What could EU5 learn/take from recent Pdx games

[Olaf Trygvasson]

But also for what I think they should do is emphasize how much the world is changing. I don't want a CK style character focus, like some people have suggested, but I think that a vassal system with way more complexity would be good for the game. Like CK, your vassal states should be entities you need to keep happy to improve how they'll help you and to prevent either rebellions, revolts, etc., and with more complexity than what EU4 models. EU5 needs more internal complexity that you need to deal with to keep your nation in line and that you are able to exploit in your enemy

 

[ZéMalta]

I think UI improvement is something that will always be a trouble that keeps on giving. The designers are probably doing their best, and the more the games grow and complexify. the more they will have to nudge and put in there. So its kind of a chronical problem, no PDX game did it perfectly in my view. CK3 only is a bit better cuz it ain't that complex are other games are in matter of numbers and sub-systems, but it still is the more navigable for me. But it seems it varies wildly for each player.

But I will always respect the workers and devs first and foremost, so I don't agree with firing anyone. I'll take their side by principle until proven they really messed it up when they could've not. But hey, it is a company, with marketing, investors, moving and demanding parts, deadlines. The devs are closer to us, the consumers than the owners of IP and board of directors will ever be. Besides, UI can always improve, patch by patch, game by game. Not a perfect or fair solution, but I don't see a golden solution. In the end, it must be as it has been said in the forum, the UI must show true and important info, and that is that. I suppose having to open windows and tooltips will continue to be part of the learning and gaming process.
I don't know, may be a downer, but I don't see an escape.

Now, content-wise, I could be wrong, but I just don't see a new game coming out with half the quantity of content the previous edition had with base price and normal development time. It might seem like a cheap move, but I don't think it is, honestly. What would be cheap for me would be to simply transport the whole previous content, refurbish and put in the new game. But other than indie some games, that actually just expand the same game instead of making new ones, I don't see this happening. And I truly think while there is less quantitative content in a new PDX game, there is more quality and that grow exponential with each content added. That is my perspective at the very least. I've still got some 3 to 4 dlcs that I haven't got for EU4, because the price if I was to get everything would be nuts. So currently I think we get more bang for our buck in dlc than we had, on previous games. An impression at least.

 

[oak]

I believe the three mana would still be in EUV, but should reverse how it works. I believe there’s something similar in Vic3 but not sure. Instead of gaining mana monthly, there should be a max capacity based of your monarch and advisor stats. Each action you do, such as influencing relations, having allies, coring, teching, developing provinces and etc will fill up your mana capacity. For things such as teching and development, the amount of mana you assign to them will fill up its pool monthly and then be completed when it’s full. This will resolve the instant click complaint to gain tech, stability, or developments.

 

[Kuantum]

I played Victoria 3 for 8 hours.

I hope EU V never exists.

 

[ero_sk]

I believe the three mana would still be in EUV, but should reverse how it works. I believe there’s something similar in Vic3 but not sure. Instead of gaining mana monthly, there should be a max capacity based of your monarch and advisor stats. Each action you do, such as influencing relations, having allies, coring, teching, developing provinces and etc will fill up your mana capacity. For things such as teching and development, the amount of mana you assign to them will fill up its pool monthly and then be completed when it’s full. This will resolve the instant click complaint to gain tech, stability, or developments.

I slightly touched on this here

 

[sjobenrit]

ck is for dynastys and characters and Victoria is for pops. People who argue for putting those two in eu4/eu5 are either too poor to buy a new game or do not know what made eu4 'stand out'. Same as hoi4: add diplomacy as a general feature (not locked behind focus trees and niche interactions as its now) and its not hoi4 anymore, or at least hoi4 as it was supposed to be @ release.

 

[Had a dad]

Calling on anyone from the company to be fired will not be tolerated. nor will the discussion.

 

[gianlucad]

I can't wait for the ugly 3D portraits to make their way into EU5. We really need to see what the rulers of europe in 1444 looked like as taxitermied corpses!

 

[moscal]

EU:Rome, CK series and HoI4 - real "Civil Wars".
New nation, who can find own alliances and supports to victory in place "chaotic spam of stupid rebels"

 

[I like wars and maps]

I can't wait for the ugly 3D portraits to make their way into EU5. Really want to see what the rulers of europe look like as taxitermied corpses in 1444!

And it will take up like 60% of the UI for no good reason.

 

[PenitusVox]

I think EUIV works very well as it is so there's not much that I would want changed going forward. The main thing that I would like to see is a an overhaul of and a more dynamic trade system. Early EUIV is more about developing local provinces but it quickly expands out to be a game about trade and influencing the global market. I don't need it to be as in depth as a Victoria but my pet feature would be dynamic trade lines. Something that's almost like a fluid simulation, where you can actually influence the way trade flows in the world map.

Turn Zanzibar into an end node. Flip the way trade flows by turning the Americas into a trade powerhouse. Create brand new trade connections or possibly even block some in some way through embargos and other means.

The way it works in EUIV is fun enough, and you should be able to play in a similar way in EUV, but "I guess it's time to move my trade capital to Genoa again" does get old.

 

[RELee]

Focusing on portraits when playing a GSG seems kinda, I don't know, misguided perhaps. Maybe it's just me OCD'ing on game play.

 

[Temudhun Khan]

They tried to make a game which takes from Eruopa Universalis country management and Crusader King character focus already, it's called Imperator Rome. Didn't work

There are actually quite a few things for which Europa Universalis should take inspiration from Imperator. Stability, technology, even mission trees...

 

[Merrivale]

If we can put in things I hope they don't take it's the overall UI philosophy. I want a ledger and I want message settings.

More broadly, I think it's been a mistake for Paradox DLCs across franchises to give super-upgrades via the map and events one section of the world at a time. It means the game is basically never balanced, because certain parts of the world are always behind.

 

[Twoflower]

They tried to make a game which takes from Eruopa Universalis country management and Crusader King character focus already, it's called Imperator Rome. Didn't work

Have you actually played the current version of Imperator Rome?
Imperator has a bad reputation for its terrible release version - which suffered not only from being barebones in fluff and nation-specific content, but also from questionable design choices and just being boring and too easy. It was improved more dramatically than any Paradox game by patches, and has many design ideas that are both conceived and executed really well. To name a few:
- the army system with a tradeoff/transition between levies and professional standing armies
- a food and supply system for armies
- a system of cultural acceptance with actual interesting strategic decisions
- fluffy, fun, interesting religion, where you pick your main gods from a pantheons, can build, conquer and desecrate holy sites, distribute artifacts...
- the best tech system of any Paradox game
- a pop system that was neither too complex nor too simplistic, that felt relevant and organic and that you could interact with meaningfully.
- the distinction between settlements, cities and metropolis which gave you actual interesting, meaningful options for developing your provinces
- a mission system that may not be perfect, but that to a certain extent adapts to the in-game situation, makes you choose a general strategic direction for your country and that combines flavourful nation-specific content with dynamic, non-specific content

Yes, the game even in its most recent version still lacks flavour in several areas, the AI is still so bad that it is not challenging enough in singleplayer and lots of stuff still should be improved and further developed. It is a crying shame that its development was halted. EU5 could still learn quite a bit from it.

 

[Nostalgium]

I'd personally like to see EU5 double down on Estates, and make them a third pillar to warfare and diplomacy. The Estates should wield tangible power in your state, and should not be as easily appeased as they are in EU4. If you want to travel a more tolerant path in a country that has a deeply rooted, intolerant Clergy estate, that should be a real challenge. If you want the Crown to wield absolute power, you should really need to play around and curtail the nobility to make this happen. You should be able to ally with some estates to wrangle others into submission; the conflict within should be as complex diplomatically as the conflict without, if not more so. It should even be possible, I think, for a badly disgruntled estate to seek foreign help in pushing their agenda. Your aristocracy is deeply intermarried with the French due to your 75 years of royal marriages while gunning for their throne? You BET they'll have some ties to call on when you try to revoke their control of the military.

Other than that, it's the usual stuff. Colonialism BADLY needs an overhaul, the combat system could do with more depth to better simulate the transition from mercenary-supplemented levies to professional armies, and they finally need to work out a way to represent tribal populations in a way that doesn't play identically as societies that are recognizably state-like. But Estates is the big one for me.

PS:
Everything @Twoflower said about I:R. IR 2.0 is secretly one of PDX's best titles, and is a better template for what EU5 should look like in general mechanical terms than EU4 is.

 

[zorkman]

Get rid of Lucky Nations, which none of the others have, & stop making Ironman compulsary if you want achievements. I can put up with Ironman but not the rigid nonsense of lucky nation, which just destabilise the game.

 

[I like wars and maps]

Get rid of Lucky Nations, which none of the others have, & stop making Ironman compulsary if you want achievements. I can put up with Ironman but not the rigid nonsense of lucky nation, which just destabilise the game.

Its insane how much better eu4 would be if you coud actually use mods like in Vic 3. No need to wait literal years till the devs fix a problem thats older then their employment at Paradox of wich half the fixes just make the problem worse anyway.

 

[EUnderhill]

EU4 with Pops. Just give us that on release date. I wouldn't mind sending off monarch points in a viking funeral, but just incorporating pops into the core of the game would be a great start.

Oh, and don't go with that 'no more message settings' schtick the newer games have. I hate that, and so does everyone else on the forum.

I would love POPs in a "Victoria 1492" game, but let's keep the EU franchise erring on the boardgamey side of wargaming.

 

[EUnderhill]

Get rid of Lucky Nations, which none of the others have, & stop making Ironman compulsary if you want achievements. I can put up with Ironman but not the rigid nonsense of lucky nation, which just destabilise the game.

I'm about to tone them down 90% in my next start.