenty of room to make them more interesting than they currently are. Give them agendas, attach them to estates, allow us to improve their skills over time.
Those are just a couple things that EU5 could improve that EU4 can't really touch. A newly-released game is going to be inferior in some ways to a game that has had 10 years of post-release work on it, but taking a fresh look and fixing/improving what those 10 years could not is worth it.
- 5
- 2
- 1
My biggest concern with eu4 is that it has weight of 9 years of development and thus unfixable issues.
I mean, come on, game restarting every time you get back to main menu? Errors only because you switched dates back and forward? Saves being corrupted on load, because loading is not read-only operation? I don't know the exact technical reasons for that, but it all seems to be connected to the outdated engine, what also causes performance issues.
There are also core aspects of the game that are covered with layers and layers of patches that may not be fixable. For example units movement: because of mercenaries changes in 1.30, attaching (that was always making some armies moving with delay) suddenly became a very important feature and needed to be fixed. It's still broken after multiple fixes, delay units, it looks even more misleading than before, makes some units not retreating when they should what kills them, and overall breaks the movement. Also the tooltip when exactly an army will arrive is broken if you add any dynamic modifier to it, like monsoons.
No in general, there are problems in eu4 that may not be fixable, and for the game to develop, it seems to be in need to be re-made from scratch on a new engine, what eu5 should be.
I mean, come on, game restarting every time you get back to main menu? Errors only because you switched dates back and forward? Saves being corrupted on load, because loading is not read-only operation? I don't know the exact technical reasons for that, but it all seems to be connected to the outdated engine, what also causes performance issues.
There are also core aspects of the game that are covered with layers and layers of patches that may not be fixable. For example units movement: because of mercenaries changes in 1.30, attaching (that was always making some armies moving with delay) suddenly became a very important feature and needed to be fixed. It's still broken after multiple fixes, delay units, it looks even more misleading than before, makes some units not retreating when they should what kills them, and overall breaks the movement. Also the tooltip when exactly an army will arrive is broken if you add any dynamic modifier to it, like monsoons.
No in general, there are problems in eu4 that may not be fixable, and for the game to develop, it seems to be in need to be re-made from scratch on a new engine, what eu5 should be.
- 5
- 2
- Status