Do not prevent World Conquest

[Paddy234]

The game's systems are hopefully balanced around allowing the player (with great difficulty) to replicate the greatest empires of real history.

Expert players will eventually improve upon those feats and push things further, but World Conquest is so far beyond what any real empire accomplished that making it a realistic goal would break game balance completely.

Like all EU titles it will be possible simply by going beyond the game's end date which i typically do anyway. It would just be nice if the Ai wasn't handicapped from also being able to create such an empire as snowballing will still be an issue if not worse

 

[Álvaro Núñez de Lara]

It's not a simple gamestyle choice as you put it. If world conquest is possible it is because the game is dumb down and easy enough that those who just want to get a realistic size empire, just get bored because it is too easy to achieve and has been achieved by 1550-1650. And it is made easy to achieve because a world conquest needs to be possible.

The result? The EU4 problem where people stop playing the game, and those who do play it drop it in 1600 because the game is to easy and the only thing left for you to do is to conquer the world, which is not a challenge, just a tedious chore. And forcing the player to drop the game because it is boring and it has already achieved by 1600 empires that realisticalyl should only exist in 1800 means that the player misses on 200 years worth of content. That means that the time of the developers goes to the bin, is not monetised, and is a loss for Paradox. The result? The developers just add content up to 1600 and design the game with 1600 as the effecting end date.

This is completely backwards and ruins the game and renders 200 years of the game available just useless and you might as well have the game end in 1600. If your end game in 1821 or whatever, you have an obligation to make it enjoyable and have content until the very end date and keep it challenging up to the last date so people who have paid for the whole game, enjoy the whole game, from day one till end date.

If you just want to see the whole world of a single colour and care for nothing else, keep playing EU4 or just colour a map on Paint or something, but do not ruin the game for the rest of us or deprive us of 200 SUPER interesting years of history with amazing content like wars of religion, the expansion of the British empire, the American and French revolution and the Napoleonic wars.

The only way a world conquest should be possible should be by playing an extended timeline mod which allows you to achieve it by 1950 or something like that, not in the base game.

 

[Monty is staring at me]

If Jet packs were in EVERY call of duty game since launch then would it be suprising that people would expect it in the newest title? WC has ALWAYS been possible in an EU game where conquest is encouraged. Why are you surprised it exists in EU5?

Also the irony is recreating the world would mean that two small islands in Western Europe would end up holding a quarter of the entire world. This game is largely about building Empires. If I want to go beyond the global 25% threshold that was reached throughout history that will be my choice. You can play the game how you want however. Within the limits of history. I like to create an alternate history as do most

The UK did not hold a quarter of the globe by 1836. It held far less of it, and the UK's grip on the world would not be possible without it gaining a temporary advantage later in the 19th century due to it being the heartland of the second industrial revolution.

Additionally, the UK in 1900 certainly couldn't be represented as "one tag", most of its colonies should be more accurately represented as subjects.

Very soon after the peak of the British Empire, the British lost it all.

And let's not gloss over the fact that the UK did not have any foothold in continental Europe at this point, and even at its peak, wouldn't be able to conquer France or Germany on it's own.

None of this is remotely close to what you are asking for. Which is why nobody on this forum would have an issue if you said "the formation of large European colonial empires shouldn't be prevented in EU5".

World conquests are absurd. They happen in past EU titles because those are shallow games that do not give enough agency to the actual people who you rule over.

As you can see from this forum, you are heavily, heavily outnumbered. I think that WCs not being possible is one of the main reasons people are excited for this game. We want a breath of fresh air, not just a bigger EU4.

 

[peteoj]

From what I gather from the youtubers who've played the game, the issue isn't necessarily seizing lands it's more so holding them as control and culture play a massive role in the stability and profitably of your nation. Which I like, the player will always be better at warfare than the ai, the issue should be in trying to hold your gains.

 

[Paddy234]

It's not a simple gamestyle choice as you put it. If world conquest is possible it is because the game is dumb down and easy enough that those who just want to get a realistic size empire, just get bored because it is too easy to achieve. And it is made easy to achieve because a world conquest needs to be possible.

The result? The EU4 problem where people stop playing the game, and those who do play it drop it in 1600 because the game is to easy and the only thing left for you to do is to conquer the world, which is not a challenge, just a tedious chore. And forcing the player to drop the game because it is boring and it has already achieved by 1600 empires that realisticalyl should only exist in 1800 means that the player misses on 200 years worth of content. That means that the time of the developers goes to the bin, is not monetised, and is a loss for Paradox. The result? The developers just add content up to 1600 and design the game with 1600 as the effecting end date.

This is completely backwards and ruins the game and renders 200 years of the game available just useless and you might as well have the game end in 1600. If your end game in 1821 or whatever, you have an obligation to make it enjoyable and have content until the very end date and keep it challenging up to the last date so people who have paid for the whole game, enjoy the whole game, from day one till end date.

If you just want to see the whole world of a single colour and care for nothing else, keep playing EU4 or just colour a map on Paint or something, but do not ruin the game for the rest of us or deprive us of 200 SUPER interesting years of history with amazing content like wars of religion, the expansion of the British empire, the American and French revolution and the Napoleonic wars.

Of course it is possible as is. Even the few streamers who have said it isn't only said so because of how long it would take however for the player who cares little for time and going beyond the end date it is very possible in EU5. The only problem is that the Ai will be more handicapped from creating large Empires apart nations that start off large at the beginning. This will make for a more predictable game where things play out similarly in each playstyle and where the player will still be able to snowball the Ai at some point.

The irony is your comment never once argued against WC. It merely was against the speed at which it occured. WC is possible in EU5 as it stands but it just takes MUCH longer

 

[Paddy234]

The UK did not hold a quarter of the globe by 1836. It held far less of it, and the UK's grip on the world would not be possible without it gaining a temporary advantage later in the 19th century due to it being the heartland of the second industrial revolution.

Additionally, the UK in 1900 certainly couldn't be represented as "one tag", most of its colonies should be more accurately represented as subjects.

Very soon after the peak of the British Empire, the British lost it all.

And let's not gloss over the fact that the UK did not have any foothold in continental Europe at this point, and even at its peak, wouldn't be able to conquer France or Germany on it's own.

None of this is remotely close to what you are asking for. Which is why nobody on this forum would have an issue if you said "the formation of large European colonial empires shouldn't be prevented in EU5".

World conquests are absurd. They happen in past EU titles because those are shallow games that do not give enough agency to the actual people who you rule over.

As you can see from this forum, you are heavily, heavily outnumbered. I think that WCs not being possible is one of the main reasons people are excited for this game. We want a breath of fresh air, not just a bigger EU4.

Again the game you are looking for is not in EU. If one wants to play a native Indian tribe that can advance and become a global power that is very much possible in EU5 which was less likely to happen than the UK or France taking 50% of the entire world. This isn't the rigid historical game you hope for.

Also WC is possible in EU5 as stated by several however it is MUCH more difficult. I just hope Paradox don't remove it completely but again it will always be modded back in so i'm not too bothered. Why did you think WC was removed from EU5? It still is possible, It just means it is so difficult it won't be feasible for the Ai as it will take so long to grow control. The player's empire will grow beyond what the Ai is capable thus snowballing occurs

 

[Aquila SPQR]

That makes no sense. Why would WC have to make conquering world powers like Spain and France easy?

Because if it'd be hard to conquer them you'd have no time left to do the rest of the conquests.

When we look at the largest Empires on earth a few did capture and HOLD for a period of time a large fraction of the world. Will we see the recreation of this? For example are you opposed to Empires existing in this game that controls 25% of the world which happened historically. If not then what about 30 or 50%? My point is that in this game why merely replicate history when we can exceed what happened historically?

I have no problems with exceeding what happened historically - all my EU games were about that. But it's a matter or plausibility. Byzantines surviving to XIX century? Ok, acceptable. Byzantines reconquering Egypt and Italy? Very unlikely, but why not. Byzantines conquering the entire world? Retarded.

But, as some people already told you - it's not only about what was possible or not IRL, but about game mechanics. A lot of players would love to see obstacles preventing your empire from becoming too large, because EUIV had no such obstacles and it became extremely boring very quickly. Personally I'd love too see forming and holding lands of historical PLC difficult. I'd love to see large empires struggling to keep all that land together. I'd love to see intelligent AI opposing the player successfully. Allowing WC means lifting those restrictions and that's something I would very, very dislike.

EUIV was about unrestricted blobbing, because there was nothing else really to do there.

I hope EUV will give us a game where conquests are secondary and building successful administration/trade/control/society is primary.

Tell me would it have been possible historically for a native Indian tribe to form an advanced civilization that could not just repel Europe but invade sections of it. Would you oppose this if were in the game however as an option?

Let's say I'm happy EUV will try to model the impact of European germs on American natives. If someone will somehow survive this and do the opposite - successfully invade Europe - fine, no problem. But even that - a very highly improbable scenario is still much more plausible than a WC.

EU has never been about what's historically possible but what is technically possible given the right actions and circumstances taken overtime. WC is technically possible and therefore is a choice.

Then it's time to change this and let things like Ulm conquering the world become impossible for the sake of all those players who would really like to play a simulation, not a completely wacky and mindless map painting.

 

[Paddy234]

Because if it'd be hard to conquer them you'd have no time left to do the rest of the conquests.



I have no problems with exceeding what happened historically - all my EU games were about that. But it's a matter or plausibility. Byzantines surviving to XIX century? Ok, acceptable. Byzantines reconquering Egypt and Italy? Very unlikely, but why not. Byzantines conquering the entire world? Retarded.

But, as some people already told you - it's not only about what was possible or not IRL, but about game mechanics. A lot of players would love to see obstacles preventing your empire from becoming too large, because EUIV had no such obstacles and it became extremely boring very quickly. Personally I'd love too see forming and holding lands of historical PLC difficult. I'd love to see large empires struggling to keep all that land together. I'd love to see intelligent AI opposing the player successfully. Allowing WC means lifting those restrictions and that's something I would very, very dislike.

EUIV was about unrestricted blobbing, because there was nothing else really to do there.

I hope EUV will give us a game where conquests are secondary and building successful administration/trade/control/society is primary.




Let's say I'm happy EUV will try to model the impact of European germs on American natives. If someone will somehow survive this and do the opposite - successfully invade Europe - fine, no problem. But even that - a very highly improbable scenario is still much more plausible than a WC.



Then it's time to change this and let things like Ulm conquering the world become impossible for the sake of all those players who would really play a simulation, not a completely wacky and mindless map painting.

Time? I'm a player that plays beyond the end game lol. I'll be conquering nations well into the modern era in EU5 lol.

The irony is that European colonization was largely about map painting the world to their own image. In the early 20th century over 80% of the entire world was under it's control. Shouldn't we see Europe replicate this? Perhaps one large European power could do it. I honestly believe it is more likely a European power could do this than a native Indian tribe become a global power.

I get the issue people have with blobbing but by making WC MUCH more difficult to perhaps what it is now in EU5 is enough. It's not impossible, I just hope Paradox don't make it impossible. Many of you are clearly scarred by EU4. An EU game i never really played

 

[Mrkew]

In the end, of course it will be possible - by utilizing exploits. But hopefully not through the intended game mechanics.

 

[Monty is staring at me]

WC is technically possible and therefore is a choice.

WC is not technically possible. It was never technically possible. No state was ever even close to world domination, Arguably the country that had the greatest global dominance was the US in the 1990s, because it basically controlled most of the global financial, trade and security order, but if you think that it was plausible for the US to conquer the world in the 1990s, you're delusional. They couldn't even hold on to Afghanistan.

 

[PEliaz]

Are you arguing for it to be possible in unmodded?

 

[giorgosth128]

I think world conquest should not be posible in general. its just so tidious.

 

[DSet]

It never happened in real world and it's not the "Byzantine Empire never reached 1837 as well" level. Changes like byzzies surviving, France colonizing Mexico and Mongolian empire becoming enlightened are more or less plausible while the world conquest IRL is literally impossible.

But even worse is that if WC is possible, then relatively easy local conquests would also be possible and that's a big NO for me. I'm bored to death with easy EUIV blobbing.

Agree 100%. The reason I don't play EU4 anymore is because after 1650 or so there's just no challenge anymore.

 

[Dualninja]

World conquests will still be possible in EU5, however they will require so, so much prep-work, extreme min maxing, stupid amounts of micro and very rapid exansion. It will still be possible to pull of a world conquest, but only in extremely optimised, precise, and planned out runs, similar in difficulty to doing a pre-1490 WC in EU4. Also, because of EU5's mechanics, if you manage to pull off a world conquest you will very quickly collapse and be completely ruined. EU5 world conquests will be more like a wild fire engulfing the whole Earth and burning out very quickly.

 

[Aquila SPQR]

Time? I'm a player that plays beyond the end game lol. I'll be conquering nations well into the modern era in EU5 lol.

If that's what you want - go ahead. Obviously I'm saying what I would love to see in the game during its official timespan (1337-1837) and I consider talking about what should/shouldn't be able to do in modern era in EUV completely pointless.

The irony is that European colonization was largely about map painting the world to their own image. In the early 20th century over 80% of the entire world was under it's control. Shouldn't we see Europe replicate this? Perhaps one large European power could do it. I honestly believe it is more likely a European power could do this than a native Indian tribe become a global power.

The irony is that what was achieved by multiple states (Spain/Potrugal/France/England) outside of EUV timespan is very far from actual WC by one state and yet you still somehow try to justify the possibility of it. It's as unlikely as colonizing Mars in EUV.

I get the issue people have with blobbing but by making WC MUCH more difficult to perhaps what it is now in EU5 is enough. It's not impossible, I just hope Paradox don't make it impossible. Many of you are clearly scarred by EU4. An EU game i never really played

Let me say this: if you really, really want WC - fine. I'll have no problem with WC being possible in the year, let's say, 2337, after you'll gradually conquer land, wait centuries for people to assimilate and increase control by building 200 bailiffs in every location. Fine, really, if that's what makes you tick and you're willing to play for another 500 years with no modern techs, units and buildings.

But I am totally opposing the idea of even the slightest chance of WC within the game's official timespan (1337-1837).

 

[keaswaran]

Time? I'm a player that plays beyond the end game lol. I'll be conquering nations well into the modern era in EU5 lol.

The irony is that European colonization was largely about map painting the world to their own image. In the early 20th century over 80% of the entire world was under it's control. Shouldn't we see Europe replicate this? Perhaps one large European power could do it. I honestly believe it is more likely a European power could do this than a native Indian tribe become a global power.

I get the issue people have with blobbing but by making WC MUCH more difficult to perhaps what it is now in EU5 is enough. It's not impossible, I just hope Paradox don't make it impossible. Many of you are clearly scarred by EU4. An EU game i never really played

It sounds like you might actually agree with everyone. There is no feature in the game by which they will prevent you from taking the last bit of territory, making a world conquest literally impossible. Instead, they are creating realistic issues that make it extremely difficult to hold large amounts of distant and diverse territory, unless you take centuries to solidify your rule.

If you’re willing to play centuries past the end date, world conquest will surely be possible - it just won’t be something that any human player will manage. It’ll be like running a 3 minute mile - there is no law of physics or biology making that specific feat actually impossible (the way there is a law of physics making it impossible to get to Alpha Centauri in a month) but it’ll just require doing things beyond any realistic capacity.

I don’t think this will cripple the AI.

 

[Call Me Vandal]

It would just be nice if the Ai wasn't handicapped from also being able to create such an empire as snowballing will still be an issue if not worse

You say that the game should be balanced for world conquest to prevent the player from easily eclipsing the AI, but I feel that world conquest is the epitome of eclipsing the AI.

If the AI is easy to overcome (which to be fair to you it probably will be to some degree, especially for experienced players), the only real solution to that is better AI, not making snowballing easier for both player and AI, which likely won't fix anything.

 

[Paddy234]

It sounds like you might actually agree with everyone. There is no feature in the game by which they will prevent you from taking the last bit of territory, making a world conquest literally impossible. Instead, they are creating realistic issues that make it extremely difficult to hold large amounts of distant and diverse territory, unless you take centuries to solidify your rule.

If you’re willing to play centuries past the end date, world conquest will surely be possible - it just won’t be something that any human player will manage. It’ll be like running a 3 minute mile - there is no law of physics or biology making that specific feat actually impossible (the way there is a law of physics making it impossible to get to Alpha Centauri in a month) but it’ll just require doing things beyond any realistic capacity.

I don’t think this will cripple the AI.

I agree. I just see some players want WC to he removed entirely even if it were to take 1000 in game years to do it. I don't agree with this. I think it should be kept as is. Not feasible within the game time frame but still possible beyond it. Then essentially it's not happening within EU history but beyond it

 

[Yere]

I've seen a playthroughs about EU5 in which it is now believed Paradox are designing the game in such a way to prevent world conquest altogether.

Personally I find this strange. At the end of the day if there are those who don't want world conquest to be an option then simply use a different Playstyle or better yet have each game setup allow you to choose if it's even possible. Removing it as an option altogether is simply forcing your Playstyle on others. While I know Mods will fix this regardless I hope Paradox don't go down this route and leave it up to the player to decide

Again World conquest should NEVER be easy but removing it as an option altogether is the wrong decision I feel. Let's hope Paradox don't go down this route and allow this to always remain a playstyle for those who dare

All I've seen is Ludi saying it's extremely hard and that in his opinion it's only possible on maybe the Ottomans, so isn't this exactly what you want? That it's hard but maybe possible? As far as I know no-one's said that there's anything strictly forbidding players from doing it?

 

[Álvaro Núñez de Lara]

All I've seen is Ludi saying it's extremely hard and that in his opinion it's only possible on maybe the Ottomans, so isn't this exactly what you want? That it's hard but maybe possible? As far as I know no-one's said that there's anything strictly forbidding players from doing it?

Pretty sure Ottomans are getting a heavy nerfhammer though.