-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Someone poked me earlier, and since I don't spend much time on that forum, figured I'd share the speculation here
- 1
I hope we get Vickey style variable sized pops not the EU:Roman2 simplified system.
edit: is it EU:rome2 or EU2:rome2?
edit: is it EU:rome2 or EU2:rome2?
- 1
neither
I:R while inspired by EU:Rome isn't a sequel per se, and doesn't use EU4 like EU:Rome used EU:3 as a base
- 2
What gives any reason to believe that this post by AITA_HELPLESS has any truth to it ??
I suppose that was found on reddit ?
I suppose that was found on reddit ?
- 4
it was. It could be a troll, but we all know they are working on at least 2 unknown IPs, so I'm hoping there is truth to it
- 2
- 1
Thanks. Hope..hmm. So it's nothing basically and no credibility.
Everything in the OP had been discussed and guessed in Vic3 threads before.
-----
Yes we do know about the ips and that's all we know.
What also seems reasonable to assume is that there will be a game at least similar to Victoria.
The above message is thus nothing more than what has already been widely assumed to happen and nothing new,
while phrased and presented in a way by apparently a complete nobody, as if there would be insider knowledge.
Standard internet annoyance practice, especialy on Twitter...and reddit and in journalism, but that's offtopic.
So that post includes nothing but alleged confirmation of preexisting assumptions mixed with a few sprinkles
of already known facts. That it's already known to likely happen in some way doesn't add credibility.
That's how confirmation bias works...and how you get friends, followers, build a movement or even new religion.
Hot air and manipulation. Marketing loves that.
Here it is done by someone anoynmous not even linked with Paradox with the added "i don't know, so grain of salt"...
Useless.
...
Yes, i was once known and feared as a party pooper and killjoy.
Hmmm..killjoy sounds like a great custom title.
What also seems reasonable to assume is that there will be a game at least similar to Victoria.
The above message is thus nothing more than what has already been widely assumed to happen and nothing new,
while phrased and presented in a way by apparently a complete nobody, as if there would be insider knowledge.
Standard internet annoyance practice, especialy on Twitter...and reddit and in journalism, but that's offtopic.
So that post includes nothing but alleged confirmation of preexisting assumptions mixed with a few sprinkles
of already known facts. That it's already known to likely happen in some way doesn't add credibility.
That's how confirmation bias works...and how you get friends, followers, build a movement or even new religion.
Hot air and manipulation. Marketing loves that.
Here it is done by someone anoynmous not even linked with Paradox with the added "i don't know, so grain of salt"...
Useless.
...
Yes, i was once known and feared as a party pooper and killjoy.
Hmmm..killjoy sounds like a great custom title.
Cheers,
General Killjoy Wuffington du Bark-Grumpelodia.
Just my 2cents.
- 1
- 1
true, and obviously I'm in the dark, otherwise I wouldn't have posted it
- 2
Cool idea. What does not make that much sense to me is P'dox making a game with significant period overlap with EU
if it was V3, it would start when EU4 ends and end where hoi4 starts...
Yeah, but the screenshot you started the thread with said "set in early modern period to the great war", the early modern period makes up like 80% of the EU timeline.
- 1
Hmm, could it be that they are combining EU5 with Vic3?
Could be potentially great if you ask me, but if there's not a post Vienna early 1800s bookmark, I'd be very sad...
Edit: though, to be fair, each game has such a distinct identity and atmosphere, I can't help but have some mixed feelings about it.
- 1
It'd probably be Vic3 without being Vic3
therefore, vic3 not confirmed
therefore, vic3 not confirmed
- 1
- 1
My thought more it was something pointing to the leak being made up. EU is successfull, why would they mess with that franshise and not make a straight EU 5?
I mean, yeah, I said that assuming it's not fake.
If it is fake, it's all moot point.
I figure we might as well speculate, when was it that we had any news whatsoever from Vicky?
At worse it's just a thought exercise.
If this is true, I imagine they will have to officially announce it this year.
I shan't get excited about this until they officially announce a new game in development and give it a secret project name - like Project Vicky 3 for instance.
It seems like a vic 2- Eu4 combo, which if true makes me a bit worried, specially for the political aspect of it.
- 1
I'm wondering about points 3 and 4, how would that look like?
Ideally, I'd hope 3 woukd mean Vic2's economy but accounting for transport of goods, not just market spheres.
That'd allow it to model how the Silk Road was replaced by the Cape Route during EU's timeline.
A new upper class pop type of merchants would be good there as well, being like capitalists but for trade instead of production.
And about point 4... Would it be going for something punctual and specific like suppression and diplo points, or something broad and all purpose like paper, bird and sword mana *shudder*?
I'd very much hope for the former.
Also, how about the name?
If it is to be indeed a combination of Vic3 and EU5, would it just be called EU5?
I can't see it being called Vic3 or a hybrid like "Victoria Universalis" since most of the game would be set outside of that period.
Problem is, it'd cause a lot of confusion on announcement, until they specify that the game does cover the Vicky period as well.
Or perhaps a new name altogether?
They'd lose on brand recognition if they do that though (and they didn't do it even for CK3), so I feel that'd be very unlikely.
Ideally, I'd hope 3 woukd mean Vic2's economy but accounting for transport of goods, not just market spheres.
That'd allow it to model how the Silk Road was replaced by the Cape Route during EU's timeline.
A new upper class pop type of merchants would be good there as well, being like capitalists but for trade instead of production.
And about point 4... Would it be going for something punctual and specific like suppression and diplo points, or something broad and all purpose like paper, bird and sword mana *shudder*?
It depends on how they approach it, if it is more like Vicky adapted to be set in the EU period or EU extended to the victorian period.
I'd very much hope for the former.
Also, how about the name?
If it is to be indeed a combination of Vic3 and EU5, would it just be called EU5?
I can't see it being called Vic3 or a hybrid like "Victoria Universalis" since most of the game would be set outside of that period.
Problem is, it'd cause a lot of confusion on announcement, until they specify that the game does cover the Vicky period as well.
Or perhaps a new name altogether?
They'd lose on brand recognition if they do that though (and they didn't do it even for CK3), so I feel that'd be very unlikely.
- 1
I'm a bit perplexed about the timeline suggestion here (not about vic 3 being in dev, that is pretty obvious considering the staff movements in paradox in the recent years).
On one hand it is quite clear that the post 1750 (or even 1700 ?) period in EU4 doesn't fit really well with the actual game. All the mechanics surrounding revolutions and such had to be ahistorically advanced to give people time to play with them before 1821 (who would want a revolution starting in 1790 if you only get 25 years to play with it ?). A few updates have tried to address this but I feel like EU4's nature prevents this.
On the other hand the 19th century does have a unique feel and maybe it is just my perception (I come from a french speaking community) but the post napoleonic world is a completely different thing than the pre-revolutionary one.
To clarify, one of the main attractions of vic 2 was that the world in 1836 was pretty much set in stone for most of the 19th century, there where changes of course (Germany, Italy) but compared to the pre-1790 world the difference is enormous. So If we have a game that starts in 1750 It would in my opinion need to have multiple start dates to make it interesting (1750 - 1821/36 - 190?) and then of course we would fall into the same problems EU4 had.
Now of course there is a big chance that EU5 is in production, and I would'nt be surprised to see a reduced scope and multiple start dates (like ck3, which is an additionnal reason to think it might go this way) that allow for a different experience without requiring to much maintenance work with each expansion. If that is the case then a vic 3 that covers 1750-1936 would make sense.
In any case i'm confident that paradox will pull it off, but i'm very curious about how
On one hand it is quite clear that the post 1750 (or even 1700 ?) period in EU4 doesn't fit really well with the actual game. All the mechanics surrounding revolutions and such had to be ahistorically advanced to give people time to play with them before 1821 (who would want a revolution starting in 1790 if you only get 25 years to play with it ?). A few updates have tried to address this but I feel like EU4's nature prevents this.
On the other hand the 19th century does have a unique feel and maybe it is just my perception (I come from a french speaking community) but the post napoleonic world is a completely different thing than the pre-revolutionary one.
To clarify, one of the main attractions of vic 2 was that the world in 1836 was pretty much set in stone for most of the 19th century, there where changes of course (Germany, Italy) but compared to the pre-1790 world the difference is enormous. So If we have a game that starts in 1750 It would in my opinion need to have multiple start dates to make it interesting (1750 - 1821/36 - 190?) and then of course we would fall into the same problems EU4 had.
Now of course there is a big chance that EU5 is in production, and I would'nt be surprised to see a reduced scope and multiple start dates (like ck3, which is an additionnal reason to think it might go this way) that allow for a different experience without requiring to much maintenance work with each expansion. If that is the case then a vic 3 that covers 1750-1936 would make sense.
In any case i'm confident that paradox will pull it off, but i'm very curious about how
- 2