I'm afraid of EU5

[deretao]

im starting to feel upset about some discussions here.

why Imperator Rome isnt a game where any nation in anywhere could be a Rome? i mean, a human player could have the possibility, but to expect the Ai to act like that is kinda nonsene for a game named IMPERATOR ROME

The same with vick2: omg, why cant all nations have the power to become a colonial empire? human players can achieve it, but if the AI do it all the time, i wonder why the game is called victoria.

But i dont see many discussions about that, so why in europa universalis there are people normalizing a game that, by now, its not acting like its supposed to be. When i bought this game in 2014 and all the expansions later i kept wanting to see historical improvements in every single version. And i get this for a while, but now EU4 seems to be dominated by World Conquest players. It just seems, as we are seeing in recent months the growing of complaints about this situation.

I really wanna PDX to offer diverse experiences. Thats why i expect an EU5 with options for players that want a historial immersion and for players that doesnt care about it at all.

 

[grandadmiralbob]

Bring on EU5...... without all the buffs please. The Sweden buffs in today's DD speaks about the current buffeatures of the "flavor packs." It's getting tiresome.

 

[deretao]

I really don't know how much of a historical simulation you can get in a game like this. Unless you, the player, do things exactly how it was done in history there's no way for the setting not to see things at that moment that are unique for the time and thus act in a unique way.

Honestly though, I wouldn't even want a historical simulator. That makes things way too predictable and removes some of the challenge to the game. If I knew, say, that in a certain year Country X will start a civil war that makes them vulnerable to attack, then I could, as the player, just wait for that time and then attack Country X and perhaps easily conquer them. If, however, that civil war wasn't pre-programmed to happen, I would never know when- or even if- the event happens, making the calculation concerning attacking Country X that much harder to make.

What I would like- and this is where I would agree with the OP- is for large countries to collapse without needing my intervention to do it. Much of the problem here stems from the fact that, unless the province has a core belonging to a nation that can form in that province, you'll never see countries break apart into smaller pieces because there's no way for them to do so. One possible solution could be ensuring that you can make each state into a country (meaning that, say, in the state of Lazio-Umbria each province would have a core that would belong to a country also named Lazio-Umbria, which can be released via treaty or by separatists). You can also program that each country has the capability to split into "west" and "east" halves, if they have more than one province. Perhaps, also, the only way a country could have a core exclusive to their province is if that core is in their capital state.

I don't know...just spinning my wheels. The main thing is, there's got to be easier ways to break up a country other than someone else takes their provinces, because, in history, countries broke up in many other ways.

i agree partially with you. i agree that a pure historical simulator is something quite boring, since you know what will happen. Thats why i like so much of the mix (game fiction + historical facts) that EU4 always has been.

But for me this boring/predictable experience is happening now. And you said a reason for it: empires are just growing, and growing, and growing... this game is being decided in the firt 100 years. Out of 400 years of game, in just one quarter of this period you get to know how the game will end. Thats why i want a more historical game. The ottos were having too much trouble to maintain its influence in the end of the game timeline. And this was somewhat represent in the early stages of EU4, with the janissary disaster and its consequences, for example. But now, what before was achievable only by human players (an otto empire larger, richier and more powerfull than what happened in reality) is being achieved every single game by AI. And Russia? Russia is almost a joke in every game. They grow stronger until its first war with ottos. It almost always end in defeat for Russia and its subsequent desintegration. Some historical context would be an improvement for the game´s playability for me.

 

[Nevars]

ok, then, im not affirming that all the experiences and facts of this era were all the same (sea powers beating land powers), and i do not advocate for a game that emulates just that. but are you using one unique example to say that maritime empires of europe werent decisive against land empires (in most of times)? maybe we learnt different histories.

Maybe we did indeed learn different history because european empires only have decisive advantage against asian empires in mid to late 19th century, actually past the end date of EU4.

Before that europe only win against small polities in asia.

Like for example, as late as 1624, the spanish attempted gunboat policy against Ayutthaya (Siam) but got overwhelmed, lost all ships with 150 spanish killed and the rest imprisoned by thai.

The great European maritime empire (Spain) lost against Asian land based empire (Ayutthaya).

To be fair though by this time european ship was already superior to asian one, as long as it is in open sea that is so why in this naval battle spain lost against siam eventhough it has superior ship?

Because they got lure to fight in river in which siam ship has massive superior maneuver and do not subjected to the wind so it turn into a curbstomp against spain.

Source: A History of Ayutthaya: Siam in the Early Modern World by Chris Baker and Pasuk Phongpaichit

Which got it source from Dutch in seventeenth-century Thailand by Smith

So my statement still apply, Europe (an thus your maritime empire) advantage over other did not become decisive untill very late in game time or even actually after the end date.

People can actually argue that currently Europe in game advantage against Asian is actually excessive and unrealistic, not the other way around.

So did you perhaps confusing EU4 timeframe with Victoria 2 timeframe?

why Imperator Rome isnt a game where any nation in anywhere could be a Rome? i mean, a human player could have the possibility, but to expect the Ai to act like that is kinda nonsene for a game named IMPERATOR ROME

Don't get hang up on the name, despite it being named Imperator Rome, the era it feature is actually at the height of hellenic power.

Great power at the start of game are various diadochi of Alexander's empire while Rome is just some backwater barbarian and not that actually important (well the game buff rome well beyond what is reasonable to make rome cheat mode for player and becoming end game boss as an ai).

 

[deretao]

Maybe we did indeed learn different history because european empires only have decisive advantage against asian empires in mid to late 19th century, actually past the end date of EU4.

Before that europe only win against small polities in asia.

Like for example, as late as 1624, the spanish attempted gunboat policy against Ayutthaya (Siam) but got overwhelmed, lost all ships with 150 spanish killed and the rest imprisoned by thai.

To be fair though by this time european ship was already superior to asian one, as long as it is in open sea that is so why in this naval battle spain lost against siam eventhough it has superior ship?

Because they got lure to fight in river in which siam ship has massive superior maneuver and do not subjected to the wind so it turn into a curbstomp against spain.

Source: A History of Ayutthaya: Siam in the Early Modern World by Chris Baker and Pasuk Phongpaichit

Which got it source from Dutch in seventeenth-century Thailand by Smith

Don't get hang up on the name, despite it being named Imperator Rome, the era it feature is actually at the height of hellenic power.

Great power at the start of game are various diadochi of Alexander's empire while Rome is just some backwater barbarian and not that actually important (well the game buff rome well beyond what is reasonable to make rome cheat mode for player and becoming end game boss as an ai).

I do not disagree with you in many things ur saying, but i think ur undesrtanding me wrongly. im not defending an ahistorical game where europeans will always prevail and asians will always fall. I want to see mechanics of colonization, commerce and naval tactics improved, so that we can at least play a colonial game. Before, we had trade companies. It had problems, since spain, france or uk were having easy life in conquering south asia by 1700, but it provided the essential foothole in asia to improve commerce. Europeans only have decisive advantage in late 19th century, but the conflict europeans x asians started much earlier. Portugal conquered various coastal cities in south asia in 16th and 17h centuries. And the main reasons for the decline of its presence in asia was a combination of dutch agressiveness and spanish interference.

Netherlands is almost always a missed oportunity in this game. It is rare to see it forming, the battle for its independence has always been broken and they almost never build a colonial empire in asia. France now keeps getting south african provinces just to lose it for Zimbabwe or Kilwa. Maritime power was never nerfed as now. Blockading ports has too little importance in non-island nations.

Also, i didnt like the westernization decision, but im liking much less the way it is now. At least, with the westrernization mechanism, the europeans could have a chance against asians. In some versions, europeans were overtuned, but in others they were not. But now they can only manage to survive in the islands of the Pacific Ocean.

And i think Imperator Rome is an adequate name. Yes, the timeline includes the height of hellenic power but also, and more importantly for the game mechanisms, the ascencion of Rome and descension of Carthage, Greek cities, Pontus...

 

[Vicendum]

i agree partially with you. i agree that a pure historical simulator is something quite boring, since you know what will happen. Thats why i like so much of the mix (game fiction + historical facts) that EU4 always has been.

But for me this boring/predictable experience is happening now. And you said a reason for it: empires are just growing, and growing, and growing... this game is being decided in the firt 100 years. Out of 400 years of game, in just one quarter of this period you get to know how the game will end. Thats why i want a more historical game. The ottos were having too much trouble to maintain its influence in the end of the game timeline. And this was somewhat represent in the early stages of EU4, with the janissary disaster and its consequences, for example. But now, what before was achievable only by human players (an otto empire larger, richier and more powerfull than what happened in reality) is being achieved every single game by AI. And Russia? Russia is almost a joke in every game. They grow stronger until its first war with ottos. It almost always end in defeat for Russia and its subsequent desintegration. Some historical context would be an improvement for the game´s playability for me.

I'm not sure how making things more historical fixes that problem, especially with the historical nations you provided. In the time frame of EU4, both the Ottomans and the Russians were in the ascendancy and neither collapsed until the late 19th/early 20th centuries, and it was really only the Ottoman Empire breaking apart.

One of the other issues with this game is that the AI is way too slow to react to nations becoming big. In real life, if a nation is expanding, the smaller nations would band together until their combined strength checked the advance of the expanding power. I know the game has coalitions, but I hardly ever see them used and they hardly ever win. I'd also like to have the ability to form mutual defence alliances, where if one nation gets attacked, everyone else rises up in defence. Perhaps in this case the federation mechanic can available to more than just the tribal governments, because more than just tribes formed federations.

I'm also not sure if the impact of a country going over their governing capacity is strong enough to deter the AI from future expansion. Different countries had different limitations based on their setups. The Ottomans, for example, would always gather their entire army at Constantinople before going out on their campaign. A historian figured, based on this setup, that the Ottoman Empire's natural limits were Vienna and Tabriz, which was how far the Ottomans actually expanded. So, perhaps, the governing capacity of the Ottomans is not where it should be.

What's clear to me is that, in EU4, the "balance" part of the "balance of power" system clearly doesn't work like it should. I'd say that's the one aspect that should have a heavy focus in developing EU5.

 

[Nevars]

I do not disagree with you in many things ur saying, but i think ur undesrtanding me wrongly. im not defending an ahistorical game where europeans will always prevail and asians will always fall. I want to see mechanics of colonization, commerce and naval tactics improved, so that we can at least play a colonial game. Before, we had trade companies. It had problems, since spain, france or uk were having easy life in conquering south asia by 1700, but it provided the essential foothole in asia to improve commerce. Europeans only have decisive advantage in late 19th century, but the conflict europeans x asians started much earlier. Portugal conquered various coastal cities in south asia in 16th and 17h centuries. And the main reasons for the decline of its presence in asia was a combination of dutch agressiveness and spanish interference.

Netherlands is almost always a missed oportunity in this game. It is rare to see it forming, the battle for its independence has always been broken and they almost never build a colonial empire in asia. France now keeps getting south african provinces just to lose it for Zimbabwe or Kilwa. Maritime power was never nerfed as now. Blockading ports has too little importance in non-island nations.

Also, i didnt like the westernization decision, but im liking much less the way it is now. At least, with the westrernization mechanism, the europeans could have a chance against asians. In some versions, europeans were overtuned, but in others they were not. But now they can only manage to survive in the islands of the Pacific Ocean.

And i think Imperator Rome is an adequate name. Yes, the timeline includes the height of hellenic power but also, and more importantly for the game mechanisms, the ascencion of Rome and descension of Carthage, Greek cities, Pontus...

Like I said before, until late 19th century the european only able to conquer a much much smaller asian polities.

The Portugal example is exactly what I said, they only manage to conquer small coastal cities in SEA that only manage to survive until Portugal arrival by being tributary of larger SEA polities.

You know what the Portugal did after they conquered Malacca? Immedietly dispatch an evoy to Siam (Ayutthaya) to placate them (some thai account even saw this as Portugeus Malacca resuming the tributary status iirc) cuz they know that Malacca was norminally tributary of Siam and if they retaliate then Portugal can't hold Malacca against them.

 

[deretao]

Like I said before, until late 19th century the european only able to conquer a much much smaller asian polities.

The Portugal example is exactly what I said, they only manage to conquer small coastal cities in SEA that only manage to survive until Portugal arrival by being tributary of larger SEA polities.

You know what the Portugal did after they conquered Malacca? Immedietly dispatch an evoy to Siam (Ayutthaya) to placate them (some thai account even saw this as Portugeus Malacca resuming the tributary status iirc) cuz they know that Malacca was norminally tributary of Siam and if they retaliate then Portugal can't hold Malacca against them.

I get it. But whats happening now is exactly this: neither portugal nor netherlands are grabbing this small states. Portugal keeps getting stucked in the inslands of the pacific (south of india and arabian peninsula) and thats all. Netherlands doesnt form or form in a precarious state. And recently neither UK is getting there in half of the games, since it keeps geting beaten by north and central americas native nations and keeps struggling to maintain its africans provices, therefore it is having too much trouble in reaching asia. Spain is the less of the problems, since it reaches asia through south america and sometimes colonize the phillipines. But thats all and for me its not fun anymore to play a colonial empire against nations that arent forming colonial empires anymore or are forming precarious ones.

 

[cristofolmc]

The good thing about being the most oversimplified, simpistic and gamey title in PDX is that it cannot get worse, only better. Thats precisely the one thing that everyone agrees on on their petitions for eu5, deeper systems.

You honestly cannot simplify it more than it is. The game is a nice UI'ed version of a spreadsheet played on a map

 

[eanske]

I agree with the original post, but I haven't lost all hope. My gut says the two main improvements would be to have pops and dangerous rebels. Both are already present in other games of PDX.

I think pops would slow down the blobbing of the large empires to a rate it would be more realistic. It would be a delight if the ottomans would actually lose 1M pops in 1700 if they went to war, instead of just at the cost of an imaginary manpower number and a reduction of professionalism.

And for large empires to collapse I think it could be better to have CK3-like system where unsatisfied regions collaborate and start an actual tough war (at a pop-cost..) instead of a timer releasing some predictable single rebel armies at different times. Managing the internal coalitions could also be used to improve peace time action in the game.

 

[petertju]

The good thing about being the most oversimplified, simpistic and gamey title in PDX is that it cannot get worse, only better. Thats precisely the one thing that everyone agrees on on their petitions for eu5, deeper systems.

You honestly cannot simplify it more than it is. The game is a nice UI'ed version of a spreadsheet played on a map

I guarantee you that EU5 will be more simplified, simplistic and gamey.

 

[cristofolmc]

I guarantee you that EU5 will be more simplified, simplistic and gamey.

I honestly cant see how they can dumb down any more any features. Replace buildings by mana?

 

[ArtFart]

Bring on EU5...... without all the buffs please. The Sweden buffs in today's DD speaks about the current buffeatures of the "flavor packs." It's getting tiresome.

The buffs are what makes the game fun. Swedish ideas have been super popular in the community for ages because of how fun it makes Sweden. Not every country has to be ultra historical with no bounds for it's expansion. We want these ultra OP nations once in a while because they are damn fun, while they are at it they can make nations like Mali, hard start, awesome end.

Basically, more buffs please!

 

[ArtFart]

I honestly cant see how they can dumb down any more any features. Replace buildings by mana?

I mean.... look at Vic3's combat. I wouldn't put it past them.

 

[grandadmiralbob]

The buffs are what makes the game fun. Swedish ideas have been super popular in the community for ages because of how fun it makes Sweden. Not every country has to be ultra historical with no bounds for it's expansion. We want these ultra OP nations once in a while because they are damn fun, while they are at it they can make nations like Mali, hard start, awesome end.

Basically, more buffs please!

If fun=easy to you, just play it on very easy. Missions adds buffs that are unfair. The stupid AI doesn't go for them like a player does and that's just the mission tree. When you say buffs make the game fun.... speak for yourself bro.

 

[ArtFart]

If fun=easy to you, just play it on very easy. Missions adds buffs that are unfair. The stupid AI doesn't go for them like a player does and that's just the mission tree. When you say buffs make the game fun.... speak for yourself bro.

Sure, I speak for myself, but it's no secret that the community loves to make Prussian space marines, conquest the entire world as a horde and the Swedish ideas. Basically, buffs, cool missions, ideas etc are popular, and there is overwhelming support for this DLC too. I never said easy=fun, I said buffs and missions are fun. 2 different things.

 

[Susan1972]

Where do we all meet on the middle on this? I'm sure PDX would be happy to make a dense, highly granular simulation for the Hardcore Historians, but PDX needs to stay in business by appealing to a wider audience (those meatballs aren't free, yanno) of the 4X crowd. IMHO, EU5 could be EU4 but with the mechanics tuned and streamlined. And, I don't mind if they want to keep things roughly historically proportionate throughout the campaign. I really don't even mind the light scripting of the various "ages" which does add some challenges and adds a little predictability.

What's your line?

 

[petertju]

I honestly cant see how they can dumb down any more any features. Replace buildings by mana?

sth to remind about this: EU4 is actually a very complicated game. You are (probably) a hardcore fan. You have played EU3(badges are useful ), you are on a Paradox Forum since 2009, you have an opinion about how the successor of this game should look like. So, based on this, I dare to say that you are good at this game. So you see a feature and can immediately say that it is easy and doesn't add anything to the game. But you have a very different standard then someone who just started with the game or a less dedicated fan. Furthermore, the more we play the game, the better you get and the easier other features become.

 

[grandadmiralbob]

Sure, I speak for myself, but it's no secret that the community loves to make Prussian space marines, conquest the entire world as a horde and the Swedish ideas. Basically, buffs, cool missions, ideas etc are popular, and there is overwhelming support for this DLC too. I never said easy=fun, I said buffs and missions are fun. 2 different things.

Buffs make the game easier. And missions are a good idea, but the AI doesn't prioritize them. When/if they get the rewards, but don't use them properly. The missions for Bruneii and Orissa are good examples. The beginning missions for Bruneii are VERY easy and a player would know how to capitalize on them quickly. The missions for Orissa are a good idea, but the AI will NEVER be able to do it effectively. What that means is, the player will get a buff and the AI never will. That makes the game easier and it feels like I'm playing a game against a child, but I'm using cheat codes. So while I do wish they would work on EU5, I do agree that it is popular to have OP BS in this game. But hey, we gotta dumb it down this game so everyone can be like DDRJake can do a WC.

 

[cristofolmc]

sth to remind about this: EU4 is actually a very complicated game. You are (probably) a hardcore fan. You have played EU3(badges are useful ), you are on a Paradox Forum since 2009, you have an opinion about how the successor of this game should look like. So, based on this, I dare to say that you are good at this game. So you see a feature and can immediately say that it is easy and doesn't add anything to the game. But you have a very different standard then someone who just started with the game or a less dedicated fan. Furthermore, the more we play the game, the better you get and the easier other features become.

Im not saying it cant be difficult for someone new. But not because mechanics are deep or complex. Its because the game is completely bloated with crap that can overwhelm anyone no matter how smart they are, and until you familiarise and become confortable with all the modifiers and tabs and menus, yes it would feel difficult. But not because any of the mechanics have any depth. Im all for reducing feature bloat. That wont mean the game will be easier if the fewer mechanics left are better designed and have more depth. It would just mean that its more new player friendly.

But yeah non of the mechanics are complicated. They are all mana-button-modifier, repeat. But there is just soooo many of them that can feel overwhelming, there is so much info and stuff to remember and become familiar with. But that is all. Almost all other pdx titles, well, all others really, are way more in depth and complicated, they just have less years of feature and tabs bloating to navigate and become familiar with.