I'm afraid of EU5

[ArtFart]

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.

All other PDX GSG games are more in-depth than EU4?

Hoi4's economic management is non-existent. Have this factory for this good. Wow so in-depth! Not to mention the combat design and troop making process. Let's make a wall of troops that are 40 width, that'll naturally kill these troops. The only somewhat in-depth feature HOI4 has is the supply mechanic, and even that's fairly simple, build supply depots, connect with tracks. Done. Don't even mention the "World Tension" mechanic.

Compare this to EU4. EU4 has a trade mechanic, yes it's not super complex but it's there and functions as it is. EU4 has VASTLY more options that HOI4 does for diplomacy, peace negotiations and espionage. Furthermore, EU4's combat is more dynamic with modifiers from missions, generals have a larger impact, different troop types make a significant difference and fort mechanics are much better. Oh and the building mechanic. HOI4 you have 2 factory choices, AA, fort and an airfield/port. EU4 has VASTLY more types of buildings that upgrade due to technological advances. EU4 also has money, for some reason HOI4 uses damn factories as a currency.

CK3. Combat is very very simple, which ever side has more troops that are of quality wins. Events are all the same basically, relatively no diplomatic simulation. To get an alliance you just marry a distant relative off and that immediately entitles you to the entire countries army at will. Also, no navy mechanics at all, pay this amount to transport these troops here, they are immune to attacks during this journey, huh??

In EU4 alliances vary a lot more. It's not a instant grantee you'll have support, you'll need high relations with them using diplomacy and gifts. CK3's tech system is tied with culture, and isn't at revolutionary, sure the time period isn't great for that but EU4's system is way better with institutions and greater control over tech. Building in CK3 are yet again more simple than EU4's. This building gives X amount of money a month, this one slightly more. In EU4 the buildings have unique modifiers and adjustments.

Victoria 2, yep this is more complex than EU4, I'll give you that. But even in Vic2 there are some aspects that are more simple. Combat in Vic 2 was more of an afterthought and was pre-CK2 combat which EU4 refined further.

No, EU4 is not the most simple PDX game. Maybe to you it is with hundreds of hours, but it's not the the average gamer.

 

[Arizal]

I took a very cursory look at the thread and the OP. I disagree with the OP in the sense that to me, it is not the game that should be more historical, but the mechanics of the game that should be fluider and better able to portray what could have happened.

In that sense, I hate missions with passion. They do nothing to give us a sense that an history is unfolding, they just try to harmstrung us to one history that happened or that would have happened in the mind of some content creators. It's even worst lately, as the devs seem to put more and more emphasis on this feature, following their failure at adding uninspired buttons and feature bloat.

This emphasis make missions more part of the game, and more mandatory to supposedly enjoy it. Missions have never been at the core of how I perceived a grand strategy game ought to be. They are the antithesis of the dynamism and complexity that those games should strive for. Like other, country specific mechanics, they encourage the players to see their countries in only limited ways.

If the OP is telling that they should add more things that railroad the game, I am against it. If he argues for more systems, and system overhauls, representing more accurately how the world was at the time, I'm all for it.

 

[Black_Shade]

It's the mission/focus trees really. They have hamstrung EU4 and HoI4 at this point and now all the DLC are a never ending revolving door around them, rather than more important game improvements. HoI4 is the worst offender here, I mean how long has that game had a nonfunctional naval and air combat system, because the devs were too busy making insane alt history trees for Turkey and other non-combatants? It just boggles the mind at what Paradox has decided is important to focus on.

So I agree with the OP, I'm very worried for what is going to happen with Vic3 and EU5 down the road. Paradox has lost its touch, that's for sure.

 

[Rashie]

It's the mission/focus trees really. They have hamstrung EU4 and HoI4 at this point and now all the DLC are a never ending revolving door around them, rather than more important game improvements. HoI4 is the worst offender here, I mean how long has that game had a nonfunctional naval and air combat system, because the devs were too busy making insane alt history trees for Turkey and other non-combatants? It just boggles the mind at what Paradox has decided is important to focus on.

So I agree with the OP, I'm very worried for what is going to happen with Vic3 and EU5 down the road. Paradox has lost its touch, that's for sure.

For how long is a curious question, considering what you're positing as the reason isn't true.

Paradox outsourced the production of the focus trees in that DLC with turkey to external content creators, it is not why there were such a gap between LR and NSB with more serious gameplay additions.

 

[Black_Shade]

For how long is a curious question, considering what you're positing as the reason isn't true.

The reason absolutely is true though. You realize there have been more focus trees done than Turkey/Bulgaria and that expansion right? They've redone the focus trees for every major power now (save Italy, which will be done in the current expansion). Those dev hours should have been spent on something far more important than silly alt history pathways. Air combat in HoI4 has never worked, with instant teleportation of planes and making it impossible intercept planes on route to their target. The naval combat was bad but kind of worked until man the guns, at which point it turned into a WW1 combat simulator where your carrier fleets try to charge into combat and facehug the enemy fleet. It's been years and these core systems of the game basically don't work at all, yet they've spent time doing and redoing focus trees instead.

The focus trees also end up railroading the game into two or three set directions, rather than having an organic system that everyone operates within. Relying on the focus trees completely changes how the game functions and what the devs focus on. What has happened with HoI4 and EU4 is not good.

 

[Rashie]

The reason absolutely is true though. You realize there have been more focus trees done than Turkey/Bulgaria and that expansion right? They've redone the focus trees for every major power now (save Italy, which will be done in the current expansion). Those dev hours should have been spent on something far more important than silly alt history pathways. Air combat in HoI4 has never worked, with instant teleportation of planes and making it impossible intercept planes on route to their target. The naval combat was bad but kind of worked until man the guns, at which point it turned into a WW1 combat simulator where your carrier fleets try to charge into combat and facehug the enemy fleet. It's been years and these core systems of the game basically don't work at all, yet they've spent time doing and redoing focus trees instead.

The focus trees also end up railroading the game into two or three set directions, rather than having an organic system that everyone operates within. Relying on the focus trees completely changes how the game functions and what the devs focus on. What has happened with HoI4 and EU4 is not good.

You claiming it to be "absolutely true" does not make it so, sadly.

The point about the outsourcing was the reason that stands out the most for why what you posited isn't the case, but isn't the only one by far. There's actual differences in the skill sets needed to produce flavour content, and to rework actual gameplay mechanics. Production of one does not hinder the other like that.

You can disagree about it from a game design perspective about how it makes the wider diplomatic game flow, but it's presence doesn't have that sort of impact on the state of how combat works.

 

[Ixal]

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.

Thats because of the "new" mission trees which not only railroad nations but also kicked the power creep into overdrive.
And they are sadly here to stay because the map painter kiddies love them and Paradox can easily make them and bundle them into DLC content.

 

[Sete]

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.

Yes Portugal did send a diplomatic mission, to justify the conquest of Malacca, and resume trade, Which Ayutthaya benefited greatly from in the form of gunpowder, muskets, and advice on military strategy to fight a war against the kingdom of Chiang Mai.






Could Ayutthaya have the logistics to block Malacca completely by land and sea? Especially in monsoon season?

Edit:

The Portuguese Arrival in Thailand​

The Portuguese were the first Europeans to make contact with Siam. They arrived in Ayutthaya in 1511 CE after capturing the port of Malacca (then known as Melaka) and sought a mutually beneficial relationship with the Thais. News of the attack on Malacca and rumours about the strength of the Portuguese military power had reached King Ramathibodi II (r. 1491-1529 CE), who may not have been entirely surprised to see a Chinese junk sail up the Chao Phraya River. Aboard was a diplomatic mission sent from Malacca by the Portuguese admiral and military commander Afonso de Albuquerque (1453-1515 CE) to justify the capture of the trading port, which was a tributary state of Siam. A Portuguese Malay-speaking tailor who had been imprisoned in Malacca was given the task of establishing friendly relations between the King of Portugal and the King of Siam.

King Ramathibodi II was presented with a golden sword in a diamond-studded sheath and a ruby ring. He accepted the Portuguese capture of Malacca, and so began a series of diplomatic and trading missions between Malacca and Ayutthaya, culminating in the signing of a trade treaty between the Portuguese envoy, Duarte Coelho Pereira (c. 1485-1554 CE).

PS: Lots of Portuguese mercenaries served around that area, and it is something I'm trying to discover more about.

 

[Vicendum]

What I believe EU4 truly lacks are later game challenges. You don't have new empires that spring up that would challenge your dominance. You don't have new religions or philosophies or political movements that sweep through your nation or your region and you have to make the tough choice to go with the wave or resist it. You don't have countries you are allied with or against have their leadership dramatically change which would change the dynamic of your relationship with them. You don't really get "boom" or "bust" periods for certain industries that would have a real impact on your economic abilities.

I know the game tries to throw a few curveballs here and there, but I find they're often arbitrary, random and ultimately meaningless. You can't affect decisions that would spur certain events, and, more often than not, after a few years, you're back to where you were before the event happened.

I also don't believe the game does a great job presenting scenarios as "either/or" propositions. It's not like if you're a republic you have benefits that a kingdom does not have and vice versa. Or if you favour one kind of economic system or another, or one religion or another. Everyone kind of operates the same way and that takes some of the fun out of the game. One reason to replay this game should be to give yourself a different situation so that you can deal with different challenges and strategies. There should be more to playing as a different country other than "I get to conquer a different set of territories".

 

[Arizal]

@Vicendum It depends, people don’t like their empires being wrecked by unforeseen catastrophes and having a big “endgame boss” can be interesting in the form of a big coalition, but it is usually followed by years of just eating up what’s left.

I would actually speed up the endgame once the Westphalian order is destroyed, having empires spontaneously offering to become vassals when they are diplomatically isolated so that you don’t have to fight countless pointless wars.

At the same time, I’m not arguing for an oversimplification. Ideally, as one skill at breaking the diplomatic wheel and beating his opponents increases, it should be replaced by challenges in the internal administration of his country. I long for the day when a EU will have an interesting internal management part, though.

 

[Vicendum]

It depends, people don’t like their empires being wrecked by unforeseen catastrophes and having a big “endgame boss” can be interesting in the form of a big coalition, but it is usually followed by years of just eating up what’s left.

I'm not arguing at all for random events that throw too much of a wrench into your country, like that stupid comet. I'm also not necessarily saying EU needs a Mario-like progression of "bosses" throughout the game.

I'm thinking more about having some organic challenges that your nation would have to work through, which can either be spurred by things you do with your nation or by outside events that should have an effect on your nation. We've already discussed the need for new powers and coalitions to emerge so there's no need to belabour that point. I'm thinking the game needs other challenges too. For example, if you develop certain provinces and neglect others, eventually the ones you've neglected might rebel. Or the emergence of the Enlightenment would make it much easier for you to develop and advance in technology but it would hamper your missionary efforts because less people are turning to religion. Or maybe the cumulative increase of production for a certain trade good eventually leads to a reduction in the price of that good, meaning you'd need to diversify your economy to blunt it's effects.

I'm just spinning my wheels here. I would definitely agree that internal nation management needs work, because there's really no challenge in managing your nation, especially once it becomes huge.

Ultimately, the ideal would be a game where you can take any nation with any kind of government setup, work through their distinct systems and challenges, and ultimately lead them to glory. Some countries may be easier to operate than others, but, ideally, no country should be impossible to master.

 

[Vapiritapiri]

I don't want EU5 because it'll mean we'll pay for several DLC's that contain features that should have been in the basegame.

 

[Atey]

I don't want EU5 because it'll mean we'll pay for several DLC's that contain features that should have been in the basegame.

How will you know that those features should’ve been in the base game? As long as the base game is enjoyable enough for you to justify its price it’s fine. Sure, the game will be fully developed only after years of expansions but if they didn’t release the base game until it had all those features, who do you think would pay for the development in the meantime? Nobody wants to spend 10 years developing a piece of software before it gets released.

 

[Aeroclub]

I don't know man, Stellaris seems pretty accurate to me.

 

[Arizal]

I don't know man, Stellaris seems pretty accurate to me.

What I do you mean? Stellaris went through a lot of deep reworks before being in its current state.

 

[Aeroclub]

What I do you mean? Stellaris went through a lot of deep reworks before being in its current state.

That was a joke regarding OP's complaint that PDS games are getting less realistic and accurate over time.

 

[DanubianCossak]

Let me put it like this.

This perpetual chase after this mythical entity called "wider audience", that Paradox has been after last oh at least 5 years, have led us to the point where their games are losing the core audience that have made Paradox what it is, without, imo, managing to attract these other groups of players.

So.

I think that what they are doing with Vicky 3 is supreme heresy, but i just dont really care that much for V3.

But.

If they do end up pushing Eu5 along the same path of streamlining and dumbifying the game beyond recognition, i think it might turn into another Rome fiasco.

And if that happens to a main brand like Europa Universalis, there might not be Paradox any more.

And they will have done it to themselves.

So i hope I REALLY hope that they will have a lot more common sense than that. Instead of streamlining and dumbifying EU brand they will instead expand and improve the stuff we know and love. I hope.

I look at mechanics in Eu4 like trade, combat and colonization and i cant believe that they havent touched them pretty much since release. And i fear.

 

[Zaddy]

Let me put it like this.

This perpetual chase after this mythical entity called "wider audience", that Paradox has been after last oh at least 5 years, have led us to the point where their games are losing the core audience that have made Paradox what it is, without, imo, managing to attract these other groups of players.

I'm unhappy with the state of the game but it should be emphasized that this isn't true: the game has more players than it did 5 years ago, at least on Steam.

 

[DanubianCossak]

I'm unhappy with the state of the game but it should be emphasized that this isn't true: the game has more players than it did 5 years ago, at least on Steam.

Im curious do you know how many (now vs then)?

 

[correctamundo]

Im curious do you know how many (now vs then)?

August 2013: 4486 on average.
May 2022: 16514.