I'm afraid of EU5

[eanske]

Reading people on the forums speculating on when EU5 will be released has always struck me as rather strange; it's almost like Paradox sock puppets building up hype.

Why do people even want a new Europa Universalis game? 4 seems just fine to me, and Paradox seems content with releasing more content for it (poor as it may sometimes be).

I thought the consensus in the community was more or less that EU4 has become too bloated and is hold together with duct-tape? EU5 would mean a fresh start (albeit at the cost of a lot of DLC features) and the possibility to improve some core mechanisms.

 

[Nyrael]

Reading people on the forums speculating on when EU5 will be released has always struck me as rather strange; it's almost like Paradox sock puppets building up hype.

Why do people even want a new Europa Universalis game? 4 seems just fine to me, and Paradox seems content with releasing more content for it (poor as it may sometimes be).

To get rid of the bloat, and to rework certain base mechanics that can't be reworked in a mere DLC.
For example, PDS already confirmed that the Monarch Points will be gone in EU5, something which can't removed from EU4 because so many features depend on it.

 

[DominusNovus]

Reading people on the forums speculating on when EU5 will be released has always struck me as rather strange; it's almost like Paradox sock puppets building up hype.

Why do people even want a new Europa Universalis game? 4 seems just fine to me, and Paradox seems content with releasing more content for it (poor as it may sometimes be).

If we were sock puppets, we’d be content with the condition of EU4 and not desperate for a new game to smooth over all the cludgy bits. Which is most of the game at this point.

 

[brifbates]

For example, PDS already confirmed that the Monarch Points will be gone in EU5, something which can't removed from EU4 because so many features depend on it.

Source? Because for them to actually say something like that would indicate the game is in development when all other indications are that it isn't and won't be for some time...

 

[Danskjävel]

I'm affraid Paradox will keep the same siege mechanics for EU5. Come to think of it, it's actually amazing it's still around, it is an absolute atrocity and so discouraging, even after thousands - or perhaps especially after thousands - of hours.

 

[tk6]

EU 4 has become bloatware, sadly. Significant performance issues, unplayable late game, quite a few systems that are kinda useless etc.

I think we need Europa Universalis 5. The sooner the better.

 

[tk6]

To get rid of the bloat, and to rework certain base mechanics that can't be reworked in a mere DLC.
For example, PDS already confirmed that the Monarch Points will be gone in EU5, something which can't removed from EU4 because so many features depend on it.

100% this

 

[grandadmiralbob]

Sure, I speak for myself, but it's no secret that the community loves to make Prussian space marines, conquest the entire world as a horde and the Swedish ideas. Basically, buffs, cool missions, ideas etc are popular, and there is overwhelming support for this DLC too. I never said easy=fun, I said buffs and missions are fun. 2 different things.

Buffs=easier... And you and players know how to get them MUCH faster than the inept AI.

 

[ForVictory]

I agree 100% with OP. I want a game that is historically railroading nations as they did.
Paradox should make an option so that the player can choose if the AI chooses always the historical option or random. I think CKII had this too.

 

[Bohemian_warlord]

I thought the consensus in the community was more or less that EU4 has become too bloated and is hold together with duct-tape? EU5 would mean a fresh start (albeit at the cost of a lot of DLC features) and the possibility to improve some core mechanisms.

To be entirely honest, unless Paradox rethinks their DLC philosophy just changing the game wont improve much. It will again start as a barebones game with even more simplified mechanics and then they will spam cacophony of Detachable Lazy Content. These games are supposed to be deep and complex but their turbo-modular development after release just keeps adding shallow mechanics in the form of "keep this bar high and green numbers will appear (this time for Prussia)" instead of giving us supply/demand trade, logistics or POPs.

They could perfectly well just start removing Mana dependent mechanics from the game...*cough* technology..*cough*...and take some inspiration from Mayonnaise Taxes. But at the end of the day its better to start from scratch just to generate new hype.

 

[grommile]

Paradox should make an option so that the player can choose if the AI chooses always the historical option or random. I think CKII had this too.

CK2 only has "forced historicality" rules for specific items.

Also, forced historicality for decision-making is a ludicrous idea past about 1500, given how much havoc the History Ruiner can cause in that time.

 

[ForVictory]

CK2 only has "forced historicality" rules for specific items.

Also, forced historicality for decision-making is a ludicrous idea past about 1500, given how much havoc the History Ruiner can cause in that time.

Obviously you never played For The Glory

 

[grommile]

Obviously you never played For The Glory

Correct.

I never played EU2, either.

 

[Kyoumen]

To be entirely honest, unless Paradox rethinks their DLC philosophy just changing the game wont improve much. It will again start as a barebones game with even more simplified mechanics and then they will spam cacophony of Detachable Lazy Content. These games are supposed to be deep and complex but their turbo-modular development after release just keeps adding shallow mechanics in the form of "keep this bar high and green numbers will appear (this time for Prussia)" instead of giving us supply/demand trade, logistics or POPs.

Definitely. Why, look at the supply/demand trade, logistics and POPs that were in EUIII, before the current theoretically witty false acronym system!

Also look at how well EUIII fleshed out the rest of the world beyond Europe! Playing the Inca in EUIII was certainly an amazing experience that all the so-called fans who jumped on with EUIV will never truly understand. The way you did literally nothing for a century after eating your single OPM neighbour, the way the game instantly ended if Spain colonised near you instead of Portugal, the way that literally every European country with a coastline would declare war on you as soon as their truce timer expired because they were hard-coded to see you as an easy target even when you owned a whole continent and could trounce Spain or France, it truly was an experience not to be forgotten.

 

[grommile]

Why, look at the supply/demand trade,

To be fair, EU3 did have an abstract supply/demand system for trade good pricing.

It was indefensibly terrible, it did hilarious things every time Russia declared war, and it was a godawful performance hog, but it certainly existed!

 

[brifbates]

Definitely. Why, look at the supply/demand trade, logistics and POPs that were in EUIII, before the current theoretically witty false acronym system!

POPS were never a part of EU 3. There was a population number in each province that rose irrespective of what went on through the course of the game and usually ended up beyond ridiculous in more than a few provinces each game. This number had, at most, a negligible impact on anything in the game (if it had any impacct at all). That is not remotely related to what POPS are in Paradox games.

 

[grommile]

POPS were never a part of EU 3.

Neither was anything resembling a proper logistics system

 

[Bohemian_warlord]

Definitely. Why, look at the supply/demand trade, logistics and POPs that were in EUIII, before the current theoretically witty false acronym system!

Missing the point you silly. EU3 didnt have the mechanics, but EU4 was supposed to be an improvement. It could have added depth in the form of these mechanics but instead it adds shallow flavour mechanics and its left up to modders to develop deep mechanics. It would have been much better if it was the modders that added flavour to the "forgotten corners of the world", while Paradox focused on developing core mechanics of the game.

Also look at how well EUIII fleshed out the rest of the world beyond Europe! Playing the Inca in EUIII was certainly an amazing experience that all the so-called fans who jumped on with EUIV will never truly understand. The way you did literally nothing for a century after eating your single OPM neighbour, the way the game instantly ended if Spain colonised near you instead of Portugal, the way that literally every European country with a coastline would declare war on you as soon as their truce timer expired because they were hard-coded to see you as an easy target even when you owned a whole continent and could trounce Spain or France, it truly was an experience not to be forgotten.

No s**t, its EUROPA universalis after all. Native Americans just arent the nations that can realistically be playable in this timeframe, you have maybe a few decades to have fun and then apocalypse comes after some strange man coughs in your general direction. Inca empire specifically was crushed by Pizarro with 168 men. During this period Europeans and (often forgotten) central Asians conquered most of the world, the game should reflect what made those two "culture groups" powerful and what made their victims weak.

DLCs almost always "add flavour" in the form of shallow mechanics that make its subjects stronger (and more playable), but also more equal. So you end up closer to Civilization-like situation where Incas can field artillery and cavalry before ever meeting the Iberians; and everyone across the world, except maybe for the "primitives", has very simmiliar tech level.

 

[Kyoumen]

Missing the point you silly. EU3 didnt have the mechanics, but EU4 was supposed to be an improvement. It could have added depth in the form of these mechanics but instead it adds shallow flavour mechanics and its left up to modders to develop deep mechanics. It would have been much better if it was the modders that added flavour to the "forgotten corners of the world", while Paradox focused on developing core mechanics of the game.

Even putting aside that EUIV was an improvement on its predecessor in many ways, most people don't play mods. Given that, and pushing back against popular and erroneous conceptions of the time period, it was and is important for Paradox to actually put effort into regions of the world that aren't Europe.

Which, thankfully, they did. It's not perfect, but it's a damn sight better than their previous games were.

No s**t, its EUROPA universalis after all. Native Americans just arent the nations that can realistically be playable in this timeframe, you have maybe a few decades to have fun and then apocalypse comes after some strange man coughs in your general direction. Inca empire specifically was crushed by Pizarro with 168 men. During this period Europeans and (often forgotten) central Asians conquered most of the world, the game should reflect what made those two "culture groups" powerful and what made their victims weak.

Yeah, I think I'm done here. Not really in the mood for this. Congrats on being the 37343684386682th Eurocentrist to make the ridiculous "it's called EUROPA Universalis" rhetorical point. It's called that because there's a board game called that.

 

[Bohemian_warlord]

"Popular and erroneous conceptions of the time period"? What do you mean by that? Are you getting political? I am talking about game mechanics, if you want to talk politics go to politics forum.

The disjointed mechanics I am talking about are a thing for European nations just as much, if not more. Take Brandenburg for example, do we really need "militarization", when we already have army tradition and army professionalism? Whats is it good for except infantile "dude, Prussian space marines, lmao"? Wouldnt it be better, if we instead got something that simulates the ugly bits of war instead of celebrating epic Preussen supersoldaten? War exhaustion as it is sucks, because you can cure it with mana and the only way to cause permanent damage through looting is pillaging the capital. Now look at meiou, they managed to jury-rig a pop system on top of EU4, where every soldier you lose is a person that dies. Why cant we have that in vanilla?

A well designed deep mechanic makes gameplay more interesting globally, they are not "European flavour". Like when I was playing Incas myself, I had a fairly formidable army just a level or two in tech behind the Spanish and yet the Spanish could roflstomp me by sheer size of their doomstacks. A good mechanic for logistics would limit the European naval invasion forces and improve survival rates for nations around the world that could then beat them through vastly superiour local numbers.

Fact is that Europe was the pivotal continent of this time period, Europeans were OP historically and should be OP in the game. Question is how do you simulate this, EU3 did it with blatant "Europeans are just better people, lol" approach by giving tech debuffs to non europeans, EU4 ATM tries to do the same thing using institution spawning but just fails at its job and everyone around the world ends up with simmiliar tech levels. While being more complex mechanically than the chauvinistic model of EU3, it is not better in its current state.

most people don't play mods

And most people dont play non-European nations. That point doesnt really bode well with the rest of your argument.

My argument here is that flavour is better done through mods, because its much easier to program content than it is to program mechanics. And often user made flavour will reach superiour quality, because modders tend to be very passionate and dig deeper into history than the devs do and they also have greater artistic license for high-fantasy scenarios like native Americans surviving the Colombian onslaught. Or for example look at Third Rome Russian mechanics and strip them of the aesthetics, is there really anything specifically Russian about magically spawning large amount of high quality infrantry? Or magically supressing all rebel factions? Or the icon mechanic? Its just random buffs available uniquely for your nation that practically dont come with any impactful drawbacks. Its clearly not something that was designed with passion for eastern european or Russian history.

Its like that for everyone, the flavour is 80-90% buffs, which in turn makes nations without flavour relatively weaker, prompting the devs to give them flavour to balance things out resulting in power creep and feature bloat over long term development. That is the damn point, I was making with my criticism of the DLC philosophy. The sales model just forces the devs into making this shallow detachable expansions and the base game is being upgraded only as afterthrought.