EU5 will most likely be a failure

[Blk82]

I don't think there is a really a divide between map-painters and realists. Rather, the problem is contradictory desires within the individual player. Everybody the map to look historical, the AI to be competent, and the game to "winnable" by the player without resorting to exploits and bugs. However, those three conditions are mutually incompatible with each either. If the AI is competent but has historically plausible borders , then the player would also feel the constraints, and the game would not be fun. AI historical borders and a player-winnable game means that the AI is outsmarted by the game's complexity. A competent AI and player-winnable game would mean very ahistorical borders.

Different people place different priorities, but the person who complains about bad AI in one patch might complain about AI blobbing in the next patch, or the game being too difficult in the patch after that.

 

[ArtFart]

I think EU4 was the exception not the rule. Hoi4 had less content than 3 on launch. Vic3 too. I am glad if EU5 can break the low content on release curse.

But also EU4 has by far the most content out of any PDX game by now, which would mean EU5 would need to be a hell of a game to even match EU4's content on launch, and that's factoring in different design choices IE less mana system and mission trees etc. I see it as near impossible, because then what would they monetise in the future after?

Or they might use the new UI and 3D models etc as a way of saying "hey look at all these new stuff we added" when in reality it's purely cosmetic and not real content. We shall see.

 

[EUnderhill]

I don't think there is a really a divide between map-painters and realists. Rather, the problem is contradictory desires within the individual player. Everybody the map to look historical, the AI to be competent, and the game to "winnable" by the player without resorting to exploits and bugs. However, those three conditions are mutually incompatible with each either. If the AI is competent but has historically plausible borders , then the player would also feel the constraints, and the game would not be fun. AI historical borders and a player-winnable game means that the AI is outsmarted by the game's complexity. A competent AI and player-winnable game would mean very ahistorical borders.

Different people place different priorities, but the person who complains about bad AI in one patch might complain about AI blobbing in the next patch, or the game being too difficult in the patch after that.

With the right scoring system, any nation can be "winnable" once you know how big a handicap to give the weaker nations.

 

[ArtFart]

How do missions feel revolutionary? I play Denmark a lot and LotN didn’t really change how playing them felt except being significantly easier to do things compared to before. Everything remained the same except for being able to get a stupid amount of buffs for largely orthogonal reasons.

I would say the Teutonic tree was very cleverly made. You can choose between 3 different paths and each have their own events and missions, I really liked that. It shows that the mission tree system can have multiple trees per country, contary to what Johan said. Granted it's not dynamic or anythiong but it's still the process of having multiple paths.

 

[grommile]

the game to "winnable" by the player without resorting to exploits and bugs.

The problem is the definition of victory.

Like, for Imereti, victory could be reasonably defined as "form Georgia, and reach the endgame date with your independence and a territorial and diplomatic position that keeps you secure against Russian, Turkish, or Iranian conquest" – but players aren't going to settle for that as a victory condition.

 

[EUnderhill]

The problem is the definition of victory.

Like, for Imereti, victory could be reasonably defined as "form Georgia, and reach the endgame date with your independence and a territorial and diplomatic position that keeps you secure against Russian, Turkish, or Iranian conquest" – but players aren't going to settle for that as a victory condition.

I'm not sure such a condition would get me necessarily to play such a nation, but playing as a major I would want to have to consider outperforming peer nations but also not being outdone by smaller nations with lower expectations.

 

[Vulkandrache]

but players aren't going to settle for that as a victory condition

And thats understandable. A matter of scale really.
The entire worldmap exists no matter what country you choose and you know what it looks like.

There is just no point having such a large map with hundreds of countries
and then have the games mechanics be such that you only ever play in your little corner.
For that games like Civ are much better suited. A randomized map and races loosely based on history.
Even if you dont explore everything or play to the space-age youve still done what you can
do within your reach.

 

[EUnderhill]

And thats understandable. A matter of scale really.
The entire worldmap exists no matter what country you choose and you know what it looks like.

There is just no point having such a large map with hundreds of countries
and then have the games mechanics be such that you only ever play in your little corner.
For that games like Civ are much better suited. A randomized map and races loosely based on history.
Even if you dont explore everything or play to the space-age youve still done what you can
do within your reach.

There is plenty of point to such a big map...it is called "your next game". I got curious about the Sahel...so I played Songhai. From there my thought flew to East Africa, so I played Kilwa. Knew Europe was still there, but didn't visit, didn't miss it either.

 

[uberjedi]

EU5 can be a success if it keeps what is good in EU4 (diplomacy mechanics, replayability) and improves areas where there is more potential (AI, trade mechanics).
Some areas (mission trees) need a total overhaul or even scrapping.

 

[Tibi088]

Transition from EU3 to EU4 was pretty smooth IIRC. Unlike Ck2->CK3 where a lot of content was cut and not replaced with anything even years later.

Further Johan's comments in this thread - especially about liking the mission system in IR - are very encouraging for me. That would be a great way to form your countries. Prussia woul not be determined to become a military powerhause because of modifiers it will attain with time. Instead it would have the option to become the army with the state it went with OTL but if it goes lets say a naval route it could end up with a completely different character, like a naval power house. Or a trade focused nation. With some region and country specific mission threes addition to some general ones we could have much more freedom to shape our nation to be what we would like.

Another aspect of the game I hope they do more with is the age systems. I think it could be used way more radically, with more, stronger age specific mechanics.

 

[Danskjävel]

Another aspect of the game I hope they do more with is the age systems. I think it could be used way more radically, with more, stronger age specific mechanics.

Agreed! I would like to hope that they expand heavily upon the ages mechanics, and especially the transitions of societies and the world that they represent!

Ideally the different ages would be changing more organically, and they would not in one instant go from "exploration" to "reformation". While change and transition can epistemologically be understood as one paradigm or "age" replacing another, ontologically it's rather unthinkable, expect from, of course, in the world of physics, that one second is so radically different from the preceeding one, that we need to describe the world in completely new terms.

So in other words, I think age mechanics needs to be introduced gradually, and be different to particular parts of the world, with of course some (thematic?) overlapping. With presumably dynamic culture in EU5, this could in theory be "bound" to culture groups which then could interchange (as is intrinsic to an antropological view, or the view of a cultural historian), making for a dynamic experience that are not only different depending on where in the world you play, but also depending on how the game goes from playtrough to playthrough.

The age mechanics for each age should be "picked" from a pool, depending on actions in the game, and some degree of randomness. To further have the changing mechanics be gradually introduced, certain mechanics or rules in the succeding ages could be available if certain conditions are met: in the beginning at heavy costs, but in the longer run have greater benefits for the first movers. Of course at some risk; if the mechanics you've been a first mover of doesn't make the cut; a new chain of events take place: heavy costs AND some unique benefits. Ideally these unique effects could be integrated into a EU5 dynamic take on national ideas. At the start solely based on the tags historical achievements preceding the start date - and influenced by actions taken in the game by the player and AI alike.

 

[Jernau_]

That would be a great way to form your countries. Prussia woul not be determined to become a military powerhause because of modifiers it will attain with time. Instead it would have the option to become the army with the state it went with OTL but if it goes lets say a naval route it could end up with a completely different character, like a naval power house. Or a trade focused nation. With some region and country specific mission threes addition to some general ones we could have much more freedom to shape our nation to be what we would like.

If every nation can do the same it hurts the replayability of the game. Its why I stopped playing CK3 even if its a good game.
The asymmetrical start is key to the massive replayability eu4 has. I dont want every nation to be able to be prussia.

 

[grommile]

The asymmetrical start is key to the massive replayability eu4 has. I dont want every nation to be able to be prussia.

I could write a very long post about this.

Suffice it to say, in EU4 it is possible to become Prussia as almost any nation on the map in the 1444 start by jumping through the right hoops, with the notable exceptions being the likes of Ming, Ottomans, and France.

 

[Jernau_]

I could write a very long post about this.

Suffice it to say, in EU4 it is possible to become Prussia as almost any nation on the map in the 1444 start by jumping through the right hoops, with the notable exceptions being the likes of Ming, Ottomans, and France.

I know, but I never tagshift unless its something like castile to spain. I doubt its that common to jump through the right hoops to become prussia for most players. Having systems in place that lets you become prussia without jumping through those hoops will change that.

 

[Vulkandrache]

I highly doubt everyone will be playing "the same" nation if it ever becomes possible to
get any combination of bonuses regardless of map color.

 

[grommile]

Having systems in place that lets you become prussia without jumping through those hoops will change that.

I only directly propose removing the final hoop: pushing a magic button that makes you become PRU.

However! I am very strongly in favour of making a country's (mechanical) material condition be the heart of what it can do.

So if you are Prussia, and your material conditions become such that your access to what is currently Prussian tag magic no longer makes causal sense, you lose that stuff even though you're still called Prussia.

 

[Tibi088]

If every nation can do the same it hurts the replayability of the game. Its why I stopped playing CK3 even if its a good game.
The asymmetrical start is key to the massive replayability eu4 has. I dont want every nation to be able to be prussia.

Not every nation can do the same: there would be country specific mission threes. So missions for France only, for Japan only, etc. Than there could be region specific ones: any country witha port at the Baltic might opt for Baltic mission threes. Than there would be more generic ones. A generic military mission three would not be as powerful as the prussian one but it would still decidedly give any country an edge compared to countries who did not went to that one yet. But nothing forces you if you play as prussia to choose the prussian military mission three instead of the Baltic one.

Actually this could be a specific mix of national idea's and mission three's. But here you would not pay with mana for the bonuses but would need to build barracks to unlock the bonus.

 

[Johan]

I like that some nations have minor inherent attributes that are different. Prussian Spacemarines, British Navies, Dutch Traders etc..

 

[MachopPower69]

I like that some nations have minor inherent attributes that are different. Prussian Spacemarines, British Navies, Dutch Traders etc..

It's ironic that the British can't naval invade in Vic 3 but have a threatening navy in EU4.

 

[John Smith74]

I like that some nations have minor inherent attributes that are different. Prussian Spacemarines, British Navies, Dutch Traders etc..

I extremely dislike inherent buffs that last for centuries because of things that happened in real life for a short time period, especially so when that time period occurred in the late 18th and early 19th century. Makes every game feel the same.