this
After how they managed to run EU4 into the ground I have absolutely zero expectations. Only a fool would trust again after being burned so harshly.
Only buy finished games. Looking back, EU4 has basically never left Early Access, they just don't put the warning on the store page. Now I know better.
>euiv has never left early access
not quite, but it reinvented itself like three times which put the game into a EA like state after each reinventing update
It's not about being buggy (which EU4 is plenty). It's about changing core mechanics ("reinventing" as you call it). Once you release the game it should stay consistent with basic mechanics. You can add content, you can patch bugs. But you shouldn't rework stuff to a degree that the feeling or gameplay loop fundamentally changes.
Someone who bought the game 2 months after release should not be alienated by the state of the current release. The dev made a promise to early customers and took their money. They should be able to enjoy the product they've bought. But PDX've changed pretty much every major mechanic (forts and zoc, dev, diplomacy, etc) to where the game feels very different from release and then they went and removed the betas so 1.04 and 1.17 are now the oldest versions you can play. That's an EA mindset, as if they hadn't yet found what makes their game work and interesting and so they're throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. They had a game, they had a balance, they had an audience - but they just keep bulldozing over it. They could be on EU VI with how much they've "reinvented" EU IV.
shitty new map
moba icons
slavery... le bad!
new trade system takenfrom meiou (the only good thing they will do)
3d characters
dumbed down warfare
meme flavour events
more natives
>Slavery was extremely profitable for one.
If you were interested in driving wages down, sure. If you were trying to support a family and stuck competing with literal chattel, it was shit. This is the main reason chattel aren't allowed to be the backbones of industrial economies: All of their earnings go straight to the top, and the value of labor remains low. There's then an incentive to expand the institution--formally or informally--to earn more profits. In the Americas, they relied on Africans being available for sale, but if abolition continued in spite of that, the only options would be to expand the slave caste demographically (via support for IR marriages in a hypodescent system), or by including others in this group. The latter is how we got our current 13th Amendment. Instead of abolishing slavery, they just swapped out the caste system for a more widely predatory one.
The continuation of slavery has shown itself to be plainly harmful to the country. We should've abolished it.
EU is not a game played from the perspective of a farmer trying to support his family, its played from the perspective of a state.
Slavery was a convenient and profitable method of extracting wealth from America for these states.
Yes, and it was also a political time bomb because artisan slaves and colonial involvement with parliament would potentially leave the mainlanders wagged by their colonies.
2 years ago
Anonymous
History exists outside of the USA.
yeah, but just because it's convenient doesn't hide it's downturns such as rebellions and poverty for the lower classes
nta by the way but ive no clue why you people seethe about slavery being bad in games
No-one is seething. That was my first post in the thread.
You are just applying your 21st century American mindset to the mindset of 15th century European statesmen who didn't always care about the long-term and just wanted a low-effort way to make money in far away lands.
2 years ago
Anonymous
well yeah, the game just shows you that by having long term consequences, i just thought you were the anon seething from earlier
2 years ago
Anonymous
>History exists outside of the USA.
We see examples of this in mainland Portugal, with Africans taking up positions in dockyards, mines, forges, etc.
yeah, but just because it's convenient doesn't hide it's downturns such as rebellions and poverty for the lower classes
nta by the way but ive no clue why you people seethe about slavery being bad in games
Slavery only got trumped when Industrialization began. Apparently paying John 50 cents a day to work in a factory is cheaper than buying and keeping Tyrone well fed, clothed, and housed to work in plantations. In essence, slavery got abolished because of moral superiority and mos importantly, it means lower manpower costs all the while keeping productivity, efficieny and morale for the workers up.
In the case of the South, the Union blockade made sure their cotton exports could not reach their customers in the European market so their economy got fricked. Of course this made Europe, particularly Britain, mad since they cannot get cotton for their clothes but once they found new Egyptian cptton plantations and America reassured the war was about slavery, they calmed fown. Bear in mind that there are more factors in which why the South lost like less manpower/population and less industry to make guns and goods.
That's a good way to phrase it. Peter Thiel had a line when he was in some board meeting. Paraphrasing, "As an American, you are selling our children's future. You should not outsource this to China. As a shareholder, I implore you to outsource this to China." It's very easy to talk about long-term repercussions to things when we don't have skin in the game or when it's in the past. When I was younger, me and other young people didn't give a shit about the 2009 recession. If that happened when I was hitting retirement, I'd be on a watch list. I'm fully expecting a danger-haired female Paradox marketing intern to proselytize zoomer morality, including a massive bonus for a plurality of migrants, while the decision to make Liberia ends up with Wakanda and not child soldiers and cannibals.
>is cheaper than buying and keeping Tyrone well fed, clothed, and housed to work in plantations.
Yeah, anon. They fed the slaves themselves. They wouldn't possibly think to just set aside land for the slaves to make their own food, clothing, and shelter, right?
Life would be so easy if everyone else was as stupid as you.
it had its uses before the rise of industralization. a game that takes place before 1850 it was entirely viable. obviously you needed to balance it with free men since slaves can cause widespread unemployment.
The '>le bad' meme just refers to people stating the obvious. Everyone knows slavery is bad, but this is a histotical videogame so we don't need a lecture denouncing slavery.
This is just a problem with the game's design in general, blobs are way too stable and inertia carries you way too much. Ottomans just benefit from this effect the most because their starting situation always ensures they're dominate the first hundred years and then snowball out of control but you still regularly see the same thing happening with France, Castile, Austria, Poland, Muscovy, etc too. Empires never collapse in EU4 unless the player chooses to dismantle them themselves.
>slavery... le bad!
4 already glosses over what slavery meant to the triangle trade and plantations, let alone the world economy, so it wouldn't be a big change. >more natives >old players: why are all the empty provinces filled with OPMs? How am I supposed to colonise? >new players: colonise?
>slavery le bad
as opposed to what? it being good? what the frick do people mean when they say this?
Anon means that he doesn't want to be beaten over the head with modern morality in his game set in an era of monarchies, war, exploitation, serfdom, slavery, disease, politicking, religion, backwardness, malnutrition, absolutism, illiberalism and finished with a bloodthirsty revolution that wasn't about feminism despite that not only being an option but Revolutionary Britain's flag is a feminist one from over a century later.
>you just committed a racism! ban slavery now or take a -5 stab hit
guaranteed to be an event in eu5. screencap this
Nah nah nah, you'll get a comet sighted event added to the pool if you own a slave producing province and your capital is on the continent of Europe.
Christian countries are the "main characters" of EU. Of course they're going to remind you of the implications.
>christians disagree with slavery! >... just ignore the church owns plantations
>christians disagree with slavery! >... just ignore the church owns plantations
These don't contradict each other.
Depends, if it's a world where there are no Grand Strategy games then I'd rather have atleast one company making them (even if they're shit) just so you can get modders in there to make shit better for everyone. Half the time I feel like the people complaining about paradox act like if clicking 4 extra buttons would suddenly make the boring map game this in depth adventure. >Nooooo there isn't a super multi-faceted multi-layered economy that I need to pause every month in game to micro manage for peak optimum efficiency and then get surprised that A.I. isn't able to keep up with me or that I found a way to break it. >Noooo the logistics system isn't completely accurate and realistic which would make rapid expansion nearly impossible in any game that starts before 1800. >Nooo this isn't how the economy actually works guys, it works this way. No I'm a polsci major and this is how the economy works, no I'm a economics major and this is REALLY how the economy works. >Nooo there aren't 66 gorillion diplomatic decisions of which I will only realistically use 5 and more often than not only 3 of them. >Why is combat balanced and not historically accurate?
At some point you're going to need to suspend your disbelief. I'm not saying Paradox is good at what they do, they're incredibly shit and I hope all the developer's wives get raped by holy servants of Allah. I just don't think most of these guys understand why they aren't making these games to appeal to a small group of autists, they're a corporation and they're not going to sacrifice their bottom line to appease you. Stop kvetching about Paradox and learn to code if you genuinely give a shit about the state of grand strategy video games.
tl;dr
Jews stole my foreskin and I eat sour cream off my neckrolls.
>Nooo there aren't 66 gorillion diplomatic decisions of which I will only realistically use 5 and more often than not only 3 of them.
I'd use any and every diplomatic option.
Based anon is based anon.
Look Chaps, its time to admit defeat. There will never be another good paradox game. Like it or not the rise and fall of Paradox games is like a reflection of Western civilization, culminating with the moon landings. It has all been down hill from there. All we have in front of us are mobile-tier games and a decline to Brazilian style standards of living.
But le's also acknowledge it was a petty fun ride.
CK3 and VIC2 indicate absolute casualization, which will be a new low considering EU4 already casualized EU3.
Changes include: >le ebin 3D portraits >more mana >less eurocentrism
>less eurocentrism
already happening. Have you seen the idea sets that African Kangdoms have in the Origins DLC? They can butt heads with Prussia and still win
This blows my fricking mind. The Muslims were literally competing head to head with the Europeans for trade posts in the east and most of that area is just fricking dead in terms of gameplay. There is absolutely nothing south east Asia and Indonesia even though there were several empires rose up at that time. Yet they stick hundred of little province and tribes in the middle of Africa that nobody even has any record of until the late 1800s. Hundreds of little tribes all over America and they still haven't done anything to model how then Spanish took mexico and the incas. Nothing goes on with the Iroquois Cherokee or commanche. Really grinds my gears.
They did a whole expansion for Indochina.
Plus what anon is talking about is shit you have to play the game well to do, who cares at that point, it's not like AI west Africa is invading west europe
>Yet they stick hundred of little province and tribes in the middle of Africa that nobody even has any record of until the late 1800s
If they expand Mali/Ghana empire, Ethiopia/Somali kingdoms and swahili sultanates is not that bad, but year , SEA kingdoms should been reworked more than africa
>Yet they stick hundred of little province and tribes in the middle of Africa that nobody even has any record of until the late 1800s
Oh no, how terrible. Europe gets even more free provinces due to tech levels. How could this happen to my relaxing colonization run
there will be a single button you can press. it increases your nation's administrative abilities by 10% for 4 years, at the cost of a resource called "capability", which builds up over time based on your monarch's capability score.
I don't know but based on what Johan said, there will be at least pops. 3D portraits are probably guaranteed as well given that Vicky 3 has them for no reason at all
>was eu4 last pdx good game?
No, it was the beginning of the end. The game was absolutely atrocious at the release (not that it was much different from an average Paradox release even back then) and it is still objectively worse than eu3 even after so many years and dlcs.
I just want more paths to survive as a native rather than magical button that makes you catch up on tech.
Especially since right now you can't even convert to Christian, and even if you do, Europeans will still come towards you zerg mode for no good reason.
The Cherokee actually westernized IRL and they still got roflstomped into a reservation, there's really not a whole lot that can be done but the magic catch-up button.
Right, but at least make it a bit more fun. Allowing you to go Christian as the Mayans and Incas for a start, perhaps with some events relating to where to establish churches, visiting the pope, and how you react to the new sects showing up in Europe, for example, could be at least some sort of content.
None, hoping for paraBlack folk to go bankrupt before they have a chance to release that shit. Alternatively, everyone responsible for the absolute garbage they put out now dies and gets replaced by someone better.
I wonder if it's possible to get a job at paradox and change the outcome of the game? Or do you think they would just have me do all the gruntwork for free on intern and then fire me for asking questions?
>Or do you think they would just have me do all the gruntwork for free on intern and then fire me for asking questions?
No, they would fire you after working there for 179, because according to Swedish labor laws, they would have to start paying you regular wage if you worked there for 180 days. All while said interns are working 12-14 hours shifts a day.
Welcome to nu-PDX, where pretty much everyone is an intern and treated like shit. But to avoid the standard situation like that (interns uniting against employer and suing their ass over mistreatment), they don't just pick random applicants. Nope, they scoop from their own fanbase, so for the nearly six months, they are milking some low-tier modder or another homosexual that's so much in love with them and their games, they will actually be glad for being overworked and cucked. Hey, based PDX hired them, what not to love, right?
That company literally turned into its anti-thesis when the mobile games CEO took over.
Man that's disappointing. I've been working project management for a while now, not the best at coding but I would love to work on a game project for the type of games I play even if it meant a making less for a few years. It's a bit depressing that nobody in management there has any passion to make the games fun. I played the vic 3 leak and it was like trying to play a cookie clicker game with history "did you know!" quips. Really doesn't make sense to me I work in insurance and it almost feels like my coworkers put more care into their work than what I am seeing from paradox. They seem like they have a lot of staff but it's just confusing why games like eu4 or hoi4 are barley improved even after so many years.
>It's a bit depressing that nobody in management there has any passion to make the games fun >t. 17 yo
This might shock you, but games are made to earn money. I know, amazing, right? Passion projects are rare and far between, even among indie devs (who are mostly just low-tier, low-effort money grabbers).
In fact, I don't think I heard about any major passion project to be made, finished and released since Stardew Valley.
Video games used to be a tiny industry full of nerds who turned their passion into their profession and it showed, but you're obviously too young to remember that.
A made-up memory, big companies and big money have always been part of the deal, Atari had a deal with Warner since 1976, and a quick look at most companies made in the early 80s shows only certain profiles. Nintendo was a toys company, Sega was a slot machine maker, electronic art and activision were always made profit first.
Sure you'd get this or that passion project from one dude or another, and you still get them today, but the typical young lifeless nerd with enough drive to not waste their life on anonymous image boards or reddit is typically not a person you'd like (See: Toby Fox, Concerned Ape)
2 years ago
Anonymous
>it's a fake memory!
zoomer straight up thinks the world has always been as shit as he's experienced lmao
2 years ago
Anonymous
On the contrary, I was an adult when you were on your good times, and by that I mean being a moron kid who was constantly bullied and therefore had to play games all days. The idea gaming wasn't corporate in the 80s and 90s is absurd.
hes right tho, video games were tiny while they are bigger than hollywood movie industry right now, all NPC going to IT for the money with 0 interest or passion for computers is another part of the problem, entire industry is corporate hellhole with hr roasties, CEOs and investors squeezing all profit they can without trying to even make good product, why bother when bigger marketing budget sells more copies than actually making a good game.
No no, he is objectively wrong, sure it got bigger now, but its all the same shekel driving idiots in power as it has always been, don't delude yourself with a false memory of a "good time" that never happened, otherwise you will drive into the desert following a mirage, okay?
2 years ago
Anonymous
And you as a 30 year old man defiantly had his hand on pulse of the games industry. I mean, remember when they made that bad ET game? Or that bad Disney game? Or that bad Star Wars game? Clearly corporate meddling and there was no passion ever in any part of the industry. Good games don't exist you're lying if you think they do.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I never said good games don't exist
2 years ago
Anonymous
Sorry, Good times don't exist but genuine "passion projects" haven't existed since 2014 and the fact that video games have gotten more popular has absolutely no effect on the types of people trying to make them.
Obviously games were always made so someone would play them but there wasn't corporate meddling on the level there is now. It's hard to discern if a good game was made for profit or passion because it's both.
Corporate culture is so obvious now because bad games are stuffed to the brim with shit and the publisher has such an obvious hand in it. Sim City was great but then EA told Maxis to make a new one filled with multiplayer shit no one wanted because multiplayer is the future and now it's dead.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Sorry, Good times don't exist but genuine "passion projects" haven't existed since 2014
Stardew?
2 years ago
Anonymous
in 90s you had tons of great games made by small teams: Doom, Master of Orion, UFO, JA, and countless others. These teams were passionate about making good games and it showed
The quality and diversity was way superior compared to now where most of the market is dominated by big players which design games using "top-down" approach putting money above everything
2 years ago
Anonymous
Perhaps it's the cost?
Make a game on a small budget, get pirated to hell because no online, get told your game looks like a PS2 game or a mobile game. At some point you either burn out or just go and make some mobile game and get actual money.
2 years ago
Anonymous
hes right tho, video games were tiny while they are bigger than hollywood movie industry right now, all NPC going to IT for the money with 0 interest or passion for computers is another part of the problem, entire industry is corporate hellhole with hr roasties, CEOs and investors squeezing all profit they can without trying to even make good product, why bother when bigger marketing budget sells more copies than actually making a good game.
2 years ago
Anonymous
What's wrong with Concerned Ape? He actually seems like a solid fella and developer (besides, or perhaps thanks to, his autism).
It was never exactly turning passions into games, but in the early 2000s and before, it took a lot more effort to make a game that would sell well, especially because the total number of people playing video games was a fraction of what it currently is. People who've been playing games for a very long time pine for those days because companies were hyper focused on them as a demographic and thus all games were tailored around them.
Things are only so bad now because games have become the same as movies and any other major media, big productions designed to sell to as many markets as possible, which means the product produced is a soulless, casualized, design-by-committee monstrosity whose only goal is to move as many copies as possible regardless of any other factor such as long term appeal or quality in general. People who just dip their feet into the gaming world on occasion will always outnumber those who are truly passionate about it, and thus they will always drive development towards their interests.
>Or do you think they would just have me do all the gruntwork for free on intern and then fire me for asking questions?
No, they would fire you after working there for 179, because according to Swedish labor laws, they would have to start paying you regular wage if you worked there for 180 days. All while said interns are working 12-14 hours shifts a day.
Welcome to nu-PDX, where pretty much everyone is an intern and treated like shit. But to avoid the standard situation like that (interns uniting against employer and suing their ass over mistreatment), they don't just pick random applicants. Nope, they scoop from their own fanbase, so for the nearly six months, they are milking some low-tier modder or another homosexual that's so much in love with them and their games, they will actually be glad for being overworked and cucked. Hey, based PDX hired them, what not to love, right?
That company literally turned into its anti-thesis when the mobile games CEO took over.
>B-but PDX is commies and its diversity ruining the company
Rampant capitalistic forces and monopoly once again ruin something great and communism gets blamed by low iq morons.
B-b-but Ganker told me it's muh troons and muh Black folk and muh israelites that ruined video games
Brainless amerimutts, the left is the corporate lapdog, any REAL OPPOSITION TO CAPPITALISM is seen as right wing and therfor left wing lapdogs will attack it claiming it's fascist, rascist, any kind of phobic.
>What are your expectations from EU5,
An extremely shitty ass.
Victoria 3 made me literally poo myself with sheer excitement. I have no doubt that eu5 will add an explosive mix of violent diarrhea to the sticky hot mess that is my anus.
It could be a rocky ride for you. Either your bowels turn to much, as mine have, or else your stools become hard, lumpy, extraordinarily stubborn bricks. The latter will be your fate. I suggest stocking up your toilet becasue you are going to be spending a lot of time in there, grunting and a groaning and generally thrashing around, screaming loud as a bastard "BEGONE FOUL POOS!" as you wrestle in the herculean task of pushing the reluctant little blighters out.
Reading material. Games. Phone. Food. Water. Blankets. Even a small portable stove would not go amiss. My prayers will be with you.
That sounds incredibly grim. Surely there must be a way to avoid becoming bored and instead be excited for EUV? I would much rather just get my feces out in a rush than have to strain for hours on end.
3D models for things that really don't need to have 3D models
Content not ported from EU4 because you need to sell DLCs
Colonization and trade somehow even more stripped of historical nuance
Attempt to disguise mana points
>Attempt to disguise mana points
Why would they want to even disguise those? After all, mana is great, mana is awesome, and mana is to stay.
Hey, how about we just combine all three mana powers into one this time around, to make it even more awesome?
That's my wild guess, but considering how badly Imperator bombed, I wouldn't be surprised if they tried concealing the mana. It's still going to be there, but it might behave a bit different.
Given typical PDX ability to learn from mistakes, here is what they figured out from Imperator: >Three mana types bad, game bombed >One mana type still sells GoY$ >Once one mana type was implemented in Imperator, reviews improved
So they are not seeing the obvious "mana bad" lesson, but "one mana type better".
Besides, saying otherwise is the easiest way to get your internship voided prematurely, so shut the frick up and keep coding it.
Gold is mana dressed up like something else, in reality there is no consistency or logic to the way things are priced in the game, no real economy, it's just mana points
Relevant historical leaders will be railroaded into the game, beginning with women and poc. Said women and poc will also have personal portrats looking sassy and/or angry.
Mana points will have kawaii icons.
>What are your expectations from EU5
Extremely limited colonization, because ,uh colonizers.
Many artificial limits for European superpowers.
Painting the map bad, diplomacy good.
Simplified combat.
More detailed graphics for le flavour packs.
More missions, more "decisions".
Women and Black folk everywhere.
I bet you they'll find some way to make Black folk into rulers/advisors of European countries. Also Catholicism and Christianity's gonna get debuffed to hell.
>Limited colonization
Historical. >artificial limits for European superpowers
This isn't Victoria. There aren't any. >Painting the map bad, diplomacy good
That can only improve the game >Simplified combat
Combat modifier spam undermines all other systems in the game >More detailed graphics for le flavour packs
Makes money and doesn't hurt the gameplay >More missions, more "decisions"
First real complaint >Women and Black folk everywhere
Avoid Africa then.
>That can only improve the game
this, why do people love map painting so much then complain the game is too easy? those people are so uncreative and incapable of having fun >Combat modifier spam undermines all other systems in the game
this too, but i also dont want things to become HOI
Hoi4 is a game where you just google >army template meta for patch X
Then you build that template you googled in game, then you draw a line and press an arrow and win the game.
all paradox games are wide as an ocean and deep as a puddle, You pick setting/game you enjoy the most rest is just getting through steep learning curve, gameplay is always formulaic and braindead.
You're an absolute dumb Black person if you search meta templates. It takes away the fun of creating your own army o fight the enemy's. This is the same reason you do not watch advanced tutorials, playthroughs or campaigns in games like these because they spoil the surprise of your own game.
The good news that if you expect it to be shit then at least you will not suffer from explosive diarrhea, which happens to the excited players. However your poos will be very hard, lumpy and difficult to pass, and that can be very painful
I would like to second this view. Last night I had a dream about EU5 being released. It made me very excited. Imagine my surprise though when I woke up next morning in a bed absolutely splattered excrement. At first I though my friend had done it, he likes to prank me sometimes. But no, when I discovered dried shit caking my legs and ass I knew it was my own.
I had a similar thing happen. I was at a friends place playing some games when all of a sudden, out of the blue, he asked me "what about eu5?" It took me by surprise. As did the long slippery shit that immediately shunted out out of my anus.
slavery is still a thing they modified it slightly so plebs dont object, do you think chink or pajeet working 12h, 6 day a week in sweatshops for barely livable wage while having no other options is truly free?
>was eu4 last pdx good game?
lol
lmao
DLC cashcows are not good games.
Last good game was Victoria 2 - last game that wasn't infested with DLCs.
Or EU3 if you considerer only EU games.
Strip 98% of the features and begin another decade long cycle of drip feeding in content 3 buttons and 20$ at a time.
Purposefully adding game design flaws that can only be fixed by buying DLC.
Simplified gameplay systems to increase market size.
Better graphics.
Scandinavian-style virtue signalling.
They will probably announce EUV soon, unless there's a new DLC in the works and I just don't know about it because I haven't seen the dev diary announcements for it.
I stopped playing my pirated copy of EUIV around the time when Conquest of Paradise came out because the mana system killed the game for me by making it too easy (for example, comet sighted now means nothing because you can just sprinkle mana over everything to make its detriments go away). I'm not even sure what features were added through DLC to EUIV over the past five years, all I know is that there's a focus tree now and Leviathan was Birdemic-tier. Like many other people, I think it will be like CK3's launch where they'll try to make the game more noob-friendly by cleaning up the UI but also taking some mechanics out, but I think this will be a good thing because for a while I remember people complaining that changes were randomly being added to EUIV without a unifying vision for them, so having a more focused, cleaned up version of EUIV could be fun. But this approach will likely have the same issue that CK3 had for vets where they end up not playing the new game because of missing mechanics and sunken cost. If they made the game less mana-dependent to where it plays more like EU3 and there's actual difficulty in the game from having to play around bad things happening in your nation, I'd play it; I recently tried getting back into EU3 but the cascading alliances problem that was fixed in subsequent games turned me off from playing a full campaign because it gets annoying when small skirmishes always turn into world wars.
Yes, EU IV suffers mega hard from having new features added through DLC that barely interact with each other. And because they barely interact with each other, you just end up getting buttons that give you benefits for some price or tradeoff, dozens of buttons. Buttons for diplomacy, buttons for province and state development, buttons for dealing with estates.
So yes, there literally isn’t any other way forward for EU V than nuking mana and having a vision that allows them to actually develop the game forward cohesively without it feeling like patchwork. Like Stellaris or HoI 4 or not, if there’s one thing they get right better than EU IV, it’s that they feel much more cohesive. EU IV is easily the most frankensteined corpse that Paradox has made, and its funeral is lomg overdue. It’s not even a matter whether you trust Paradox enough to want EU V or not, it’s just that IV is unsalvageable at this point either way.
>HoI 4
If we were still on Man The Guns I would have agreed with you, but I think some of the latest additions to the game are starting to feel like they don't know what to do with the game next. For example, I don't think the logistics rework and especially the railway guns were necessary because it forces the player to micromanage in a game where the original goal was to lessen how much micromanagement the player has to do compared to HOI3. It's also stupid how shit like Switzerland gets a focus tree while there are still countries that actually participated in WWII without trees such as Finland.
>I don't think the logistics rework and especially the railway guns were necessary because it forces the player to micromanage
Don't see why that would be, when you assign the guns to an army they will just move automatically along the frontline like any other units, except that they require railways. And the logistics, just click on the upgrade button on the supply hub.
Neither option is optimal, but as a rule of thumb, it is always more optimal to micromanage if the game allows it.
the rail update was the best update hoi4 ever had, it fixed so many fundamental flaws of the game. >capturing cities actually matters now >2 width snaking got gutted >supply no longer caps at +5 infrastructure so fighting in subsaharan africa / northern canada no longer restricts you to a few divisions in a multiyear campaign >it's actually possible to cut units off without 100% severing their connection to the capital, full 24 divs armies no longer get supplied through a two mountain tiles
no longer caps at +5 infrastructure so fighting in subsaharan africa / northern canada no longer restricts you to a few divisions in a multiyear campaign
In my view, fighting in Sub-Saharan Africa, or atleast in Central Africa, is alot worse now. Along the coasts and in the south it is still fine, but in Belgian Congo, South Sudan, and French Central Africa it is absolutely cancer as there are no supply hubs at the start, they take forever to build, the AI never builds them, and once you've finished one you can advance a couple of tiles until you suddenly need to build another one. Inland West Africa is also shit, but it's not as bad.
Depends, if it's a world where there are no Grand Strategy games then I'd rather have atleast one company making them (even if they're shit) just so you can get modders in there to make shit better for everyone. Half the time I feel like the people complaining about paradox act like if clicking 4 extra buttons would suddenly make the boring map game this in depth adventure. >Nooooo there isn't a super multi-faceted multi-layered economy that I need to pause every month in game to micro manage for peak optimum efficiency and then get surprised that A.I. isn't able to keep up with me or that I found a way to break it. >Noooo the logistics system isn't completely accurate and realistic which would make rapid expansion nearly impossible in any game that starts before 1800. >Nooo this isn't how the economy actually works guys, it works this way. No I'm a polsci major and this is how the economy works, no I'm a economics major and this is REALLY how the economy works. >Nooo there aren't 66 gorillion diplomatic decisions of which I will only realistically use 5 and more often than not only 3 of them. >Why is combat balanced and not historically accurate?
At some point you're going to need to suspend your disbelief. I'm not saying Paradox is good at what they do, they're incredibly shit and I hope all the developer's wives get raped by holy servants of Allah. I just don't think most of these guys understand why they aren't making these games to appeal to a small group of autists, they're a corporation and they're not going to sacrifice their bottom line to appease you. Stop kvetching about Paradox and learn to code if you genuinely give a shit about the state of grand strategy video games.
tl;dr
Jews stole my foreskin and I eat sour cream off my neckrolls.
I don’t think people’s expectations are that high. At this point its just don’t make a game with arguably downgraded base mechanics from the previous title.
I expect them to increase the amount of provinces by a factor of 10, group 40 provinces per state and then do all the gameplay on a state level and claim that its for performance reasons.
eu5 will have a lot less content than eu4 but if they introduce some long-requested features like dynamic trade routes then i think eu5 would have something interesting to offer even at release.
also i think it was someone itt that mentioned eu4 has become a bloated mess of mindless button-clicking mechanics and that resonates with me. if they make diplomacy more interesting (maybe borrowing some stuff from v2) then less could be more.
>also i think it was someone itt that mentioned eu4 has become a bloated mess of mindless button-clicking mechanics and that resonates with me. if they make diplomacy more interesting (maybe borrowing some stuff from v2) then less could be more.
They're going to simplify things and make them even less interesting just like they did with CK3
Hope for: >more historical colonization with trade posts, big claimed areas, and overall slower progress >actual dynasties >Fleets of sufficient size being able to occupy coastal forts and cities (kind of like Total War) >logistics-centric warfare model >different levels of war involvement so you can fight things like the Anglo-Dutch Wars or the Portuguese-Ottoman Wars, or have allies support you without fully committing to the war
What I expect: >many out of place meme events >Europeans...le bad! >rando African tribes having no issues keeping up with the Euros on tech
and how the frick would you implement that? Remember, the Kongo only had tech advantages because they traded and bordered the Portugese. That's literally how natives and tribes learned how to use guns against colonizers IRL.
Hope for: >more historical colonization with trade posts, big claimed areas, and overall slower progress >actual dynasties >Fleets of sufficient size being able to occupy coastal forts and cities (kind of like Total War) >logistics-centric warfare model >different levels of war involvement so you can fight things like the Anglo-Dutch Wars or the Portuguese-Ottoman Wars, or have allies support you without fully committing to the war
What I expect: >many out of place meme events >Europeans...le bad! >rando African tribes having no issues keeping up with the Euros on tech
>rando African tribes having no issues keeping up with the Euros on tech
Now that's funny. Have you even recently played EU4? The tribes I encounter in the New World are like 4-5 levels below my tech in all 3 fields.
I do agree in all of your hopes and if I might add >better culture and reintroduce pop management
not just in the colonies but also in your home country. New World cultures are a hot mess and it's always annoying seeing the Turks with 1 million men in the 1700s.
Also, >better depictions of rise and fall of historical empires
Fricking Spain with half a million men and infinite money despite having zero investments in their colonies always piss me off.
did you play eu4 before they added the institution system? Non western nations used to end up about 16 techs behind by the end of the game and native americans and non-protectorate africans usually were still in single digits
Because alt history needs to be at least quasi plausible. If Afrian tribes catching up to european powers is a common thing instead of result of player cheesing teh shit out the game you might as well add dragons
It makes the game more challenging so my army of 30k Euros doesn't just roll over the continent easily. It's also prone to exploits, imagine a small nation like Provence, Cyprus, or Genoa rushing Exploration Ideas to get to Africa early and then started stomping every tribe there just so it could roll over Europe in return. Now let me ask you again, which is more unrealistic, some Kangz learning and adapting European technology or a small European army conquering most if not all of the African tribes?
That is exactly what's supposed to happen moron because (You) the leader of some Kangz tribe in Africa knows what these European technologies are capable of. You know that those guns and cannons are OP as frick against your neighbors so (You) will try your best to acquire them ASAP (Unless god-forbid, you're some filthy RPBlack person that likes to masquerade as the IRL Kangz tribes). What so you want to force the player to be ignorant on how to get tech just so playing Africans could be harder?
Both are unrealistic in the time period. Tribal societies were so far behind many didn't have written languages, expecting them to develop a middle class or build universities is not credible. However, EU doesn't model the impossibility of European exploration and colonization of Africa, which wouldn't be possible until the late 1800s.
It's also, way, way too easy to supply large expeditionary forces in hostile lands - and it's impossible to use (historical) tiny expeditionary forces in search of limited gains.
If you can't rush africa then neither can your euro opponents
That's the problem with exploration ideas >Now let me ask you again, which is more unrealistic, some Kangz learning and adapting European technology or a small European army conquering most if not all of the African tribes?
Unironically the second. Africa was literlaly millenniums behind euros. We had cases of under a thousand poeple toppling states more advanced then African tribes
>We had cases of under a thousand poeple toppling states more advanced then African tribes
Generally after three quarters of their population had died of disease, mind you.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I was thinking of Yermak's underfunded expedition of less then one thousand bringing Siberian Khaganate to it's knees. Mind you, they were medieval tier and old world, so diseases didn't affect them. They had cities and fortresses as well. No allies either.
Also impact of diseases is overstated
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Yermak's underfunded expedition of less then one thousand bringing Siberian Khaganate to it's knees
That is one I had not been aware of. Interesting! Will have to look into him.
I'd been assuming you were talking about one of the various Conquisatorial missions (who, we know from primary sources, switched out their armour for that used by the natives whenever they had the opportunity, so clearly not that much tech disparity, in the environment they found themselves). That lot absolutely benefited significantly from disease bringing their targets to their knees.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Their main advantages were weapons and horses.
Diseases don't work that fast
2 years ago
Anonymous
Isn't that the one where Russian cossacks literally manifested destinied their way to the Pacific? To be fair Russian cossacks are OP as frick though.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Didn't reach pacific but got basically all of siberia
>play euiv >decide to play as austria >ally some electors >complete missions and gain pu cb over bohemia >win >cool down a bit >focus on being allied with burgundy and hope they dont do dumb shit >they declare war on liege >attempt to dodge around the war through making them your war ally >pass your first reform >attack nations with hre provinces >weaken france through the imperial ban cb >release a bunch of nations from the war >only to realize you cant make them join the hre >get hungary as a pu for free (no crashes done)
That's all I have for the early game
There's a cb you get after a couple of reforms that lets you force people to join the hre, but I think they need to be small enough that you could vassalize them in one war and bordering an imperial province.
Yes I know that. Unfortunately, even though I pu'd Burgundy in around 1490s. I could not inhreit them until 1500s which prevented any small french nation to have their capital connected to the hre.
I also successfully got rid of the reformation so well to the point a league war could not spawn and I had to wait until 1625 for Catholicism to be the official faith, this meant I could not pass Proclaim erbkaisertum because it have religious peace and removed any option of any official religion
I see, last time I played Austria I got an event where Burgundy joined the HRE before I inherited their provinces. No idea how common that is though. It's pretty annoying that the game doesn't have anything that accounts for players kneecapping the reformation.
Yeah, but the thing that annoyed me the most would be the center of revolution. Shit takes forever to spawn and by the time it does spawn, the game is already close to ending. The war with Britain took forever, mostly due to their colonies. I kinda hate that Britain is still revolutionary even after I dismantled the revolution due to some annoying revolutionary rebels spawning in London and sieging the province just after I finished the war with Britain. I am still glad I finished my mission tree and finished playing as austria.
Roleplay wise, I would say that Britain had a second inferior revolution to the first one, see if that makes any sense.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Okay proud to say I have got a much better save now
2 years ago
Anonymous
Managed to get more out of my war with Revolutionary Britain
2 years ago
Anonymous
I also prevented them becoming revolutionary again by killing their 31K revolutionary rebels after I turned them into a monarchy. And additionally, I RM'd them and had a Habsburg on their throne.
>it is the 1700s >had a habsburg on the throne of russia but with no heir >claimed throne and pu'd russia with the swarm vassal i got >i just finished my war the deccan and got the provinces i needed >i also threatened khmer to give me the provinces i wanted for the extra trade >threatened the ottomans to get out of anatolia >all missing is the revolution missions >unfortunately it takes for fricking ever for the center of revolution to spawn >declare war on france only to fix border gore, except spain is guareenting their independence for whatever reason >even though im allied with spain i go to war against them >in the mean time the center finally spawns in my lands >get the revolution disaster >until i somehow lucky unlucky and i get an event that gives me stability >disaster never fires even when below 1 stability >finish my war with spain >britain becomes revolutionary >dissolve alliance to declare war >finally the revolution disaster triggers >very easy to solve aside from a small dumb mistake on trying to find out that one rebel controlled province >declare war on britain with heavies prepared >expect the war to be easy >its actually not easy at all >the most tedious i have suffered from the game >lasts two decades >after seiging the capital i complete my mission >the war wont though because of the cb for crushing the revolution giving britain more war enthusiasm >finally crush the revolution with britain seiged for long they are bunkrupt >revolutionries spawn on london >britain becomes revolutionary again but this time with no center of revolution >i complete glory to habsburgs and gain the aeiou mission
The early game was fun but the late game was so fricking tedious
It's likely coming within the next few years tbh, they seem to be winding down EU4 development by fixing large numbers of bugs and issues and polishing up the last few areas lacking flavour. They don't seem to be planning for any more large-scale DLC. They've probably been working on EU5 for some time now hence the downscaling of EU4 dlc scope.
Honestly I'm OK with those. South America has barely been touched since release and unilke fricking Austarlia and Oceania it was importatnt place for that time period.
As for the middle east, Persia is really lacking any kind of unique content otherwise it's not so bad.
I just want dynamic trade man.
Trade routes/directions would make the game more replayable and diverse than a million oh so flavourful unique mission trees but changing which areas and provinces are valuable.
it won’t be called europa universalis, but they will insist it’s a sequel cus they don’t wanna give up the brand recognition. that attempt will fail and sunder the fan base
>EU3
yeah bro endless warleader alliance cascading is hecking epic
having to colonise provinces away from hordes that are permanently at war with anyone around them brilliant
Considering downward spiral of HoI4, CK3 and Vic3 my expectations are pretty low.
It's basically certified that it will have a very little content on launch, feature those awful 3d portraits and it will pretend that colonialism and triangle trade did not happen.
I don't care about mana, but I want a better modelling of population, devastation, attrition and army size.
Something like this: >provinces got a population cap, raised by a development-like mechanism and buildings. >While the population is below that, it will slowly rise >Armies that occupy the province use that same population capacity (with modifiers for owner/ally/enemy so you can quarter more troops inside your own territor than in hostile land) >Being over population capacity cause attrition to the army, decrease in the population, and devastation to the province >mechanisms like attrition & devastation a lot more impactful than they currently are.
Basically, a good modelling of the destruction causes by post renaissance wars, force the splitting of forces, prevent the AI from swinging his massive 120k dick-stack around.
>sieges and sacks degrade or destroy buildings and directly kill population >mercenary armies that are unpaid much more likely to sack cities that are taken even when you'd really rather they not >naval blockades shatter coastal trade and fishing >big enough fleets can capture forts and cities all by themselves or with a small army attachment
Could be cool, but sounds like a nightmare to develop in a fashion that would recreate history.
At least while the game is still blob central and willy-nilly wars, nobody would ever develop anything.
Or just make it less scripted. With every dlc EU4 feels more and more scripted, if you don't do x,z and y you can't grow to your scripted potential, and you'll be wrecked by your surrounding nations scripted growth. The game need to feel more organic like in the early years.
better and more wide-ranged vassal play
vassals/marches should be more free to declare war and diplomatically interact with other countries and their overlord other than simply support/declare independance
he was sacked following The Golden Century cause his expansions were unpopular with the fanbase, he's been a professional streamer for like 3 years now
"no guys it's a totally legitimate culture and organisation, never mind that it could only maintain a tiny population, develop no institution, state capacity, build no permanent structures & never even leave the shores of their god-forsaken shithole. And get absolutely btfo'd the minute they encounter a foreign culture".
I swear, subhuman-apologists are the saddest lot I've ever seen. They're dedicating the summum of education, knowledge, science & technology to try -and fail- at making inferior cultures respectable.
why does the AI have the ability to have more allies? I got declared on by poland and they have atleast 6 allies, and venice alone had around 50k men in the 1500s
completely destroyed sweden run
>EU thread kills an EU thread
funee
I expect nothing and i'll probably be disappointed too.
this
After how they managed to run EU4 into the ground I have absolutely zero expectations. Only a fool would trust again after being burned so harshly.
Only buy finished games. Looking back, EU4 has basically never left Early Access, they just don't put the warning on the store page. Now I know better.
>euiv has never left early access
not quite, but it reinvented itself like three times which put the game into a EA like state after each reinventing update
It's not about being buggy (which EU4 is plenty). It's about changing core mechanics ("reinventing" as you call it). Once you release the game it should stay consistent with basic mechanics. You can add content, you can patch bugs. But you shouldn't rework stuff to a degree that the feeling or gameplay loop fundamentally changes.
Someone who bought the game 2 months after release should not be alienated by the state of the current release. The dev made a promise to early customers and took their money. They should be able to enjoy the product they've bought. But PDX've changed pretty much every major mechanic (forts and zoc, dev, diplomacy, etc) to where the game feels very different from release and then they went and removed the betas so 1.04 and 1.17 are now the oldest versions you can play. That's an EA mindset, as if they hadn't yet found what makes their game work and interesting and so they're throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. They had a game, they had a balance, they had an audience - but they just keep bulldozing over it. They could be on EU VI with how much they've "reinvented" EU IV.
15th century state-enforced homosexuality
wakanda
unironically
shitty new map
moba icons
slavery... le bad!
new trade system takenfrom meiou (the only good thing they will do)
3d characters
dumbed down warfare
meme flavour events
more natives
>new trade system takenfrom meiou (the only good thing they will do)
Lol they even broke Vic2 economy system with Vic3... WTF is that shit?
>dumbed down warfare
How can they dumb it down when EU4 battles are already dice rolls with modifiers?
having only 2 buttons, declare war and make peace
those should be automatic based on the diplomatic relations between the countries
Congratulations, they have recreated Orbi Universo.
>slavery le bad
as opposed to what? it being good? what the frick do people mean when they say this?
Going out of their way to tell you how evil you are in a game where it's both historical and expected
This
name 1 time they did this, victoria 2 had events against it due to the time period but that's it
>you just committed a racism! ban slavery now or take a -5 stab hit
guaranteed to be an event in eu5. screencap this
Christian countries are the "main characters" of EU. Of course they're going to remind you of the implications.
Slavery was extremely profitable for one. And some Philosophers do point out it did more good for certain % of peoples than bad...
>Slavery was extremely profitable for one.
If you were interested in driving wages down, sure. If you were trying to support a family and stuck competing with literal chattel, it was shit. This is the main reason chattel aren't allowed to be the backbones of industrial economies: All of their earnings go straight to the top, and the value of labor remains low. There's then an incentive to expand the institution--formally or informally--to earn more profits. In the Americas, they relied on Africans being available for sale, but if abolition continued in spite of that, the only options would be to expand the slave caste demographically (via support for IR marriages in a hypodescent system), or by including others in this group. The latter is how we got our current 13th Amendment. Instead of abolishing slavery, they just swapped out the caste system for a more widely predatory one.
The continuation of slavery has shown itself to be plainly harmful to the country. We should've abolished it.
EU is not a game played from the perspective of a farmer trying to support his family, its played from the perspective of a state.
Slavery was a convenient and profitable method of extracting wealth from America for these states.
Yes, and it was also a political time bomb because artisan slaves and colonial involvement with parliament would potentially leave the mainlanders wagged by their colonies.
History exists outside of the USA.
No-one is seething. That was my first post in the thread.
You are just applying your 21st century American mindset to the mindset of 15th century European statesmen who didn't always care about the long-term and just wanted a low-effort way to make money in far away lands.
well yeah, the game just shows you that by having long term consequences, i just thought you were the anon seething from earlier
>History exists outside of the USA.
We see examples of this in mainland Portugal, with Africans taking up positions in dockyards, mines, forges, etc.
yeah, but just because it's convenient doesn't hide it's downturns such as rebellions and poverty for the lower classes
nta by the way but ive no clue why you people seethe about slavery being bad in games
Oy vey
Ask me how I know you have a giant nose
Was it that profitable? The Southern USA got BTFO by the North.
The South's economy relied on slavery, the North teched into factories and shit down the south's throat.
If slavery was so profitable the South would have bootstrapped to a better economy like the North did and thus actually had a chance.
Slavery only got trumped when Industrialization began. Apparently paying John 50 cents a day to work in a factory is cheaper than buying and keeping Tyrone well fed, clothed, and housed to work in plantations. In essence, slavery got abolished because of moral superiority and mos importantly, it means lower manpower costs all the while keeping productivity, efficieny and morale for the workers up.
In the case of the South, the Union blockade made sure their cotton exports could not reach their customers in the European market so their economy got fricked. Of course this made Europe, particularly Britain, mad since they cannot get cotton for their clothes but once they found new Egyptian cptton plantations and America reassured the war was about slavery, they calmed fown. Bear in mind that there are more factors in which why the South lost like less manpower/population and less industry to make guns and goods.
That's a good way to phrase it. Peter Thiel had a line when he was in some board meeting. Paraphrasing, "As an American, you are selling our children's future. You should not outsource this to China. As a shareholder, I implore you to outsource this to China." It's very easy to talk about long-term repercussions to things when we don't have skin in the game or when it's in the past. When I was younger, me and other young people didn't give a shit about the 2009 recession. If that happened when I was hitting retirement, I'd be on a watch list. I'm fully expecting a danger-haired female Paradox marketing intern to proselytize zoomer morality, including a massive bonus for a plurality of migrants, while the decision to make Liberia ends up with Wakanda and not child soldiers and cannibals.
>is cheaper than buying and keeping Tyrone well fed, clothed, and housed to work in plantations.
Yeah, anon. They fed the slaves themselves. They wouldn't possibly think to just set aside land for the slaves to make their own food, clothing, and shelter, right?
Life would be so easy if everyone else was as stupid as you.
it had its uses before the rise of industralization. a game that takes place before 1850 it was entirely viable. obviously you needed to balance it with free men since slaves can cause widespread unemployment.
The '>le bad' meme just refers to people stating the obvious. Everyone knows slavery is bad, but this is a histotical videogame so we don't need a lecture denouncing slavery.
>Everyone knows slavery is bad
reddit
You forgot an even more OP Ottomans.
on a serious note OP ottomans are hilarious and should stay, i always laugh when they conquer russia and half of eastern europe
Man I hate total warring the Ottos to death as Russia. I had a war with them over the Caucausus that cost me 500K men and nearly my sanity.
Ottomans are supoose to being God tier in early game and then turn into pathetic homosexuals in the late game.
but Paradox needed it's baby first nation
This is just a problem with the game's design in general, blobs are way too stable and inertia carries you way too much. Ottomans just benefit from this effect the most because their starting situation always ensures they're dominate the first hundred years and then snowball out of control but you still regularly see the same thing happening with France, Castile, Austria, Poland, Muscovy, etc too. Empires never collapse in EU4 unless the player chooses to dismantle them themselves.
OP ottomans is a thousands times better than cuck0mans from EU3.
>slavery... le bad!
4 already glosses over what slavery meant to the triangle trade and plantations, let alone the world economy, so it wouldn't be a big change.
>more natives
>old players: why are all the empty provinces filled with OPMs? How am I supposed to colonise?
>new players: colonise?
Anon means that he doesn't want to be beaten over the head with modern morality in his game set in an era of monarchies, war, exploitation, serfdom, slavery, disease, politicking, religion, backwardness, malnutrition, absolutism, illiberalism and finished with a bloodthirsty revolution that wasn't about feminism despite that not only being an option but Revolutionary Britain's flag is a feminist one from over a century later.
Nah nah nah, you'll get a comet sighted event added to the pool if you own a slave producing province and your capital is on the continent of Europe.
>christians disagree with slavery!
>... just ignore the church owns plantations
>christians disagree with slavery!
>... just ignore the church owns plantations
These don't contradict each other.
>Nooo there aren't 66 gorillion diplomatic decisions of which I will only realistically use 5 and more often than not only 3 of them.
I'd use any and every diplomatic option.
Last good PDX game was either HoI3 or Vicky 2, and only after extensive patching. Anything after CK2 (CK2 included) is trash
Based anon is based anon.
Look Chaps, its time to admit defeat. There will never be another good paradox game. Like it or not the rise and fall of Paradox games is like a reflection of Western civilization, culminating with the moon landings. It has all been down hill from there. All we have in front of us are mobile-tier games and a decline to Brazilian style standards of living.
But le's also acknowledge it was a petty fun ride.
They release it and then 8 years and 2 dozen DLCs later it's finally got the features eu4 had on release and is actually playable lmao.
CK3 and VIC2 indicate absolute casualization, which will be a new low considering EU4 already casualized EU3.
Changes include:
>le ebin 3D portraits
>more mana
>less eurocentrism
>less eurocentrism
already happening. Have you seen the idea sets that African Kangdoms have in the Origins DLC? They can butt heads with Prussia and still win
This blows my fricking mind. The Muslims were literally competing head to head with the Europeans for trade posts in the east and most of that area is just fricking dead in terms of gameplay. There is absolutely nothing south east Asia and Indonesia even though there were several empires rose up at that time. Yet they stick hundred of little province and tribes in the middle of Africa that nobody even has any record of until the late 1800s. Hundreds of little tribes all over America and they still haven't done anything to model how then Spanish took mexico and the incas. Nothing goes on with the Iroquois Cherokee or commanche. Really grinds my gears.
They did a whole expansion for Indochina.
Plus what anon is talking about is shit you have to play the game well to do, who cares at that point, it's not like AI west Africa is invading west europe
>Yet they stick hundred of little province and tribes in the middle of Africa that nobody even has any record of until the late 1800s
If they expand Mali/Ghana empire, Ethiopia/Somali kingdoms and swahili sultanates is not that bad, but year , SEA kingdoms should been reworked more than africa
>Yet they stick hundred of little province and tribes in the middle of Africa that nobody even has any record of until the late 1800s
Oh no, how terrible. Europe gets even more free provinces due to tech levels. How could this happen to my relaxing colonization run
there will be a single button you can press. it increases your nation's administrative abilities by 10% for 4 years, at the cost of a resource called "capability", which builds up over time based on your monarch's capability score.
im so fricking tired of mana frick
Capability bonuses will be granted from adding a province to the "promote ingenuity" function
Same as EU IV, but with 90% less features
I don't know but based on what Johan said, there will be at least pops. 3D portraits are probably guaranteed as well given that Vicky 3 has them for no reason at all
>was eu4 last pdx good game?
No, it was the beginning of the end. The game was absolutely atrocious at the release (not that it was much different from an average Paradox release even back then) and it is still objectively worse than eu3 even after so many years and dlcs.
>The game was absolutely atrocious at the release
Hey, at least westernization was hard but very rewarding.
>eu4
>good
In a few years we will hear people say Ck3 or Hoi4 is good.
I just want more paths to survive as a native rather than magical button that makes you catch up on tech.
Especially since right now you can't even convert to Christian, and even if you do, Europeans will still come towards you zerg mode for no good reason.
The Cherokee actually westernized IRL and they still got roflstomped into a reservation, there's really not a whole lot that can be done but the magic catch-up button.
>westernized
What they built factories and reformed their government?
Adopted western standards, and I believe converted to protestantism and tried to copy Bri*ish parliament.
Right, but at least make it a bit more fun. Allowing you to go Christian as the Mayans and Incas for a start, perhaps with some events relating to where to establish churches, visiting the pope, and how you react to the new sects showing up in Europe, for example, could be at least some sort of content.
>no good reason
homie you are sitting on profitable land that is away from home so no AE penalty, why wouldnt they just frick you up and take it?
None, hoping for paraBlack folk to go bankrupt before they have a chance to release that shit. Alternatively, everyone responsible for the absolute garbage they put out now dies and gets replaced by someone better.
I wonder if it's possible to get a job at paradox and change the outcome of the game? Or do you think they would just have me do all the gruntwork for free on intern and then fire me for asking questions?
Anon, they’ll ask you to pay for the privilege of working there. You know there are paradrones out there who would.
Man that's disappointing. I've been working project management for a while now, not the best at coding but I would love to work on a game project for the type of games I play even if it meant a making less for a few years. It's a bit depressing that nobody in management there has any passion to make the games fun. I played the vic 3 leak and it was like trying to play a cookie clicker game with history "did you know!" quips. Really doesn't make sense to me I work in insurance and it almost feels like my coworkers put more care into their work than what I am seeing from paradox. They seem like they have a lot of staff but it's just confusing why games like eu4 or hoi4 are barley improved even after so many years.
>It's a bit depressing that nobody in management there has any passion to make the games fun
>t. 17 yo
This might shock you, but games are made to earn money. I know, amazing, right? Passion projects are rare and far between, even among indie devs (who are mostly just low-tier, low-effort money grabbers).
In fact, I don't think I heard about any major passion project to be made, finished and released since Stardew Valley.
Video games used to be a tiny industry full of nerds who turned their passion into their profession and it showed, but you're obviously too young to remember that.
A made-up memory, big companies and big money have always been part of the deal, Atari had a deal with Warner since 1976, and a quick look at most companies made in the early 80s shows only certain profiles. Nintendo was a toys company, Sega was a slot machine maker, electronic art and activision were always made profit first.
Sure you'd get this or that passion project from one dude or another, and you still get them today, but the typical young lifeless nerd with enough drive to not waste their life on anonymous image boards or reddit is typically not a person you'd like (See: Toby Fox, Concerned Ape)
>it's a fake memory!
zoomer straight up thinks the world has always been as shit as he's experienced lmao
On the contrary, I was an adult when you were on your good times, and by that I mean being a moron kid who was constantly bullied and therefore had to play games all days. The idea gaming wasn't corporate in the 80s and 90s is absurd.
No no, he is objectively wrong, sure it got bigger now, but its all the same shekel driving idiots in power as it has always been, don't delude yourself with a false memory of a "good time" that never happened, otherwise you will drive into the desert following a mirage, okay?
And you as a 30 year old man defiantly had his hand on pulse of the games industry. I mean, remember when they made that bad ET game? Or that bad Disney game? Or that bad Star Wars game? Clearly corporate meddling and there was no passion ever in any part of the industry. Good games don't exist you're lying if you think they do.
I never said good games don't exist
Sorry, Good times don't exist but genuine "passion projects" haven't existed since 2014 and the fact that video games have gotten more popular has absolutely no effect on the types of people trying to make them.
Obviously games were always made so someone would play them but there wasn't corporate meddling on the level there is now. It's hard to discern if a good game was made for profit or passion because it's both.
Corporate culture is so obvious now because bad games are stuffed to the brim with shit and the publisher has such an obvious hand in it. Sim City was great but then EA told Maxis to make a new one filled with multiplayer shit no one wanted because multiplayer is the future and now it's dead.
>Sorry, Good times don't exist but genuine "passion projects" haven't existed since 2014
Stardew?
in 90s you had tons of great games made by small teams: Doom, Master of Orion, UFO, JA, and countless others. These teams were passionate about making good games and it showed
The quality and diversity was way superior compared to now where most of the market is dominated by big players which design games using "top-down" approach putting money above everything
Perhaps it's the cost?
Make a game on a small budget, get pirated to hell because no online, get told your game looks like a PS2 game or a mobile game. At some point you either burn out or just go and make some mobile game and get actual money.
hes right tho, video games were tiny while they are bigger than hollywood movie industry right now, all NPC going to IT for the money with 0 interest or passion for computers is another part of the problem, entire industry is corporate hellhole with hr roasties, CEOs and investors squeezing all profit they can without trying to even make good product, why bother when bigger marketing budget sells more copies than actually making a good game.
What's wrong with Concerned Ape? He actually seems like a solid fella and developer (besides, or perhaps thanks to, his autism).
It was never exactly turning passions into games, but in the early 2000s and before, it took a lot more effort to make a game that would sell well, especially because the total number of people playing video games was a fraction of what it currently is. People who've been playing games for a very long time pine for those days because companies were hyper focused on them as a demographic and thus all games were tailored around them.
Things are only so bad now because games have become the same as movies and any other major media, big productions designed to sell to as many markets as possible, which means the product produced is a soulless, casualized, design-by-committee monstrosity whose only goal is to move as many copies as possible regardless of any other factor such as long term appeal or quality in general. People who just dip their feet into the gaming world on occasion will always outnumber those who are truly passionate about it, and thus they will always drive development towards their interests.
>Or do you think they would just have me do all the gruntwork for free on intern and then fire me for asking questions?
No, they would fire you after working there for 179, because according to Swedish labor laws, they would have to start paying you regular wage if you worked there for 180 days. All while said interns are working 12-14 hours shifts a day.
Welcome to nu-PDX, where pretty much everyone is an intern and treated like shit. But to avoid the standard situation like that (interns uniting against employer and suing their ass over mistreatment), they don't just pick random applicants. Nope, they scoop from their own fanbase, so for the nearly six months, they are milking some low-tier modder or another homosexual that's so much in love with them and their games, they will actually be glad for being overworked and cucked. Hey, based PDX hired them, what not to love, right?
That company literally turned into its anti-thesis when the mobile games CEO took over.
>B-but PDX is commies and its diversity ruining the company
Rampant capitalistic forces and monopoly once again ruin something great and communism gets blamed by low iq morons.
B-b-but Ganker told me it's muh troons and muh Black folk and muh israelites that ruined video games
Brainless amerimutts, the left is the corporate lapdog, any REAL OPPOSITION TO CAPPITALISM is seen as right wing and therfor left wing lapdogs will attack it claiming it's fascist, rascist, any kind of phobic.
So how come that the left is the most loyal defender of megacorporations?
its not
>people making awful decisions and a monopoly that doesn't exist = muh capitalism
k
I expect that they will stop """improving""" eu4 and it finally could be modded into something good.
>What are your expectations from EU5,
An extremely shitty ass.
Victoria 3 made me literally poo myself with sheer excitement. I have no doubt that eu5 will add an explosive mix of violent diarrhea to the sticky hot mess that is my anus.
BASED, however, I'm rather constipated when thinking about EU5. Is is over for me?
It could be a rocky ride for you. Either your bowels turn to much, as mine have, or else your stools become hard, lumpy, extraordinarily stubborn bricks. The latter will be your fate. I suggest stocking up your toilet becasue you are going to be spending a lot of time in there, grunting and a groaning and generally thrashing around, screaming loud as a bastard "BEGONE FOUL POOS!" as you wrestle in the herculean task of pushing the reluctant little blighters out.
Reading material. Games. Phone. Food. Water. Blankets. Even a small portable stove would not go amiss. My prayers will be with you.
Good Lord! I really hope eu5 is good then. I would rather be a water dumper than a stool grinder.
That sounds incredibly grim. Surely there must be a way to avoid becoming bored and instead be excited for EUV? I would much rather just get my feces out in a rush than have to strain for hours on end.
3D models for things that really don't need to have 3D models
Content not ported from EU4 because you need to sell DLCs
Colonization and trade somehow even more stripped of historical nuance
Attempt to disguise mana points
>Attempt to disguise mana points
Why would they want to even disguise those? After all, mana is great, mana is awesome, and mana is to stay.
Hey, how about we just combine all three mana powers into one this time around, to make it even more awesome?
That's my wild guess, but considering how badly Imperator bombed, I wouldn't be surprised if they tried concealing the mana. It's still going to be there, but it might behave a bit different.
Given typical PDX ability to learn from mistakes, here is what they figured out from Imperator:
>Three mana types bad, game bombed
>One mana type still sells GoY$
>Once one mana type was implemented in Imperator, reviews improved
So they are not seeing the obvious "mana bad" lesson, but "one mana type better".
Besides, saying otherwise is the easiest way to get your internship voided prematurely, so shut the frick up and keep coding it.
EU4 has three mana.
CK3 two mana.
If I just don't mana was Imperator's biggest issue on launch.
ck3 has 3 mana
gold, prestige, and piety
>but gold makes sense
no it doesnt
Gold is not mana.
Dynasty points are mana though.
Gold is mana dressed up like something else, in reality there is no consistency or logic to the way things are priced in the game, no real economy, it's just mana points
I will lynch you Johan.
Relevant historical leaders will be railroaded into the game, beginning with women and poc. Said women and poc will also have personal portrats looking sassy and/or angry.
Mana points will have kawaii icons.
>What are your expectations from EU5
Extremely limited colonization, because ,uh colonizers.
Many artificial limits for European superpowers.
Painting the map bad, diplomacy good.
Simplified combat.
More detailed graphics for le flavour packs.
More missions, more "decisions".
Women and Black folk everywhere.
I bet you they'll find some way to make Black folk into rulers/advisors of European countries. Also Catholicism and Christianity's gonna get debuffed to hell.
Culture converting African provinces in EU4 was hilarious, you'd wind up with white portrait having advisors with names like mquese mbuto
>Limited colonization
Historical.
>artificial limits for European superpowers
This isn't Victoria. There aren't any.
>Painting the map bad, diplomacy good
That can only improve the game
>Simplified combat
Combat modifier spam undermines all other systems in the game
>More detailed graphics for le flavour packs
Makes money and doesn't hurt the gameplay
>More missions, more "decisions"
First real complaint
>Women and Black folk everywhere
Avoid Africa then.
>That can only improve the game
this, why do people love map painting so much then complain the game is too easy? those people are so uncreative and incapable of having fun
>Combat modifier spam undermines all other systems in the game
this too, but i also dont want things to become HOI
>this too, but i also dont want things to become HOI
Never played. What's it like?
Hoi4 is a game where you just google
>army template meta for patch X
Then you build that template you googled in game, then you draw a line and press an arrow and win the game.
Eu4 is dangerously close to that.
all paradox games are wide as an ocean and deep as a puddle, You pick setting/game you enjoy the most rest is just getting through steep learning curve, gameplay is always formulaic and braindead.
eu4 is even simpler, you don't even need to search for templates
nah, there is more to eu4 than HOI4 for sure
yeah, more overpriced dlc
You're an absolute dumb Black person if you search meta templates. It takes away the fun of creating your own army o fight the enemy's. This is the same reason you do not watch advanced tutorials, playthroughs or campaigns in games like these because they spoil the surprise of your own game.
>Joke
>(You)
How hard is life when one is so literal minded?
I expect it to be shit
The good news that if you expect it to be shit then at least you will not suffer from explosive diarrhea, which happens to the excited players. However your poos will be very hard, lumpy and difficult to pass, and that can be very painful
I would like to second this view. Last night I had a dream about EU5 being released. It made me very excited. Imagine my surprise though when I woke up next morning in a bed absolutely splattered excrement. At first I though my friend had done it, he likes to prank me sometimes. But no, when I discovered dried shit caking my legs and ass I knew it was my own.
I had a similar thing happen. I was at a friends place playing some games when all of a sudden, out of the blue, he asked me "what about eu5?" It took me by surprise. As did the long slippery shit that immediately shunted out out of my anus.
with how predatory their dlc model is, i wont be playing.
i agree, i like the idea of the subscription thing but they arent doing it for newer games like stellaris or ck3
slavery is still a thing they modified it slightly so plebs dont object, do you think chink or pajeet working 12h, 6 day a week in sweatshops for barely livable wage while having no other options is truly free?
it is indeed classified as slavery, and there are more modern slaves right now than any point ever in history
look up slavery in india
>was eu4 last pdx good game?
lol
lmao
DLC cashcows are not good games.
Last good game was Victoria 2 - last game that wasn't infested with DLCs.
Or EU3 if you considerer only EU games.
>What are your expectations from EU5
$150 of dlc
Whoops. I forgot a 0
>150
That will be just the base deluxe edition with muslim portraits.
Strip 98% of the features and begin another decade long cycle of drip feeding in content 3 buttons and 20$ at a time.
Purposefully adding game design flaws that can only be fixed by buying DLC.
Simplified gameplay systems to increase market size.
Better graphics.
Scandinavian-style virtue signalling.
They will probably announce EUV soon, unless there's a new DLC in the works and I just don't know about it because I haven't seen the dev diary announcements for it.
I stopped playing my pirated copy of EUIV around the time when Conquest of Paradise came out because the mana system killed the game for me by making it too easy (for example, comet sighted now means nothing because you can just sprinkle mana over everything to make its detriments go away). I'm not even sure what features were added through DLC to EUIV over the past five years, all I know is that there's a focus tree now and Leviathan was Birdemic-tier. Like many other people, I think it will be like CK3's launch where they'll try to make the game more noob-friendly by cleaning up the UI but also taking some mechanics out, but I think this will be a good thing because for a while I remember people complaining that changes were randomly being added to EUIV without a unifying vision for them, so having a more focused, cleaned up version of EUIV could be fun. But this approach will likely have the same issue that CK3 had for vets where they end up not playing the new game because of missing mechanics and sunken cost. If they made the game less mana-dependent to where it plays more like EU3 and there's actual difficulty in the game from having to play around bad things happening in your nation, I'd play it; I recently tried getting back into EU3 but the cascading alliances problem that was fixed in subsequent games turned me off from playing a full campaign because it gets annoying when small skirmishes always turn into world wars.
Yes, EU IV suffers mega hard from having new features added through DLC that barely interact with each other. And because they barely interact with each other, you just end up getting buttons that give you benefits for some price or tradeoff, dozens of buttons. Buttons for diplomacy, buttons for province and state development, buttons for dealing with estates.
So yes, there literally isn’t any other way forward for EU V than nuking mana and having a vision that allows them to actually develop the game forward cohesively without it feeling like patchwork. Like Stellaris or HoI 4 or not, if there’s one thing they get right better than EU IV, it’s that they feel much more cohesive. EU IV is easily the most frankensteined corpse that Paradox has made, and its funeral is lomg overdue. It’s not even a matter whether you trust Paradox enough to want EU V or not, it’s just that IV is unsalvageable at this point either way.
>HoI 4
If we were still on Man The Guns I would have agreed with you, but I think some of the latest additions to the game are starting to feel like they don't know what to do with the game next. For example, I don't think the logistics rework and especially the railway guns were necessary because it forces the player to micromanage in a game where the original goal was to lessen how much micromanagement the player has to do compared to HOI3. It's also stupid how shit like Switzerland gets a focus tree while there are still countries that actually participated in WWII without trees such as Finland.
>I don't think the logistics rework and especially the railway guns were necessary because it forces the player to micromanage
Don't see why that would be, when you assign the guns to an army they will just move automatically along the frontline like any other units, except that they require railways. And the logistics, just click on the upgrade button on the supply hub.
Neither option is optimal, but as a rule of thumb, it is always more optimal to micromanage if the game allows it.
the rail update was the best update hoi4 ever had, it fixed so many fundamental flaws of the game.
>capturing cities actually matters now
>2 width snaking got gutted
>supply no longer caps at +5 infrastructure so fighting in subsaharan africa / northern canada no longer restricts you to a few divisions in a multiyear campaign
>it's actually possible to cut units off without 100% severing their connection to the capital, full 24 divs armies no longer get supplied through a two mountain tiles
no longer caps at +5 infrastructure so fighting in subsaharan africa / northern canada no longer restricts you to a few divisions in a multiyear campaign
In my view, fighting in Sub-Saharan Africa, or atleast in Central Africa, is alot worse now. Along the coasts and in the south it is still fine, but in Belgian Congo, South Sudan, and French Central Africa it is absolutely cancer as there are no supply hubs at the start, they take forever to build, the AI never builds them, and once you've finished one you can advance a couple of tiles until you suddenly need to build another one. Inland West Africa is also shit, but it's not as bad.
>Expectations for EU5
I don't expect it to be called EUROPA Universalis, probably something dumb like Terra Universalis or something
Wouldn't want anyone to think Europe was important during the time period in question.
I expect to scream.
To scream at the sheer horror of liquid shit blasting uncontrollably out of my ass.
Such is my excitement.
>eu4
>good paradox game
an incredibly simplified eu4 with dlc that reimplements features from eu4
Just the mere thought of eu5 gives me so excited that I get violent diarrhea.
Me as well. One day I was thinking about eu5 and I had a bout of diarrhea so explosive it lifted me 6 inches off my seat.
EU5 is going to be even more dumbed-down somehow
who knows at this point, their track record since the imperator rework has been the most erratic i've ever seen
It's not gonna be called Europa Universalis, that's too eurocentric for 2022 and we need to focus more on subsaharan kangdoms.
I hope there's no EU5, no Victoria 3 and no HOI5 or any other paradox game in the future. Frick Johan.
Depends, if it's a world where there are no Grand Strategy games then I'd rather have atleast one company making them (even if they're shit) just so you can get modders in there to make shit better for everyone. Half the time I feel like the people complaining about paradox act like if clicking 4 extra buttons would suddenly make the boring map game this in depth adventure.
>Nooooo there isn't a super multi-faceted multi-layered economy that I need to pause every month in game to micro manage for peak optimum efficiency and then get surprised that A.I. isn't able to keep up with me or that I found a way to break it.
>Noooo the logistics system isn't completely accurate and realistic which would make rapid expansion nearly impossible in any game that starts before 1800.
>Nooo this isn't how the economy actually works guys, it works this way. No I'm a polsci major and this is how the economy works, no I'm a economics major and this is REALLY how the economy works.
>Nooo there aren't 66 gorillion diplomatic decisions of which I will only realistically use 5 and more often than not only 3 of them.
>Why is combat balanced and not historically accurate?
At some point you're going to need to suspend your disbelief. I'm not saying Paradox is good at what they do, they're incredibly shit and I hope all the developer's wives get raped by holy servants of Allah. I just don't think most of these guys understand why they aren't making these games to appeal to a small group of autists, they're a corporation and they're not going to sacrifice their bottom line to appease you. Stop kvetching about Paradox and learn to code if you genuinely give a shit about the state of grand strategy video games.
tl;dr
Jews stole my foreskin and I eat sour cream off my neckrolls.
I don’t think people’s expectations are that high. At this point its just don’t make a game with arguably downgraded base mechanics from the previous title.
Definitely agree with you there.
I feel like it is literally impossible that it will be worse than eu4, but knowing Paradox, they will probably find a way.
I expect them to increase the amount of provinces by a factor of 10, group 40 provinces per state and then do all the gameplay on a state level and claim that its for performance reasons.
Giga-Black folk in space by 1550.
Gay marriages somehow producing 6/6/6 heirs
Almost all of the DLC content removed from EU4, sold back again in $29.99 installments (with new bugs).
Imperator style character rulers to satify my coomer urges.
have a nice day loser
RARE GAMBARGIN
i wouldnt even mind mana as much if it wasnt pure rng shitfest
>What are your expectations from EU5
Monthly subscription instead of DLCs.
Or dont release DLC that breaks the game.
Sweden has a high tax rate. They have to keep selling you DLCs to fix their previous DLC or else they'd go bankrupt.
you are not fitting in, new friend
be less of a tryhard
No, you are the newbie.
eu5 will have a lot less content than eu4 but if they introduce some long-requested features like dynamic trade routes then i think eu5 would have something interesting to offer even at release.
also i think it was someone itt that mentioned eu4 has become a bloated mess of mindless button-clicking mechanics and that resonates with me. if they make diplomacy more interesting (maybe borrowing some stuff from v2) then less could be more.
>also i think it was someone itt that mentioned eu4 has become a bloated mess of mindless button-clicking mechanics and that resonates with me. if they make diplomacy more interesting (maybe borrowing some stuff from v2) then less could be more.
They're going to simplify things and make them even less interesting just like they did with CK3
Even more op turks and poles.
Ugly UI design that does not match the historical setting.
Hope for:
>more historical colonization with trade posts, big claimed areas, and overall slower progress
>actual dynasties
>Fleets of sufficient size being able to occupy coastal forts and cities (kind of like Total War)
>logistics-centric warfare model
>different levels of war involvement so you can fight things like the Anglo-Dutch Wars or the Portuguese-Ottoman Wars, or have allies support you without fully committing to the war
What I expect:
>many out of place meme events
>Europeans...le bad!
>rando African tribes having no issues keeping up with the Euros on tech
What's wrong with a tribe being allowed to keep up with euros? It's an alt history game.
It should be a challenge, as opposed to "border Euro to instantly tech up"
and how the frick would you implement that? Remember, the Kongo only had tech advantages because they traded and bordered the Portugese. That's literally how natives and tribes learned how to use guns against colonizers IRL.
>rando African tribes having no issues keeping up with the Euros on tech
Now that's funny. Have you even recently played EU4? The tribes I encounter in the New World are like 4-5 levels below my tech in all 3 fields.
I do agree in all of your hopes and if I might add
>better culture and reintroduce pop management
not just in the colonies but also in your home country. New World cultures are a hot mess and it's always annoying seeing the Turks with 1 million men in the 1700s.
Also,
>better depictions of rise and fall of historical empires
Fricking Spain with half a million men and infinite money despite having zero investments in their colonies always piss me off.
did you play eu4 before they added the institution system? Non western nations used to end up about 16 techs behind by the end of the game and native americans and non-protectorate africans usually were still in single digits
Because alt history needs to be at least quasi plausible. If Afrian tribes catching up to european powers is a common thing instead of result of player cheesing teh shit out the game you might as well add dragons
It makes the game more challenging so my army of 30k Euros doesn't just roll over the continent easily. It's also prone to exploits, imagine a small nation like Provence, Cyprus, or Genoa rushing Exploration Ideas to get to Africa early and then started stomping every tribe there just so it could roll over Europe in return. Now let me ask you again, which is more unrealistic, some Kangz learning and adapting European technology or a small European army conquering most if not all of the African tribes?
>It makes the game more challenging
It makes playing as Africans easier you fricking moron.
That is exactly what's supposed to happen moron because (You) the leader of some Kangz tribe in Africa knows what these European technologies are capable of. You know that those guns and cannons are OP as frick against your neighbors so (You) will try your best to acquire them ASAP (Unless god-forbid, you're some filthy RPBlack person that likes to masquerade as the IRL Kangz tribes). What so you want to force the player to be ignorant on how to get tech just so playing Africans could be harder?
Most realistic, kangz stay primitive and european armies die of attrition if they leave the african coastline.
Both are unrealistic in the time period. Tribal societies were so far behind many didn't have written languages, expecting them to develop a middle class or build universities is not credible. However, EU doesn't model the impossibility of European exploration and colonization of Africa, which wouldn't be possible until the late 1800s.
It's also, way, way too easy to supply large expeditionary forces in hostile lands - and it's impossible to use (historical) tiny expeditionary forces in search of limited gains.
If you can't rush africa then neither can your euro opponents
That's the problem with exploration ideas
>Now let me ask you again, which is more unrealistic, some Kangz learning and adapting European technology or a small European army conquering most if not all of the African tribes?
Unironically the second. Africa was literlaly millenniums behind euros. We had cases of under a thousand poeple toppling states more advanced then African tribes
>We had cases of under a thousand poeple toppling states more advanced then African tribes
Generally after three quarters of their population had died of disease, mind you.
I was thinking of Yermak's underfunded expedition of less then one thousand bringing Siberian Khaganate to it's knees. Mind you, they were medieval tier and old world, so diseases didn't affect them. They had cities and fortresses as well. No allies either.
Also impact of diseases is overstated
>Yermak's underfunded expedition of less then one thousand bringing Siberian Khaganate to it's knees
That is one I had not been aware of. Interesting! Will have to look into him.
I'd been assuming you were talking about one of the various Conquisatorial missions (who, we know from primary sources, switched out their armour for that used by the natives whenever they had the opportunity, so clearly not that much tech disparity, in the environment they found themselves). That lot absolutely benefited significantly from disease bringing their targets to their knees.
Their main advantages were weapons and horses.
Diseases don't work that fast
Isn't that the one where Russian cossacks literally manifested destinied their way to the Pacific? To be fair Russian cossacks are OP as frick though.
Didn't reach pacific but got basically all of siberia
Playing as austria was stressful, more info
>play euiv
>decide to play as austria
>ally some electors
>complete missions and gain pu cb over bohemia
>win
>cool down a bit
>focus on being allied with burgundy and hope they dont do dumb shit
>they declare war on liege
>attempt to dodge around the war through making them your war ally
>pass your first reform
>attack nations with hre provinces
>weaken france through the imperial ban cb
>release a bunch of nations from the war
>only to realize you cant make them join the hre
>get hungary as a pu for free (no crashes done)
That's all I have for the early game
There's a cb you get after a couple of reforms that lets you force people to join the hre, but I think they need to be small enough that you could vassalize them in one war and bordering an imperial province.
Yes I know that. Unfortunately, even though I pu'd Burgundy in around 1490s. I could not inhreit them until 1500s which prevented any small french nation to have their capital connected to the hre.
I also successfully got rid of the reformation so well to the point a league war could not spawn and I had to wait until 1625 for Catholicism to be the official faith, this meant I could not pass Proclaim erbkaisertum because it have religious peace and removed any option of any official religion
I see, last time I played Austria I got an event where Burgundy joined the HRE before I inherited their provinces. No idea how common that is though. It's pretty annoying that the game doesn't have anything that accounts for players kneecapping the reformation.
Yeah, but the thing that annoyed me the most would be the center of revolution. Shit takes forever to spawn and by the time it does spawn, the game is already close to ending. The war with Britain took forever, mostly due to their colonies. I kinda hate that Britain is still revolutionary even after I dismantled the revolution due to some annoying revolutionary rebels spawning in London and sieging the province just after I finished the war with Britain. I am still glad I finished my mission tree and finished playing as austria.
Roleplay wise, I would say that Britain had a second inferior revolution to the first one, see if that makes any sense.
Okay proud to say I have got a much better save now
Managed to get more out of my war with Revolutionary Britain
I also prevented them becoming revolutionary again by killing their 31K revolutionary rebels after I turned them into a monarchy. And additionally, I RM'd them and had a Habsburg on their throne.
>it is the 1700s
>had a habsburg on the throne of russia but with no heir
>claimed throne and pu'd russia with the swarm vassal i got
>i just finished my war the deccan and got the provinces i needed
>i also threatened khmer to give me the provinces i wanted for the extra trade
>threatened the ottomans to get out of anatolia
>all missing is the revolution missions
>unfortunately it takes for fricking ever for the center of revolution to spawn
>declare war on france only to fix border gore, except spain is guareenting their independence for whatever reason
>even though im allied with spain i go to war against them
>in the mean time the center finally spawns in my lands
>get the revolution disaster
>until i somehow lucky unlucky and i get an event that gives me stability
>disaster never fires even when below 1 stability
>finish my war with spain
>britain becomes revolutionary
>dissolve alliance to declare war
>finally the revolution disaster triggers
>very easy to solve aside from a small dumb mistake on trying to find out that one rebel controlled province
>declare war on britain with heavies prepared
>expect the war to be easy
>its actually not easy at all
>the most tedious i have suffered from the game
>lasts two decades
>after seiging the capital i complete my mission
>the war wont though because of the cb for crushing the revolution giving britain more war enthusiasm
>finally crush the revolution with britain seiged for long they are bunkrupt
>revolutionries spawn on london
>britain becomes revolutionary again but this time with no center of revolution
>i complete glory to habsburgs and gain the aeiou mission
The early game was fun but the late game was so fricking tedious
didn't a recent update make it so that PUs give you so much AE that it causes a massive coalition?
I expect a bigger focus on mission trees. They fit to well into paradoxs dlc model to go away.
rate my life
As long as Women in History is turned off, you're alright by my book.
No, I do not want to hear about some random woman and get a cheap advisor.
i enjoy saving money but you do you
Innovativebros... we lost
>literally who YouTube homosexual’s opinion
No
>EU5
Won't be released for the next 10 years.
It's likely coming within the next few years tbh, they seem to be winding down EU4 development by fixing large numbers of bugs and issues and polishing up the last few areas lacking flavour. They don't seem to be planning for any more large-scale DLC. They've probably been working on EU5 for some time now hence the downscaling of EU4 dlc scope.
Honestly I'm OK with those. South America has barely been touched since release and unilke fricking Austarlia and Oceania it was importatnt place for that time period.
As for the middle east, Persia is really lacking any kind of unique content otherwise it's not so bad.
I just want dynamic trade man.
Trade routes/directions would make the game more replayable and diverse than a million oh so flavourful unique mission trees but changing which areas and provinces are valuable.
it won’t be called europa universalis, but they will insist it’s a sequel cus they don’t wanna give up the brand recognition. that attempt will fail and sunder the fan base
EU3 was last pdx good gam
>EU3
yeah bro endless warleader alliance cascading is hecking epic
having to colonise provinces away from hordes that are permanently at war with anyone around them brilliant
Considering downward spiral of HoI4, CK3 and Vic3 my expectations are pretty low.
It's basically certified that it will have a very little content on launch, feature those awful 3d portraits and it will pretend that colonialism and triangle trade did not happen.
How do you get good at early wars? The AI always manages to pull out another 7/14k troops out of nowhere
>out of nowhere
aka loans and mercs
bring back jake
eu3 was the last good paradox game
EU2 was better
I don't care about mana, but I want a better modelling of population, devastation, attrition and army size.
Something like this:
>provinces got a population cap, raised by a development-like mechanism and buildings.
>While the population is below that, it will slowly rise
>Armies that occupy the province use that same population capacity (with modifiers for owner/ally/enemy so you can quarter more troops inside your own territor than in hostile land)
>Being over population capacity cause attrition to the army, decrease in the population, and devastation to the province
>mechanisms like attrition & devastation a lot more impactful than they currently are.
Basically, a good modelling of the destruction causes by post renaissance wars, force the splitting of forces, prevent the AI from swinging his massive 120k dick-stack around.
>sieges and sacks degrade or destroy buildings and directly kill population
>mercenary armies that are unpaid much more likely to sack cities that are taken even when you'd really rather they not
>naval blockades shatter coastal trade and fishing
>big enough fleets can capture forts and cities all by themselves or with a small army attachment
Could be cool, but sounds like a nightmare to develop in a fashion that would recreate history.
At least while the game is still blob central and willy-nilly wars, nobody would ever develop anything.
a different timeline perhaps. 1444 and onward IS EU4.
Or just make it less scripted. With every dlc EU4 feels more and more scripted, if you don't do x,z and y you can't grow to your scripted potential, and you'll be wrecked by your surrounding nations scripted growth. The game need to feel more organic like in the early years.
better and more wide-ranged vassal play
vassals/marches should be more free to declare war and diplomatically interact with other countries and their overlord other than simply support/declare independance
miss me yet?
What happened? Did he leave paracuck?
he was sacked following The Golden Century cause his expansions were unpopular with the fanbase, he's been a professional streamer for like 3 years now
Nah. Your streams are shit and you're shit and boring dumb moronic scot.
he's right you know
"no guys it's a totally legitimate culture and organisation, never mind that it could only maintain a tiny population, develop no institution, state capacity, build no permanent structures & never even leave the shores of their god-forsaken shithole. And get absolutely btfo'd the minute they encounter a foreign culture".
I swear, subhuman-apologists are the saddest lot I've ever seen. They're dedicating the summum of education, knowledge, science & technology to try -and fail- at making inferior cultures respectable.
They also never discovered how to start fires.
So, why the FRICK does EU4 freeze every few months after 1750? Happens every single game.
why does the AI have the ability to have more allies? I got declared on by poland and they have atleast 6 allies, and venice alone had around 50k men in the 1500s
completely destroyed sweden run
You can have 50 allies if you want, you just need to pay the price.