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
Because many of the core mechanics have not aged well, and Paradox's DLC policy means that many of the added mechanics do not interact with the core mechanics, and certainly don't interact with each other, leaving the game a somewhat bloated mess with systems that should be interacting but don't. Also, there are way to many currencies in game.
However, the number one reason for an EU5 is simply, the Circum-Mediterranean Highway needs to be removed from the game. In order for that to happen, there needs to be a bottom up reconstruction of the AI for the purposes of determining military access or for attrition.
However, the number one reason for an EU5 is simply, the Circum-Mediterranean Highway needs to be removed from the game. In order for that to happen, there needs to be a bottom up reconstruction of the AI for the purposes of determining military access or for attrition.
- 5
- 2
Devs have come on record several times to say how EU4 is buckling under its own weight by now, with its age becoming ever more of a burden, it really cannot take another few years of development and expansions on top of that.
So it's not really that we need an EU5 (that's a subjective question, and the CK2/3 transition has divided opinions on how well that can be accomplished), but the reality is that EU4's lifecycle is coming to an end soon, it's approaching (if not already reached) the point where further development is actually detrimental for the game, PDX and us as well.
I suppose then, the only real choice is between EU5 and no game at all, with the franchise sitting in the shelf for a while, like Vicky did for so long.
Really, between these two options, I see no reason to be against an EU5, as EU4 will still be there, with its dev cycle closed, remaining untouched and pristine, with or without the new game.
So regardless of EU5 being a good game or not, everyone will still be free to play EU4, as has been the case for so many PDX games by now (I believe there are still quite a few HoI3 and EU3 puritans out there).
And, once again, continuing to release expansions for EU4 indefinitely isn't an option, so there'll be zero competition for resources between EU4 and 5.
So it's not really that we need an EU5 (that's a subjective question, and the CK2/3 transition has divided opinions on how well that can be accomplished), but the reality is that EU4's lifecycle is coming to an end soon, it's approaching (if not already reached) the point where further development is actually detrimental for the game, PDX and us as well.
I suppose then, the only real choice is between EU5 and no game at all, with the franchise sitting in the shelf for a while, like Vicky did for so long.
Really, between these two options, I see no reason to be against an EU5, as EU4 will still be there, with its dev cycle closed, remaining untouched and pristine, with or without the new game.
So regardless of EU5 being a good game or not, everyone will still be free to play EU4, as has been the case for so many PDX games by now (I believe there are still quite a few HoI3 and EU3 puritans out there).
And, once again, continuing to release expansions for EU4 indefinitely isn't an option, so there'll be zero competition for resources between EU4 and 5.
- 1
- 1
I honestly love EU4 to death, but I can see that myself that it's not going to be sustainable for too much longer. There are so many superfluous mechanics that most people, outside of the hardcore sweaty min-maxers, don't use.
I think EU5 could be a great opportunity for a fresh start if they build on a lot of the base mechanics like CK3 did. The problem with CK3 is that although it's a solid base, it feels less flavoured than CK2, which wouldn't be an issue in and of itself; however, the development cycle for the game has been painfully slow and after almost 2 years, not much has changed and I can't say I'd rather play CK3 over CK2. I personally fear a similar situation.
I personally believe though that There'd be a conflict as to what people envision EU5 to be. Some people want it more simulation like, but others like myself, would prefer it to play out more historically, without player intervention, but still be very reactive and alive, something similar in spirit to EU4 with its DHEs but expanded. I could see arguments for other the side too, but I personally don't feel every game needs POPs and I don't think the simulation would hold too well over the long time-frame of the game and still produce something resembling the real world situation. Then there are people who argue for a short game, since most don't play that late into game and I can see the reasoning. But I could also see that instead of cutting the length, they could add more depth to the late game, with changes in mechanics and make empire management more detailed and difficult to prevent the late-game snowballing that makes it too easy and boring. Although fun and not arbitrarily punishing anti-snowball mechanics might be hard too... and the debates can go on and on, and not everyone will be happy at the end.
One thing I don't really want at all is a 3D character model system. I don't know why, but paradox has felt the need to push and I feel it's not needed at all. The one from I:R was perfectly fine and I certainly don't development time wasted on a DLC focused on this nonsense, when there are far more pressing matters (see: CK3 Royal Court).
I'm a bit worried, if not sceptical, but id defi keep an open mind. I could definitely see EU5 doing a better job at trade, culture, empire management (and collapse) and importantly colonisation. If it launches with flavour and mechanics for all the big actors of time period, it'd definitely have a very sturdy base with great potential. I understand the corporate need for growth, but I also just hope they cater to the existing fanbase first, as they are the reason the previous games' success.
I think EU5 could be a great opportunity for a fresh start if they build on a lot of the base mechanics like CK3 did. The problem with CK3 is that although it's a solid base, it feels less flavoured than CK2, which wouldn't be an issue in and of itself; however, the development cycle for the game has been painfully slow and after almost 2 years, not much has changed and I can't say I'd rather play CK3 over CK2. I personally fear a similar situation.
I personally believe though that There'd be a conflict as to what people envision EU5 to be. Some people want it more simulation like, but others like myself, would prefer it to play out more historically, without player intervention, but still be very reactive and alive, something similar in spirit to EU4 with its DHEs but expanded. I could see arguments for other the side too, but I personally don't feel every game needs POPs and I don't think the simulation would hold too well over the long time-frame of the game and still produce something resembling the real world situation. Then there are people who argue for a short game, since most don't play that late into game and I can see the reasoning. But I could also see that instead of cutting the length, they could add more depth to the late game, with changes in mechanics and make empire management more detailed and difficult to prevent the late-game snowballing that makes it too easy and boring. Although fun and not arbitrarily punishing anti-snowball mechanics might be hard too... and the debates can go on and on, and not everyone will be happy at the end.
One thing I don't really want at all is a 3D character model system. I don't know why, but paradox has felt the need to push and I feel it's not needed at all. The one from I:R was perfectly fine and I certainly don't development time wasted on a DLC focused on this nonsense, when there are far more pressing matters (see: CK3 Royal Court).
I'm a bit worried, if not sceptical, but id defi keep an open mind. I could definitely see EU5 doing a better job at trade, culture, empire management (and collapse) and importantly colonisation. If it launches with flavour and mechanics for all the big actors of time period, it'd definitely have a very sturdy base with great potential. I understand the corporate need for growth, but I also just hope they cater to the existing fanbase first, as they are the reason the previous games' success.
- 2
The DLC's from years back could be integrated into the game at this stage. Obviously not Emperor, Leviathan or Origins of course but stuff like Rights of Man and Common Sense. It'd shorten the list dramatically.
An alternative would be to slash the base game's price to £10 and then have a £40 version with all DLC up to 2019 or so. A subscription with a cost equal of half the price of Netflix for one videogame is absurd.
I'm pretty happy with EU4 as it is. I was also happy with CK2. CK3 has a much better interface and graphics but I see no reason to stop with CK2 for now. The only thing I feel like EU4 is missing is a more meaningful religion and culture system and a lack of tangible change from late feudal state to early modern one.
- 2
Yes, but it will have worse UI and graphics with better resolution. So its worth it.
- 1
Y'all are hating the people who don't want a new game, it is crazy. I mean, who cares about if EU5 is in development? The next DLC's would be in total the same price as the game and EU5 would be heck of a lot buggier than 1.33 EU4. When the game comes out, you'd be complaining about "how it is unplayable" or "I wasted my money on the buggiest game ever" or "why did I ask for this?".
Just hold your Polish Cavalry this second, and just wait. The reason you want the game so badly is because the quality of EU4 right now is getting worse, but who is to know 1.34 or 1.35 would be worser? I believe that waiting is better than watching a kettle boil.
Respectably Disagree this however you want, you will know that switching to a new game is like forming a new country; destabilising, hard to do and full of unrest because of the unruly peasants who wanted the nation and saw it struggle to govern itself. Vic3 would be like that, and CK3 had a similar fate.
Oh, and thanks for the red crosses!
Just hold your Polish Cavalry this second, and just wait. The reason you want the game so badly is because the quality of EU4 right now is getting worse, but who is to know 1.34 or 1.35 would be worser? I believe that waiting is better than watching a kettle boil.
Respectably Disagree this however you want, you will know that switching to a new game is like forming a new country; destabilising, hard to do and full of unrest because of the unruly peasants who wanted the nation and saw it struggle to govern itself. Vic3 would be like that, and CK3 had a similar fate.
Oh, and thanks for the red crosses!
- 4
EU4 came out with every dlc and feature that EU3 had at completion. While EU4 has a lot, Paradox's track record for the EU series is to make more not less of their next game.
- 3
- Status