Do not prevent World Conquest

[Paddy234]

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

 

[AtomicCrescentRoll]

If World conquests are easily possible then everybody who doesn’t want to do one Is forced to play dumb

 

[Paddy234]

If World conquests are easily possible then everybody who doesn’t want to do one Is forced to play dumb

World conquests should NEVER be easy. They should however not be removed altogether by those who have no intention of playing this way. It would be like me saying paradox should have mechanics to force people to play tall because that's how I enjoy to play

 

[peteoj]

You shouldn't be able to do world conquests for very obvious reasons.

 

[Paddy234]

You shouldn't be able to do world conquests for very obvious reasons.

It's a game. Of course you should but it should be the most difficult thing to do. Perhaps too difficult for the average player

 

[Streamlet]

A world conquest being possible isn't just an on/off switch or a playstyle difference, it's an indirect effect of all the mechanics in the game put together, and that does have an affect on everyone else. There isn't a simple way to make every single person happy.

 

[Aquila SPQR]

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.

 

[Paddy234]

A world conquest being possible isn't just an on/off switch or a playstyle difference, it's an indirect effect of all the mechanics in the game put together, and that does have an affect on everyone else. There isn't a simple way to make every single person happy.

No-one would have a problem with making certain goals harder especially world conquest as this makes sense. It's removing entire options because some want the game mechanics to suit their playstyle that is the problem. I hope Paradox don't listen to those that are forcing a very narrow playstyle on the rest of us

 

[Paddy234]

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.

You don't want WC because it didn't happen in the real world and because it would make local conquest easy but for many civilizations local conquest did happen historically quite easily so why oppose this?

How difficult conquest is should be based on a number of factors. WC should be the most difficult thing to do in the game but technically it should be possible because technically it is possible IRL if the conditions were perfect for it.

 

[peteoj]

A world conquest being possible isn't just an on/off switch or a playstyle difference, it's an indirect effect of all the mechanics in the game put together, and that does have an affect on everyone else. There isn't a simple way to make every single person happy.

This. If you make world conquests possible it would in general make any conquest done by the player easier thus trivializing the entire game and thus reverting the game back to the same issue eu4 had of being completely pointless to play 100-200 years after game start.

 

[FoFo]

Precenting world conquest is one of the most satisfying changing in EU5 to me.

 

[Paddy234]

This. If you make world conquests possible it would in general make any conquest done by the player easier thus trivializing the entire game and thus reverting the game back to the same issue eu4 had of being completely pointless to play 100-200 years after game start.

This is what I don't understand. World conquest in EU5 isn't impossible. To think this will ever be the case is naive. It just requires a SIGNIFICANT amount of time to do to increase control. What this means for the Ai is that large Empires won't typically exist outside of those created historically however the player would be willing to put in such time meaning the player given enough time will still overtake the Ai to the point it can easily snowball it. The difference is the Ai will never be in a position to create a huge Empire in comparison

I feel for those who want World Conquest removed completely perhaps EU isn't for them

 

[JacceDON]

You don't want WC because it didn't happen in the real world and because it would make local conquest easy but for many civilizations local conquest did happen historically quite easily so why oppose this?

How difficult conquest is should be based on a number of factors. WC should be the most difficult thing to do in the game but technically it should be possible because technically it is possible IRL if the conditions were perfect for it.

You keep saying that it should be possible but hard... do you realize that people want to actually be proficient and to min/max without necessarily ending up owning the world (or even an entire continent)? You essentially want to force people to play subpar or RP in order to not blob into the extreme - because if the only limit on WC is it being hard then it punishes everyone who actually wants to learn how to play the game.

 

[peteoj]

This is what I don't understand. World conquest in EU5 isn't impossible. To think this will ever be the case is naive. It just requires a SIGNIFICANT amount of time to do to increase control. What this means for the Ai is that large Empires won't typically exist outside of those created historically however the player would be willing to put in such time meaning the player given enough time will still overtake the Ai to the point it can easily snowball it. The difference is the Ai will never be in a position to create a huge Empire in comparison

Players with 100-200 hours in the game have said it's nearly impossible unless you're the ottomans and I'm inclined to believe them seeing as it's their job to understand the game.

 

[Aquila SPQR]

You don't want WC because it didn't happen in the real world and because it would make local conquest easy but for many civilizations local conquest did happen historically quite easily so why oppose this?

Local conquest like Spain conquering France wasn't "easy" IRL. If we want to make WC possible it would mean that we'd have to make Spain be able not only to conquer entire France relatively quickly, but also entire Italy, HRE, Britain and so on. Not only conquer, but also hold it indefinitely. And that's bullshit. No state should be able to conquer entire Europe. And if so - then how can anyone dream about conquering literally the rest of the world? I know it's among the many men's fantasies, but let's keep it there - among the fantasy. Because if allowed it'll break the fun for so many other players who are bored to death with unrealistic and easy wars and conquests.

How difficult conquest is should be based on a number of factors. WC should be the most difficult thing to do in the game but technically it should be possible because technically it is possible IRL if the conditions were perfect for it.

Technically it is possible IRL? Except that no one was ever even close to it. British tried as best as they could and they only got what - about 25%? With the late XIX/early XX century innovations and technological superiority and even they had to colonize much less developed nations to do that as they would never conquer the rest of Europe. Both they and Mongols had huge empires spanning around the quarter of the globe and look where they are now.

 

[Paddy234]

Players with 100-200 hours in the game have said it's nearly impossible unless you're the ottomans and I'm inclined to believe them seeing as it's their job to understand the game.

Only impossible if you stay within the timeline but easily possible thereafter. I remember when I made my first world conquest back with either EU1 or EU2 many years ago, I had to play past the end date but it was possible. The irony is now the player will have the bigger advantage because by making it more difficult but NOT impossible then it simply makes it something only the player can achieve. The Ai will have no hope of creating very large Empires unless they were large to begin with.

The irony is that most don't understand that it's not world conquest that is the problem. It is snowballing. Snowballing will exist just the same here

 

[Paddy234]

Local conquest like Spain conquering France wasn't "easy" IRL. If we want to make WC possible it would mean that we'd have to make Spain be able not only to conquer entire France relatively quickly, but also entire Italy, HRE, Britain and so on. Not only conquer, but also hold it indefinitely. And that's bullshit. No state should be able to conquer entire Europe. And if so - then how can anyone dream about conquering literally the rest of the world? I know it's among the many men's fantasies, but let's keep it there - among the fantasy. Because if allowed it'll break the fun for so many other players who are bored to death with unrealistic and easy wars and conquests.



Technically it is possible IRL? Except that no one was ever even close to it. British tried as best as they could and they only got what - about 25%? With the late XIX/early XX century innovations and technological superiority and even they had to colonize much less developed nations to do that as they would never conquer the rest of Europe. Both they and Mongols had huge empires spanning around the quarter of the globe and look where they are now.

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

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?

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?

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.

It just means it is now solely an option for the player, not the Ai

 

[Monty is staring at me]

Asking for WCs to be possible is like asking for jetpacks in a Call of Duty game.

You can implement that, but it will very obviously change what the game is.

We have EU4 for blobbing and map painting. What I think most of us want for EU5 is an immersive game recreating the world from 1300-1800.

World conquests are fantastical. To allow a game world in which world conquests are possible is to implement systems that completely contradict reality. In the real world, conquering and occupying other peoples was difficult and impossible in the long term.

Honestly, I not only want WCs to be impossible in EU5, I want to see boom and bust cycles for empires. Empire-forming should only be possible when a certain nation gains some advantage or exploits a certain situation; with time, that advantage should diminish, and the nation should not be able to hold onto that empire for long, and should eventually retreat into its core territories, just like any historical empire.

 

[Paddy234]

Asking for WCs to be possible is like asking for jetpacks in a Call of Duty game.

You can implement that, but it will very obviously change what the game is.

We have EU4 for blobbing and map painting. What I think most of us want for EU5 is an immersive game recreating the world from 1300-1800.

World conquests are fantastical. To allow a game world in which world conquests are possible is to implement systems that completely contradict reality. In the real world, conquering and occupying other peoples was difficult and impossible in the long term.

Honestly, I not only want WCs to be impossible in EU5, I want to see boom and bust cycles for empires. Empire-forming should only be possible when a certain nation gains some advantage or exploits a certain situation; with time, that advantage should diminish, and the nation should not be able to hold onto that empire for long, and should eventually retreat into its core territories, just like any historical empire.

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 how would it change what the game is when this has always been possible?

The irony is recreating the world from 1300-1850 would mean that two small islands in Western Europe would end up holding a quarter of the entire world by it's end. This game is largely about building Empires. If I want to go beyond the global 25% threshold that was reached historically 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.

 

[Tweakee]

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.