Which features are you most hyped for, which features are you most worried for?

[SAmaster]

I'm hyped for the more indepth armies system with unique cultural levies, the ability to make roads, the expanded cabinet system, and the new flexibility of situations, IO's, and disasters.

I'm currently concerned with them trying to move national ideas to advances, since only certain nations are getting those, and I don't trust the AI to get them all, and likewise with them trying to replace idea groups with societal value sliders. I don't think the sliders are bad, I just don't think they'll inform the same strategizing decisions. I'm also concerned about the current de-emphasis on misison trees- I think their inclusion will be bare bones on release, and they won't get flashed out until we get dlc expansions (and I think their lack of inclusion will be felt negatively on launch). I'm also worried about the trade system being undercooked- I like pops demanding certain trade goods, having to think about access to food, and trying to reform your economy around different tarde goods, with different buildings requiring different goods. But I'm concerned that it's implementation with the bilateral trade deals like in Imperator takes out a lot of the 'oomph' out of the system. There doesn't seem to be any sort of consideration for trade routes between markets, and given playthroughs it seems like it's always in your interest to just make your own market. I think there should be a level of dynamism for trade as it change over time, but that there should be some more sort of bumper rails on it.

 

[lazprune]

Hyped: New country types and the different playstyles they make possible, the IOs and situations for the complex political contexts they can portray.

Worried: Said country types not being expanded enough, historical empires' downfalls handled via disasters (a binary fail state), historical splinter states just poping into existence with the option to switch to them (the meta will be to sabotage the country you start as).

 

[GenericUsername1444]

Hyped: humongous level of detail in terms of locations, cultures, troops, national flavour events, and so on.

Worried: missions (I will die on this hill).

 

[Ulfeldt]

Hyped: humongous level of detail in terms of locations, cultures, troops, national flavour events, and so on.

Worried: missions (I will die on this hill).

 

[DiabloDeVille]

The play button

 

[Polesie Admiral]

hyped: honestly the control and proximity system that terrain can affect it, also the supply lines and that units can disappear in certain terrain it could push players and AI to think more about the strategizing combat by either cut the supply lines or hide for an ambush, also the pops, how they are the new yet logical mana the game use, also also maritime presence
worried: cabinet actions like convert culture like its too easy early game,and from the game footage i saw, antagonism, and coalitions barely happen and conquest(taking over territory is too easy)

 

[Quizok]

Worried about the fact that conquering seems very easy early on. You can from Prussia in less than 100 years. We need to move away from that. It was said war would be harsh, yet it still does not seem harsh.

Also, levies are too weak against trainer soldier.

Hyped for everything else pretty much.

edit: grammar

 

[SAmaster]

hyped: honestly the control and proximity system that terrain can affect it, also the supply lines and that units can disappear in certain terrain it could push players and AI to think more about the strategizing combat by either cut the supply lines or hide for an ambush, also the pops, how they are the new yet logical mana the game use, also also maritime presence
worried: cabinet actions like convert culture like its too easy early game,and from the game footage i saw, antagonism, and coalitions barely happen and conquest(taking over territory is too easy)

Oh yeah- I'm very worried about the approach to cultural assimilation. This REALLY annoyed me in Imperator Rome. Essentially cultural diversity is always a drawback as more cultures are dissatisfied with your rule- and accepting cultures always displeases your home culture. It also eliminates the purpose of culture-groups, since Athenians provide as much troops and cultural acceptance as Thracian pops do. You pretty much have no incentive to do anything but culture-convert literally every pop in the game.

And cultural homogeny is something I find really boring. I find it much more interesting to have a wide array of cultures within my nations, and it's why I'm happy that minority populations have been added in the game. What I'm worried about though is that the Jew's are all gonna get wiped out from cultural assimilation in the first century due to their low population sizes, alongside all other minority populations. Cultural assimilation should certainly be a mechanic, but I think it should be pretty weak compared to cultural tolerance- historically what most empires have done through history.

And don't get me started on the bullshit that is 'Cultural Unification'.

 

[JacceDON]

Hype: Locations, ALL the locations!

Worry: Integration, assimilation and conversion. Those things were REAL problems irl, you simply shouldn't be able to create a huge homogenous empire with one culture and one religion.

 

[Martocticvs]

At this time, one of my biggest concerns is anywhere there is a slider. Reason being that the benefits are all at the extremes. So to get the best out of it you are always going to want to get those sliders to one end or the other, and this completely fails to represent reality well. There really needs to be something in the middle as well, to make any position along the slider scale valid and beneficial and interesting to the player.

 

[SAmaster]

At this time, one of my biggest concerns is anywhere there is a slider. Reason being that the benefits are all at the extremes. So to get the best out of it you are always going to want to get those sliders to one end or the other, and this completely fails to represent reality well. There really needs to be something in the middle as well, to make any position along the slider scale valid and beneficial and interesting to the player.

I think each end of most of the sliders is meant to come with proportional drawbacks. However that means that being in the middle is just like true neutral zero.

 

[lazprune]

We could add a bothered section.

Bothered: title rank system, religious mana, North America Native SOPs not being able to set up markets and trade, Karaites and Haymanot not being confirmed as in game religions.

 

[LordThanatos]

To be clear, all of my issues here are relating to launch and a significant time afterwards. I imagine a lot of them would later be improved, but I'm hoping they are majorly improved before release, or don't weigh down the game in the mean-time. This is mostly based off of snippets that we have seen, so some might just be my inference based on limited knowledge, but here we go:

Hyped: (Fantastic Improvements)

• Pop system
• Dynamic Trade
• International Organizations
• Amount of Flavour on most tags
• Location Density
• Number of Tags

Hyped and Worried: (Has great potential, but has some indicators it won't do what I hoped)

• Control : Seemed like a really promising way to constrain expansion and drive interesting gameplay. Might be too easy to manage, and not affect things as much as I hoped
• Antagonism : This looked so much more flexible than AE, but after seeing some gameplay, I worry it's not much of a change after all
• Societal Values : Last we saw of this mechanic, it didn't seem like it merited much consideration. Unless something significant has changed, the depth of this system is still that you look at the values, pick the one from each pair that seems like it benefits your nation most, then increase it whenever you can. I can see cases where you might want to think about switching once during a campaign, for example focusing Centralization early game, and then Decentralization late game, but other than deciding when to switch, you'd not be considering this system much at all, I worry.
• Parliaments/Assemblies : I love the idea of using these in more places, but it looks like countries that should not be so reliant on even assemblies are still made heavily reliant on these mechanics for a lot of gameplay functions. I'm also worried that non-parliamentary assemblies will still feel like parliaments.
• Building-Based and Army-Based Countries : A minor worry. These seemed super unique and I loved the idea of playing an unlanded religious order or bank, but we've still heard almost nothing about these. I'm worried they might not have any real mechanics for a while
• Advances : This seems like a substantial improvement for technology and idea advancement, and I even like the way unique tag modifiers work. It's not something I'm super-worried about, but I wonder if it's really that engaging. I also have some worries around choices related to research rate and language research power - I haven't seen much of an incentive to switch language from one with a lot of research power - but maybe I missed a detail, somewhere.

Worried (Hoping I'm wrong on a lot of these)

• Internal Politics : My biggest worry. So far, this seems pretty bland. Clearly it's not really going to involve as much balancing of minority cultures & religions or political factions as I'd have hoped for. I just don't see managing the estates being something that'll be engaging enough to make peacetime interesting. Hopefully the economy is interesting enough to make up for it, but that won't be for everyone, and I'm sure even for the trade-heads it'll struggle to fill peace-time.
• Religions : They seem disappointing overall. Probably fine for most people, but they're easily one of the aspects of history I'm most fascinated by, and adds a lot of flavour to my playthroughs, so I was hoping for much more accuracy and intricacy. The whole religious setup has huge errors across the board, and a ton of very strange, inconsistent decisions and messy design. The fact that we're seeing religious mana again, and some very junior mistakes in terms of accuracy just makes me very nervous this is not going to look great.
• Ease of Conquest/Consolidation : While I know the devs are working on balancing this, I'm worried it'll have to be somewhat too fast by virtue of there not being enough to do in peacetime.
• No Downfalls : It seems like most tags will be on a near-constant upswing, other than artificial roadbumps like disasters and situations. If the internal politics are as lacking as I think they are, it seems like there won't be any real internal threats to the realm that might set the player back and make them rebuild. If the hardest part of the game is the start of a campaign, and it only ever gets easier from there, then it's not going to be that interesting.
• Consequences : A few of the situations like the Western Schism or Guelphs and Ghibellines seem to resolve with very little consequence and I'm concerned there's not really much reason to care what happens during these events.
• Early Century Content Focus : This is more of a long term worry, but we don't often hear much about content for anything past the 14th century. I worry that much like EU4, the game will get boring around 1600 and most players won't have incentive to play much past that point. Hopefully this is addressed post release with another bookmark to incentivize people playing that era and encourage the devs to add content for it.
• Conversion & Assimilation : These should be incredibly difficult and slow, and conversion should take centuries against organized religions in most cases, but instead I'm afraid it'll not be much better in EU4. If this were made difficult, and interactions with minority groups more interesting, it might fix this issue as well as helping with the general lack of peacetime gameplay & internal political decisions - such as by giving certain rights and policies for cultural and religious groups
• Colonization : From what we've seen of this in action, this is still far too easy, and colonization is far more extensive and quick than it should be. I'm worried we're not actually going to see much improvement over the pace of colonization over EU4. A lot of places just should not be worth colonizing before the late game, if ever.
• Subjects & Personal Unions : There don't seem to be many benefits to keep/create them rather than annex, as a result of a seemingly lacking internal political system and Control system, plus being too easy to integrate. I can't see why you'd want to keep your subjects independent of you, and I especially cannot see why you'd create more, based on what we've seen.
• Societies of Pops : These seem arbitrarily assigned and last we heard seemed to integrate very little with the mechanics.
• Climate Modifiers : A very minor worry. The fact that Mediterranean climates have more pop capacity than Subtropical climates makes no sense. I'm hoping that it doesn't end up mattering,but given that the Mediterranean is already the most location-dense area and has the best climate, I imagine it will in the late game. The lack of distinction between different arid climates is also a shame. Luckily I think these should be fairly simple to fix with mods.
• AI : Let's be honest, it's a GSG, the AI is going to be worse than the average player, and probably much worse than that at launch. I just hope it can provide some challenge on launch and actually run a country.

I realize it looks like I'm more worried than I am with a list like that, but the things I'm hyped about are more substantial than most of those I'm worried about.

 

[SAmaster]

We could add a bothered section.

Bothered: title rank system, religious mana, North America Native SOPs not being able to set up markets and trade, Karaites and Haymanot not being confirmed as in game religions.

I understand why they might not be able to set up markets, but I do think not being parts of a trade network is weird- as we have very clear evidences of native-american tribes being part of a large trans-american trade network in the pre-columbian era. Maybe not buying and selling a lot of finished goods, but making trips down to mexico and back certainly.

 

[Andrzej2]

My favourite feature of Eu V is having more detailed characters and even family trees of royal dynasties. As a fan of Ck this is a thing I missed the most in previous Eu games. Finally there will be no random personal unions.

I like how each country will have separate succession law, in this aspect it's even better than what we have in Ck3 where succession law is tied to character so once you gain multiple titles they all follow same law.

 

[Twig1000]

The steppe horde "instantly conqueror provinces" feature is gonna lead to some absolutely horrendous borders if it's not sorted out or, probably better, just removed.

 

[Fawr]

Hyped:

• New start date & starting setup
• Pops
• SOPs
• A better colonial game
• Timur

Worried:
Too many country specific rules and too few good generic systems (at least ones they are willing to share)

• Unique Buildings that come via "use it or lose it" events
• Magic country specific buildings that grant special effects
• Rather than build a generic decline event, we have seen specific ones for Delhi and Mali. If your country didn't decline IRL then you don't have to worry about that mechanic.
• Rather than see generic civil war events we see specific ones. If your country didn't have a IRL rebellion then you don't have to worry about that mechanic
• Needing to read up a lot about a country in order to play optimally

Protestant religion:

• Historically many of the winning countries or ones who punched above their weight were protestant, but in game it seems weak.
• Compared to other religions it is poor at things I'd expect it to be good at like literacy.
• The mechanic where other protestant sects auto convert when conquered seems bizarre.

Buildings that grant bonuses to the whole location (which can be much larger or smaller, and have more or less people depending on where in the world it is). Will 1 book per month really give +1% literacy to a location of 500 people and a location of 100k people?

 

[W1NTERMU7E]

Hyped - population, I adore idea that countries will need to take care of population and after (losing) wars they can really be weak

Worried - yeah, missions a bit, but thats bc I need to see how flavour will work in practice. I liked that I could get PU casus as Poland for either Bohemia or Hungary, so I wonder how it will work now. If someone could drop some info about it and how certain things would happen withough EU4 styled missions (eg Crusader State missions about Arc, Fountain or Jerusalem)

 

[SAmaster]

Hyped:

• New start date & starting setup
• Pops
• SOPs
• A better colonial game
• Timur

Worried:
Too many country specific rules and too few good generic systems (at least ones they are willing to share)

• Unique Buildings that come via "use it or lose it" events
• Magic country specific buildings that grant special effects
• Rather than build a generic decline event, we have seen specific ones for Delhi and Mali. If your country didn't decline IRL then you don't have to worry about that mechanic.
• Rather than see generic civil war events we see specific ones. If your country didn't have a IRL rebellion then you don't have to worry about that mechanic
• Needing to read up a lot about a country in order to play optimally

Protestant religion:

• Historically many of the winning countries or ones who punched above their weight were protestant, but in game it seems weak.
• Compared to other religions it is poor at things I'd expect it to be good at like literacy.
• The mechanic where other protestant sects auto convert when conquered seems bizarre.

Buildings that grant bonuses to the whole location (which can be much larger or smaller, and have more or less people depending on where in the world it is). Will 1 book per month really give +1% literacy to a location of 500 people and a location of 100k people?

I think historical downfalls should get unique disasters. But there should be generic ones that augment them.

 

[SAmaster]

Hyped - population, I adore idea that countries will need to take care of population and after (losing) wars they can really be weak

Worried - yeah, missions a bit, but thats bc I need to see how flavour will work in practice. I liked that I could get PU casus as Poland for either Bohemia or Hungary, so I wonder how it will work now. If someone could drop some info about it and how certain things would happen withough EU4 styled missions (eg Crusader State missions about Arc, Fountain or Jerusalem)

So far we know that missions will be in the game, and they can be toggled on and off in game rules. However, they are currently severely undercooked so they were turned out for all the people who got hands on early access EUV. However I'm concerned they so far haven't really addressed any kind of mission tree whatsoever, even when talking about the flavor for different countries, missions haven't been brought up once.

I think Johan said something like he wants most of the flavor delivered from places that aren't missions, and they should act more as a sort of 'guidelines/tutorial', and I think that in theory that's all fine. What I fear is we get something like Victoria 3 and Crusader Kings where you end up pretty much doing the same things in each country because there's never a reason to change up your strategies.