Eu5 needs Harm events, the estates need to hate you, your Monarch should be incompetent and Disasters ever present

[GeneralNoob]

Yes, famines could be deterministic but:

1) lots of research
2) would make gameplay experience worse in railroady way for not much benefit

But i agree on general point.

I mean weather is weather. I dont think it requires a deep analysis. Just see when famines happened in X region and add it. It can of course also be player caused, but stuff like monsoons, volcanic erruptions or even the mini-ice age should imo be included as set events in the game.

 

[Grandpa Maur]

I mean weather is weather. I dont think it requires a deep analysis. Just see when famines happened in X region and add it. It can of course also be player caused, but stuff like monsoons, volcanic erruptions or even the mini-ice age should imo be included as set events in the game.

Experiencing events scripted on a specific date in EU 2 made me think from gameplay perspective it's better to have some uncertainty.

Ideally with some research into volatility, maybe carrying capacity making easier for famines to happen or even global trends in climate etc. But like with plague, some randomness not "it arrives in Kaffa in 1347"

 

[Sithodox2286]

IMO this should be tied to the ruler. Good ruler = less likely for bad events to happen. Bad ruler = more likly for bad events to happen.

I mostly agree with you but want to add one additional point - in EU4 the stats of rulers are less diverged so the player can easily manage it till a point, where mid-late point monarchs having 5+ stats most of the time.

EU5 made the range much larger to (0,100). idk what that’s actually doing, but seems better than 4.

 

[Creamu]

I’ve always thought revoking estate privileges should be a very difficult and rare thing to do. Often requiring a fairly competent ruler to make it happen without pissing the estates off to hell and back.

Watching YouTubers remove really bad privileges near game start makes me think: If it was that easy, why do they even have it even first place? It’s common sense to just to revoke it.

 

[tpapp157]

I would love if the gameplay of EU was more like RimWorld. It's less about constantly expanding and more about maintaining a relatively stable equilibrium, carefully managing your growth, and being resilient to disasters.

 

[Carcossa Castile]

Perhaps we need some simplified version of ck3's “stress” mechanic. In some cases, a bad monarch should be able to do the right thing in the expense of getting more “stressful”.

 

[Cephei80]

all features you ask for are in game , the question is the level of their intensity . will it be punishing or not .
your issue is that you use eu4 as prime example when you should be using imperator and stellaris first then look at eu4 who the most outdated game of ongoing pdx roster

 

[Sithodox2286]

Agreed, hence I think the use of harm events and 'unavoidable' disasters, meaning the player can never 'solve' internal disputes and it will always be a push and pull

I think to some extend the disaster could be tied to age and technology system, or culture during conversion. Like a minor boss you need to face after survived the beginning.

 

[LysanderSage100]

all features you ask for are in game , the question is the level of their intensity . will it be punishing or not .
your issue is that you use eu4 as prime example when you should be using imperator and stellaris first then look at eu4 who the most outdated game of ongoing pdx roster

No they are not, the estate mechanics have been improved but I think they can be improved further by giving estates and the crown more autonomy. And I used examples from eu4 because this is it's sequel.

 

[LysanderSage100]

I think to some extend the disaster could be tied to age and technology system, or culture during conversion. Like a minor boss you need to face after survived the beginning.

A disaster per age would be interesting but might feel to gamey.

 

[InvisibleBison]

I think harm events should generally have multiple options for dealing with them - that is, let the player choose which kind of harm they suffer. That would make them feel less like the game randomly screwing you over and more like a problem arising for which there are no good solutions.

 

[Cephei80]

No they are not, the estate mechanics have been improved but I think they can be improved further by giving estates and the crown more autonomy. And I used examples from eu4 because this is it's sequel.

but cant we already decide the level of autonomy of an estate ? you get to give them that via laws and if they are not satsified you wont be able to control them anyway and they will cause you trouble

 

[Zerodv]

If you put the AI and the player under the same level at normal difficulty under this system and if the AI underperforms compared to history, then this is not a good idea

 

[GeneralNoob]

I’ve always thought revoking estate privileges should be a very difficult and rare thing to do. Often requiring a fairly competent ruler to make it happen without pissing the estates off to hell and back.

Watching YouTubers remove really bad privileges near game start makes me think: If it was that easy, why do they even have it even first place? It’s common sense to just to revoke it.

Because people are good at the game. When estates first came out, I struggled to take away privileages. Took me decades to remove them. Nowadays I know what I am doing and I can remove most in an instance. It is all a matter of how familiar you are with the game.

 

[GeneralNoob]

I would love if the gameplay of EU was more like RimWorld. It's less about constantly expanding and more about maintaining a relatively stable equilibrium, carefully managing your growth, and being resilient to disasters.

I prefer tall gameplay, but still disagree with that. People have different preferences and "wide players" should not be undercut in their opportunities just to make it more appealing for tall players.

 

[tpapp157]

I prefer tall gameplay, but still disagree with that. People have different preferences and "wide players" should not be undercut in their opportunities just to make it more appealing for tall players.

Map-painting and massive conquest has always been the primary play-style that EU has been designed around. Silly things like world conquests are laughably easy to accomplish. Wide play absolutely needs to be significantly reduced if pdx's claimed goal of a more realistic simulation and more interesting gameplay are to be achieved for EU5.

EU4's gameplay is far more similar to Risk than any sort of meaningful simulation of reality. Anyone expecting EU5 to be different should probably temper their expectations. But we can dream.

 

[GeneralNoob]

Map-painting and massive conquest has always been the primary play-style that EU has been designed around. Silly things like world conquests are laughably easy to accomplish. Wide play absolutely needs to be significantly reduced if pdx's claimed goal of a more realistic simulation and more interesting gameplay are to be achieved for EU5.

EU4's gameplay is far more similar to Risk than any sort of meaningful simulation of reality. Anyone expecting EU5 to be different should probably temper their expectations. But we can dream.

It is already significantally reduced compared to EU4. Mind you what you saw until now is with broken trade mechanics + skilled EU4 players and mostly only within their own culture group.

 

[peteoj]

I wanna be able to actually fight my estates and have that reflected in the numbers, when nobles revolt in eu4 it really doesn't matter despite you killing 10k+ people their influence and loyalty stay the exact same. I want to be able to face a revolt from say my nobles and clergy and if I kill their rebel stacks it should cut their influence in half because I've just slaughtered several nobles or zealots.

 

[Hendurius]

I would like for the estates to be more active than in EUIV.
The old king is dead and the new king has a medium to low legitimacy: "sure we accept you, if you could just sign those documents here with a few privileges ..."
Estates could give you support or a boost in legitimacy in exchange for more privileges and be outright hostile at the start of the reign if you dont accept. Or they could offer you additional levies or support in civil wars for more privileges and lower taxes.
I think most momens of crisis should be an opportunity for the estates to show up and offer help/promise to not make things worse for a price.

 

[Sirbab]

As long as the harm events aren't like eu4 I'd be happy. In my opinion in eu4 they were both too frequent (salt crisis number 47 my lord!) and too toothless. I don't care if I get - 10% production efficiency for a year, that's like 2 ducats /s. But yeah, I hope the internal tension remains a concern nearly indefinitely, or else snowballing will be inevitable.