What could EU5 learn/take from recent Pdx games

[Jarvin]

Are you saying that you enjoy mis/wrong information? Learning the game is something that takes a LOT of time, and I do enjoy that. But all the bugs, workarounds etc. not so enjoyable IMHO.

I know it sounds extremely backwards, but that's... sort of how it works?
Ignorance is a bliss

To make an extreme example: imagine if somewhere in the game, nested in 10 menus and tooltips there was a button that whenever you pressed it it gave you +500 of each mana and +5000 ducats, because the devs left it over from debugging, or for whatever reason thought it was good game design.
In this scenario someone playing the game would probably prefer if they DIDN'T know that button existed, as someone unaware of a poorly designed element in the game doesn't need to deal with it.

There are tons of less-extreme examples of that in EU4. Of mechanics that feel good only if you are bad at using them, of content(as in. idea groups etc.) that are straight up useless if you know how everything works

Army compositions aren't fun anymore once you know the optimal way to organize them.
Events aren't as fun anymore, once you know the optimal choice for most of them
Unit choices aren't fun anymore, once you realize how worthless they are
Choices in this game aren't as fun anymore, once you know the best answer to most of them.


Another way to look at it is if you imagined EU4 as a labirynth game where you strat at spot X and need to find a way out among thousands of corridors and little passages. Understanding mechanics in EU4 is like if someone straight up showed you at beginning what is the shortest way out.


It doesn't have to be this way, but it is like so currently, because EU4 wasn't designed with optimization in mind. This game isn't like, dunno, Age of Empires or StarCraft or other strategy games where even at the highest level there is place for significant freedom of choice. EU4's mechanics don't make that much sense at the highest level, so for everyone playing this game it's objectivelly better to stay at lower levels of understanding of the game for as long as possible, as this game is more about the journey than the destination.

Again, I realize how backward this seems.
and also, EU5 doesn't have to be like this.

 

[Zoot1337]

I think eu5 needs to have more trade offs rather than opportunity costs.

For example, in eu4 you can either take religious or humanist (opportunity cost). if you take religious, you don’t get worse at humanist things (I.e, tolerance) just not any better. Later you can then take humanist and get the best of both worlds: a state in which you conduct mass cultural and religious cleansing, but no one rebels because you are also “tolerant” of other religious and cultures somehow. To me that makes no sense.

So I think you should be only able to get conversion buffs with costs to tolerance, and vice versa. Never both. That sort of logic should then apply to most things where it makes sense.

May I add that there should be a tradition-innovation axis?

 

[grommile]

May I add that there should be a tradition-innovation axis?

You may.

Now, explain why I want the Tradition end of that axis.

 

[Zoot1337]

You may.

Now, explain why I want the Tradition end of that axis.

Innovative for technology discounts, Tradition for army, navy Tradition and perhaps bonus morale and unrest reduction

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I basically don't "feel" I'm playing with something that I can weave objectives and goals, or even benchmarks. It might be just a visual thing (although I dont think it is) that I see all as just a souless spreadsheet, calculations and buttons. I don't get that brain spark when I do something and something then happens, I don't see reactions or changes, only numbers.

This criticism is itself an illusion. Every game can be reduced to its numbers + writing to support its story (if any). I guess you can also like or dislike the graphical designs.

This "feel" thing isn't something that can be objectively captured. Seems to be a kind of personal preference, and framed that way it's fine. Not a fan of games being called "soulless", unless one's talking about objective observations of physical objects (where no game made so far can possibly have one, and whether humans can is doubtful). If something about the presentation or scope don't click, that's a preference that can be described.

There are obviously properties that separate widely beloved games from shovelware, with the latter being described as "soulless". But that strikes me as a shortcut/ill defined specifics, not a legit criticism.

My #1 criticism for pretty much every Pdox game is UI, specifically input efficiency. It ranges from questionable to downright awful, depending on game. Hundreds to thousands of extra inputs than under ideal UI even within sub-30 minute periods. It adds up fast. It also contributes to "late game slog", profoundly. It's not the only reason late game drags, but it's a substantial fraction of the issue (this is also why Civ late games drag, combination of bizzarely slow AI turns for no reason and a UI quality that isn't excusable for high budget titles...why is it easier to manage 5x more cities in titles a decade earlier by the same company in UI input terms alone?). For EU 4, It can take me several minutes of IRL time to spend all of my ducats govcap buildings using the macrobuilder on a machine above recommended specs. A well-done UI could do this in under one second, with (maybe) the game lagging if it isn't also well-optimized. But regardless of optimization, the input expectation is itself a problem that permeates everything from buildings to peace deals to grant province to religious conversions and more. Stuff like "core all" is an appreciated first step, but this one still has a gulf for improvement.

But hey, at least in EU 4 the controls work, unlike HOI 4 where units move/attack away from assigned front lines, attack without being ordered to attack or having any active orders whatsover (auto-generated "green pathing arrows" through enemy territory because reasons), get selected by on-screen drag boxes while off screen (???), refuse to move to an assigned front line (new! fun!), or spend very substantial in-game time portions if the player doesn't micro literally every single province along a path. EU 4 has bad efficiency, but you can order units to move and expect them to...actually carry out that order...moving to that destination when you look away, barring something attacking them. EU 4 has poor controls in contrast to HOI 4, where the "don't work" criticism is objectively true...stuff simply does not do what the game itself tells it will do when you make the order, despite no intervention from the enemy preventing it. Like a mario game where sometimes the sprint button is just ignored w/o any indication for why.

EU 4's team, of late, has reversed the majority my second largest criticism, which is the game accurately presenting information/being honest. The improvement on that front has been enormous, demonstrated it's definitely possible in Pdox titles (as did CK2), and would be a top lesson to take into EU 5. Don't go the HOI 4 route where new content lies to players directly in addition to meshing with previous content to make that also lie to players, even more frequently than it did prior. EU 4 has improved on this front in ways I'd genuinely given up on thinking I'd see. Combining this with having less reliance on wiki/trial and error would be a big step up...steps the current game has started taking already.

 

[DominusNovus]

You may.

Now, explain why I want the Tradition end of that axis.

Because innovation is a high-risk high-reward strategy in life.

 

[ZéMalta]

This criticism is itself an illusion. Every game can be reduced to its numbers + writing to support its story (if any). I guess you can also like or dislike the graphical designs.

This "feel" thing isn't something that can be objectively captured. Seems to be a kind of personal preference, and framed that way it's fine. Not a fan of games being called "soulless", unless one's talking about objective observations of physical objects (where no game made so far can possibly have one, and whether humans can is doubtful). If something about the presentation or scope don't click, that's a preference that can be described.

There are obviously properties that separate widely beloved games from shovelware, with the latter being described as "soulless". But that strikes me as a shortcut/ill defined specifics, not a legit criticism.

My #1 criticism for pretty much every Pdox game is UI, specifically input efficiency. It ranges from questionable to downright awful, depending on game. Hundreds to thousands of extra inputs than under ideal UI even within sub-30 minute periods. It adds up fast. It also contributes to "late game slog", profoundly. It's not the only reason late game drags, but it's a substantial fraction of the issue (this is also why Civ late games drag, combination of bizzarely slow AI turns for no reason and a UI quality that isn't excusable for high budget titles...why is it easier to manage 5x more cities in titles a decade earlier by the same company in UI input terms alone?). For EU 4, It can take me several minutes of IRL time to spend all of my ducats govcap buildings using the macrobuilder on a machine above recommended specs. A well-done UI could do this in under one second, with (maybe) the game lagging if it isn't also well-optimized. But regardless of optimization, the input expectation is itself a problem that permeates everything from buildings to peace deals to grant province to religious conversions and more. Stuff like "core all" is an appreciated first step, but this one still has a gulf for improvement.

But hey, at least in EU 4 the controls work, unlike HOI 4 where units move/attack away from assigned front lines, attack without being ordered to attack or having any active orders whatsover (auto-generated "green pathing arrows" through enemy territory because reasons), get selected by on-screen drag boxes while off screen (???), refuse to move to an assigned front line (new! fun!), or spend very substantial in-game time portions if the player doesn't micro literally every single province along a path. EU 4 has bad efficiency, but you can order units to move and expect them to...actually carry out that order...moving to that destination when you look away, barring something attacking them. EU 4 has poor controls in contrast to HOI 4, where the "don't work" criticism is objectively true...stuff simply does not do what the game itself tells it will do when you make the order, despite no intervention from the enemy preventing it. Like a mario game where sometimes the sprint button is just ignored w/o any indication for why.

EU 4's team, of late, has reversed the majority my second largest criticism, which is the game accurately presenting information/being honest. The improvement on that front has been enormous, demonstrated it's definitely possible in Pdox titles (as did CK2), and would be a top lesson to take into EU 5. Don't go the HOI 4 route where new content lies to players directly in addition to meshing with previous content to make that also lie to players, even more frequently than it did prior. EU 4 has improved on this front in ways I'd genuinely given up on thinking I'd see. Combining this with having less reliance on wiki/trial and error would be a big step up...steps the current game has started taking already.

You may see it as not being a legit criticism, cuz it isn't. I'm just explaining my point of view so who reads it can see where I'm coming from, which are the problems I myself see, and so can either consider that relevant or not, something relatable or not. And when I say the gameplay when I look at the screen feels souless, I say so knowing full well the effort put into the game is far from it, and the systems weren't made mindlessly. And again, it is a visual and personal thing, I like feedback on my actions on the game, which in this case could be an UI matter, as many have said. Which I believe will be a design struggle PDX games will have for years to come, getting better each time, with some stumbles here and there.

Good to see EU4 is still improving, and things that enduring in the game have been worked one. I'm honestly surprised the game is spitting out content till this day, and for me that says a bunch, mostly good. In everyway, EU4 is part of the PDX games Europa Universalis 5 could learn from then hahahaha

Baring Leviathan, it seems EU4 has only been improving since launch. Which is a strength of paradox games in my opinion. It keeps getting tinkered, improved, invested into, grown... etc.

On that note, from what I can take of CK3 and Vic3, EU5 would have a very good launch. Even if I wasn't watching closely and couldn't tell, the release of Imperator Rome wasn't a good one, but I think it was a hard learned lesson, that won't repeat in EU.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You may see it as not being a legit criticism, cuz it isn't.

IMO it's more like you're not articulating precisely what it is you prefer the game to do vs not. But if you look at it broadly, games that are called "soulless" by a large % of people have objective issues as well. It's more like I think you have a criticism or at minimum a preference that's different from what the game does, but aren't presenting it in a way that's clear.

Like is it the appearance that's taking away from your experience, the pacing, the way particular topics that are important to you are represented mechanically? Some combination? What kind of feedback feels impactful vs not? EU 4 UI actually floods the players with feedback/information, and can do it even harder with message setting changes, but this clearly isn't the experience you mean wrt feedback.

Baring Leviathan, it seems EU4 has only been improving since launch.

IMO it's had quite a few peaks and valleys, but the trend on those is upward over time.

 

[Travis_Bickle]

I think another good question is what can EU fans take from the recent Paradox releases.

It takes multiple DLC's to get the game up to the level of fullness and flavour the previous version had.

You can see this with CK3. Imo there's a great game there but the game is still barebones relative to CK2. The game needs 3-4 more DLC packs to start reaching its full potential.

EU5 will be the same. On release, EU5 will be very barebones and it'll take some time for it to get to the point we all want it at. Hopefully we as fans remain patient.

As to actual game mechanics...the one thing I'd like is more diplomacy, more diplomatic options, more micromanaging diplomatic relations etc.

 

[Workiwork]

imho what EU5 could take from recent pdx games is their being more accessible, more understandable, easier to play when not being an expert of the series : info bubbles, tutorials, less abstract concepts than monarch power, etc. Simpler to grasp.

i clicked disagree but i do not 100% disagree with everything. more information is good. more help is good. easier to play when you are not an expert, sure with mentioned help but recent games are not as good because they are easier in too many other ways. ck 3 is boringly easy for example.

You must actively try to lose in modern Paradox Games or you will succeed. EU 5 should be EU 4 with info, but not be radical different. (And the Mana hate is a meme by now. It worked in earlier EU 4 versions and is just overused nowadays, but could work again in EU 5.)

 

[grandadmiralbob]

I know it sounds extremely backwards, but that's... sort of how it works?
Ignorance is a bliss

To make an extreme example: imagine if somewhere in the game, nested in 10 menus and tooltips there was a button that whenever you pressed it it gave you +500 of each mana and +5000 ducats, because the devs left it over from debugging, or for whatever reason thought it was good game design.
In this scenario someone playing the game would probably prefer if they DIDN'T know that button existed, as someone unaware of a poorly designed element in the game doesn't need to deal with it.

There are tons of less-extreme examples of that in EU4. Of mechanics that feel good only if you are bad at using them, of content(as in. idea groups etc.) that are straight up useless if you know how everything works

Army compositions aren't fun anymore once you know the optimal way to organize them.
Events aren't as fun anymore, once you know the optimal choice for most of them
Unit choices aren't fun anymore, once you realize how worthless they are
Choices in this game aren't as fun anymore, once you know the best answer to most of them.


Another way to look at it is if you imagined EU4 as a labirynth game where you strat at spot X and need to find a way out among thousands of corridors and little passages. Understanding mechanics in EU4 is like if someone straight up showed you at beginning what is the shortest way out.


It doesn't have to be this way, but it is like so currently, because EU4 wasn't designed with optimization in mind. This game isn't like, dunno, Age of Empires or StarCraft or other strategy games where even at the highest level there is place for significant freedom of choice. EU4's mechanics don't make that much sense at the highest level, so for everyone playing this game it's objectivelly better to stay at lower levels of understanding of the game for as long as possible, as this game is more about the journey than the destination.

Again, I realize how backward this seems.
and also, EU5 doesn't have to be like this.

I got cha', and I get the appeal. Some people like the unknown while others don't. I do like learning the game and after many MANY hours, I still learn little tricks. But it deters some people from playing when the game doesn't do what it says, or then the help text is wrong. I have witnessed this several times.

 

[bestbrian]

More of a wish list since I'm not too familiar with other Paradox games: A dynamic trading system that actually responds to what transpires during the course of the game would be nice. I would also like to see a more a la carte system for ideas than having critical ideas I want bundled into groups with other ideas I have no intention of utilizing (Hello, Administrative). Something in the same vein for land and naval units would be nice to differentiate between nations, with tech, ideas, and culture unlocking various choices and upgrades that add variability between different countries and their militaries, including an actual logistics system.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You must actively try to lose in modern Paradox Games or you will succeed. EU 5 should be EU 4 with info, but not be radical different. (And the Mana hate is a meme by now. It worked in earlier EU 4 versions and is just overused nowadays, but could work again in EU 5.)

Most resources in games are arbitrary/abstractions. "Mana" was generated as a term because monarch points specifically tied things together that make no sense being tethered to the same resource, hence "magic". The original meme post even gave specific examples of that ("bird" mana applied to diplomacy and boats etc) to highlight the absurdity. The term then got distorted and abused into a too-general "criticism" that lost the root complaint (when resources are used absurdly).

It's kind of like having nature/death/astral/elemental magic etc and then making fireballs dictated by the nature school. Putting boats in "diplomacy" tech is kind of like that, and is what generated the original meme. I wouldn't mind a rework of tech for EU 5, as the 1-32 system with westernization --> institutions and tying monarch points to both research and in-game actions has always had some design problems and resulted in recurring threads about the game model not doing what players would see as ideal...even in cases where players fundamentally disagree what the game "should" play like, it's pretty obvious that the current system itself is resulting in outcomes that both sides of that discussion aren't 100% on board with. Aligning resources to what things use those resources in a more intuitive way would solve *part* of that problem.

I'm not sure what you're referring to with "modern" titles, but I would like to point out that from the perspective of many forum posters, a majority of the playerbase is really bad by comparison (not unexpected when you compare an average person picking up one of the games to someone with 1000-2000+ hours who "completed the tutorial" by investing that time).

 

[Koopatin]

EU 5 could be an EU 4 port into a new engine for all i care. with all current DLC. I would not want EU to be any less and to be honest, i do not care for it to be a good game for new players.

I play a lot of easy and relaxing games, hell pokemon is fun from time to time, but paradox for me was a niche publisher for something else and while I am happy for paradox current success, I have more than enough choice in other games. i feel a "70%" metacritic GSG was always better for me than a modern "85%+" metacritic game.

Its all about feelings i guess and i had fun with CK 3 but it felt so non PD to me. Not a game I come back to from time to time, but a game I play between playing "old" paradox games.

reading that myself i sound like some heavy metal fan moaning about the new direction of his beloved band, proclaiming everything after 1995 is bad... but well... old i get...

 

[I like wars and maps]

If recent means IR and CK3 and Vic 3 then absolutely nothing. Every release only serves to make me appreciate EU4 more since it really does nothing wrong in what it sets out to do.

 

[arosenberger14]

I think they need to learn from CK2 and CK3 that a "cyclic" gameplay model can be just as fun as a "progressive" one. Instead of snowballing endlessly into a boring lategame, every "meta" strategy should contain the seeds of its own undoing, making for a more natural rise and fall of states that somewhat reset the challenge similar to how your characters die in CK.

 

[ZéMalta]

We have Vic3 that proposes itself as Society Builder. And I think might still achieve that, but for now it still is a political Power simulator, based on economy most of all, which is perfectly fitting for the identity of the game, and it is very competent at it. So, actually it might be Society Builder in the end, even if more Socioeconomic Builder.

Ck3 is a Medieval Ruler Simulator, that puts each character as a figure in its own standing and right, capable of being interacted with, bonded or hated over. Its geared towards their relations, and then the minutiae of ruling, without getting that much deep or complex on the management part.

I think both games do game loops greatly in their own way, in their preferred parts. And as much as I love the historical aspects and how they should be explored and make the setting of the game, I also believe that as products, PDX games should firstly differentiate themselves by gameplay, systems, and not simply the timeline they occupy. That is an honest game design based idea I hold for these games, be it true or not.
So, when I think EU5, and with it expectations, hopes, fears, and practical thoughts, I'm trying to think how it would propose itself.
Is it a Pre-Industrial Realm Builder? A Post-Medieval Society Simulator? An Age of Exploration Explorer? I think it could be any of those.

EU4 is a game that sits sort of comfortably between Vic and CK in gamestyle and timeline. In the end though, I think it sits closer with the more power-economy and scale of Victoria. But it could go either way, even if it holds its own grounds.


Now, if I was to make a description of what I would want, unconditionally, it would probably be a compromise between EU4, Vic3 and Ck3. Not so much a raw hot pot, but a synthesis based on the common grounds, as to make a unique tapestry of mechanics and systems that becomes its own thing. The Eras covered are so full of ideas, concepts that really shook the societies in which they entered, technologies that changed how things could be done. Of both amazing societies and amazing people. Where the subjective, the ideal and the values shaped very different nations, that when they met could result in all sorts of interactions. And each new ingredient (be it a tech or idea discovered outside or inside the country) would be added or barred from the pot, and so create wondrous concepts.
I have an itchy feeling that while keeping the scale and economic basis, EU5 could really go for a Culture Builder vibe. I mean, sometimes, the history seems to show Courts battling to have the highest highs, the grandest courts, the richest cities, the newest and most fabulous novelties. Wars in scales never seen before were fought because of ideas, religions, movements. How a Nation would survive and thrive in such turmoil, and what it would become, that could be a very fun game. Maybe bringing in a new way to make fabric that is cheaper and more profitable would bring with it ideas that you don't want, maybe you are buying and promoting useless products in your country but you are fascinated by the nation that produces them.
I don't know, I'm feeling mad scientist rambling, but it could be a direction to set the game apart. Give more dynamic to the gameplay, more weight to commercial and diplomatic decisions. Have the States be more complex and have their thoughts weighting on these things. Dominate colonies with the framing of your "enlightened ruling", and the guns are just a formality of course...

It would certainly give yet another layer of complexity to the economy, military, diplomacy game. Be it for some min-maxing and manipulation, or simple madmanning until you get a Philip II with a Papua new guinea feather crown, wearing a japanese kimono, speaking in Turkish with 1/3 of its subjects being from Congo, and thriving from an economy of porcelain made much cheaper and more intricate than the Chinese one through an innovative process, kept locked by seven keys by the spanish guilds.

 

[ero_sk]

imho what EU5 could take from recent pdx games is their being more accessible, more understandable, easier to play when not being an expert of the series : info bubbles, tutorials, less abstract concepts than monarch power, etc. Simpler to grasp.

I'm genuinely intrigued by the fact that someone might think that more recent PDX titles provide better information. Victoria 3 is a good example of skewed UX experience, with innacurate information, important notifications hidden by the noise generated by less important notifications, and the really controversial (and imo bad) concept of the info bubbles. "Classic" notifications, events and messaging settings in EUIV, even if archaic, are far superior in my opinion. They may be not as shiny and fancy as the newer designs, but they fulfill their purpose much better.

 

[holyvigil]

As much as I was fascinated by the possibilities of diplomacy, economy, the internal dealing with estates, vassal states; and the use of diplomatic and burocratic and military points, I was also feeling that besides the Missions I get pretty lost. Not only because the mechanics can be very arcane and complex to understand even after many tutorials and guides. I basically don't "feel" I'm playing with something that I can weave objectives and goals, or even benchmarks. It might be just a visual thing (although I dont think it is) that I see all as just a souless spreadsheet, calculations and buttons. I don't get that brain spark when I do something and something then happens, I don't see reactions or changes, only numbers.

Is this vicky 3 or eu4?

Personally I think EU5 could take from the new games is that not porting over a lot of the old mechanics from the previous version makes bland and boring game play. You alienate your old customer base by making a bare bones game. And your new customer base doesn't come because it's not hyped up.

 

[Sete]

This might not be popular but I would like a shorter time frame for the game, with more specific tech and military units for the countries.