What do you see EU4 doing better than EU5?

[Slime99]

Custom country creator.

 

[MoeinSS]

Nostalgia

 

[Testerian2]

Seeing how CK3 and Vic3 had less than stellar releases, with some very noticeable omissions and downgrades from their previous iterations (let's not get into details here, it's besides the point), it'd be fair to be reluctant at the prospect of an EU5.

However, that doesn't seem to be the case here at all.
From the top of my head, I can't remember any mechanic EU4 did better than what we've seen so far from EU5.
(I say mechanic because there are other more peripheral changes I'm not such a big fan of, like UI style, but I don't believe it's worth to focus on it here.)
It's quite the opposite actually, many mechanics are actually a huge step up from EU4.

So, what do you think?

1. Custom nation creator. I played with this a lot.
2. Quick campaigns: in EU4 you could start a game, start a war next year and conquer a lot of land in 50 years.
3. Modifier stacking. I had a lot of fun playing polish horde and destroying armies 10 times bigger. As far as I know no stacking in EU5.

 

[Cri11e]

You actually still use rnw? Man, it's so often such a stupid looking new world, and there are only a small number of tiles I liked.

Yeah thats why I used mods to limit/improve the *cough* randomness *cough*.

Of course, the custom nation thing is much more important to me, playing fact-locked countries limit the fantasy.
What if I want to be orcs or aliens, in some specific location of my choosing???

or what if I want to be swedes who were magically transported to america in 1337?

This is my jam right here.

 

[Bawhoppen]

Playable North American tags

Also the name of the Chinese religious system

 

[Noxfelis]

I feel like the age focus and national focuses are not giving as much freedom for player expression as eu4's idea group and wish to see them implimanting something more to customize your country.

 

[J_Master]

I really like the start date scenarios too, but it's not a matter of agreeing with the decision. It's a matter of viability.

Remember that a large proportion of the vast amount of research and groundwork that's occurred following the initial systems coding between 2020-2022 has been setting up the initial world scenario for 1337. These requirements for the "living world" that's central to the game's design pillars have made it impractical to include more than one start date at 1.0. A lot has changed between EUIV and EUV, and Tinto focusing their efforts on getting this one start date RIGHT is absolutely the right choice.

That doesn't mean there wont be more start dates in the future (though it's unlikely in an unofficial capacity), but it's very likely entire teams of modders will organize around additional start dates.

It's really a self-fufilling prophecy. In EU4 people played the other startdates less, thus they recieved less attention and thus people played them less. It's also a result of how the other startdates were set up, where you needed a extensive history file effectively descibing each day from nov 11 1444 to jan 1 1815. Plus, PDX games have a notorious problem where people play into the late-game little and the late-game has little content, another vicious circle really. I think some well-chosen later startdates would do well for PDX to expand on the late-game experience as well

 

[YashaCarry]

God, I really hope I am wrong, but Polynesia.

Other than that, performance, I assume. I know optimization hasn't happened yet, but I am still not optimistic about it.

 

[Thorum]

They stopped revising the map of eu4 at a logical time (though a last edit would definitely have been possible, at the very least for the Andes).

They stopped adequately revising the eu5 map two thirds halfway through the requested feedback
(And never got to the second round)

I'm starting to think Johan doesn't like maps?

 

[McEwanMaster]

They stopped adequately revising the eu5 map two thirds halfway through the requested feedback
(And never got to the second round)

I'm starting to think Johan doesn't like maps?

I'm confused about what real facts you're drawing from here.
1. Sure, the past couple of TMs have elicited a less than thrilled response, but there's still 11 regions to go. It's not possible to conclude that Tinto "stopped" doing anything until we see what the rest of those TMs entail.
2. They've always made it clear that there was not going to be a "second round" of feedback posts.
3. That feedback still exists in Tinto's database, waiting for a time to be checked and implemented.

You're discounting how much your own awareness of EUV's behind-the-scenes development is affecting your opinions of EUV's map vs EUIV's. Tinto could have developed EUV like normal, behind closed doors, and your lack of insider information would have led you along to the same opinion you hold for EUIV. The game itself would not have been anywhere close to what it is now, however.

Just instill some patience into your approach.

 

[Sithodox2286]

The GUI is now customizable and there's a million more modifiers.

Yes and no. Customisable GUI in EU4, to my opinion, is less than what players may think it is. Modders like it because it make mod fansier, but the system is not "well-made" mechanical-wise. But, yeh, million more modifiers in EU4. I was so diappointed when I open-up CK3 back in 2020 and Vicky3 back in 2022 just to find out how little I can do about modifiers. Even existing modifiers were not 100% use-able back in the days, because the localisations for them are in-complete (because devs aren't using them in early version of the game).

For the record, EU4 GUI is now customisable but it seems that AI won't click them. That's an issue appear also in HOI4. In both games, modders are forced to code "AI-decision" (or on-action effect) per button press they create. With AI for decision pressing being "static", as the "AI chance" is not a "chance" but a static value that makes AI "100% press the decision in due time". You cannot actually modify AI behaviour, but have to just make the effect of the deicision (or on-action effect) (which player can just press GUI and choose) go random. Hardcore mod like MEIOU with tons of new GUI buttons utilised in game for-loop, while-loop and list to make the "random" effects "selective", but those things are major performance crackers.

The problem is resolved for games made with new engines like IR, CK3 and Vicky3, as the devs are awared of modding needs and in-turn added proper/performance-optimised listing and selection functions in advance. Mod-able GUI have also been given with AI-behaviour scopes, which is much of a relief.

 

[Thorum]

I'm confused about what real facts you're drawing from here.
1. Sure, the past couple of TMs have elicited a less than thrilled response, but there's still 11 regions to go. It's not possible to conclude that Tinto "stopped" doing anything until we see what the rest of those TMs entail.

They've spent a lot of resources creating a first version of the map, and giving it a first round of amendments for Europe. And while there's much more input to be gathered for rotw, it's clear that it's no longer being taken into account adequately. And that's even ignoring the huge difference in location density.

2. They've always made it clear that there was not going to be a "second round" of feedback posts.

And that has always been an issue.

3. That feedback still exists in Tinto's database, waiting for a time to be checked and implemented.

That's irrelevant for release, and it is very unlikely that the problematic areas will get a rework in the first few years. The difference in location density was already a big issue, Tinto is creating themselves a big quality difference as well...

So, in conclusion, and very unfortunately, nothing points towards the optimism showcased in your post.

 

[Thorum]

Let me finish my contribution on this topic by quoting @Sulphurologist from another thread earlier today :


" while I'm dissappointed to see the feedback posts being rushed with backlogs of changes that will be made piling up, I want to take a moment to appreciate all the effort and energy the devs have poured into this community-outreach project to begin with. "

 

[Sithodox2286]

in my opinion; going from eu3 to eu4 was a downgrade in many aspects but honestly from what i've seen so far -and i have pretty much read or watched all i could about it in my leisure times- eu5 looks like an improvement in every aspect.

True. I have seen some posts in this forum and some more in other places (like yt, reddit) arguing EU5 is too much IR-alike or Vicky-alike and too complex for casual EU4 player. I know that EU5 is, indeed, the complex part of the spectrum with all the economy factors added. Which is a big jump from EU4, a more mana driven game with continental/world conquest using manpower and buff supported armies as main attraction.

But, if we move our eyes on to HOI4, CK3 and Vicky3. Those are games released after EU4. Which is, in many ways, reduced-n-simplified compared to their predecessors in respective franchise. From a developing pov, I think it would be bad if devs only making games that "subtracts". Especially, for GSG as basically a spin-off type from resourse-management games (and of course borad games) with player doing admin actions most of their gaming time, in contrast to RTS which revolve around the "comand-n-conquer" theme that needs you to micro-managing units and build order.

Moreover, playing GSG was never easy. EU4 was difficult for me as I began my GSG journey with CK2 (which I still think is the newbie's choice of PDX GSG games), and before that I was a RTS fan.

 

[Sithodox2286]

I think EU4 is very good at prioritizing freedom over realism. It doesn't concern itself much with "could that have happened in history" or "does that game mechanic feel like a game mechanic".

I get what you mean. But, I don't think that's gonna be impossible in EU5. You'll just have to feed your subjects, tend to those conquered cultures (using force or other), while still conquering like Gengis khan 2.0.

 

[Nikicaga]

That is simply not true. Pdx lives off mods and would never hurt themselves like that.

And just look at CK3 and V3. All modern PDX games have fully moddable UI as a default. EU4 did not not have it because of some greed conspiracy but because the code was old af and it was much more difficult to allow it.

As I said, all IR, V3 and CK3 had full modding capabilities as default.

Yeah, I truly don't understand people thinking it will be less moddable, especially with everything we've seen from the DDs being completely opposite

Pdx generally has great relationship with modders, new modding capabilities often get added even during a game's lifespan, the developers shout out and even play prominent mods, some modders get early access to patches to update their mods faster, and new employees are frequently recruited from the modding community

 

[Rule Britannia]

EUIV is available, EUV is not, that is one thing it does better

 

[Panzergruppe]

I will miss custom start dates greatly. Sometimes I just want to try out a what if scenario set in, say, the Thirty years war and no way am I going to play 100% historically for maybe tens of hours just to test it out and I probably wouldn't be able to control the fates of all other countries anyway, I want to be able to pick that date immediately.