Found this great post on reddit that recaps a lot of the changes/updates from 4 to 5. A lot easier to digest than reading all the Tinto Talks (development updates). Really excited for a lot of the...
Found this great post on reddit that recaps a lot of the changes/updates from 4 to 5. A lot easier to digest than reading all the Tinto Talks (development updates).
Really excited for a lot of the stuff listed, since it seems like they're keeping all the stuff that made EU4 great, getting rid of stuff that people have complained about for years (mana, trade only flowing in one direction, etc), and adding new systems to make the game realistic, similar to systems that already exist in other games like Victoria 3 (laws, pop management, etc). So far there's no glaring issues or omissions as far as I can tell.
Edit: oh and the steam page has a lot more in-game screenshots.
The way the game is shaping up reminds me a lot of the mod MEIOU and Taxes. That mod always had terrible performance and frequent crashes when I tried it, and the interface was extremely clunky,...
The way the game is shaping up reminds me a lot of the mod MEIOU and Taxes. That mod always had terrible performance and frequent crashes when I tried it, and the interface was extremely clunky, both of which likely because they were trying to do something far beyond what EU4's engine and modding support could handle. But I was always intrigued by the idea of it: more focus on population, estate management, logistics, and generally building up your country. Whenever I tried to do a "tall" run I would just get bored and go to war in vanilla EU4, because everything in that game feels like it's just based on planning and executing one war after another. Clicking a development button every once in a while doesn't feel like you're meaningfully developing your country.
But at the same time, they actually let you control armies and it seems like the war system is better than ever now, which was one of the things that put me off Victoria 3. You can still map paint, it will just take more work, and I was never the kind of player to go for world conquests anyway.
I'm also excited to see what modders can do with it. I presume the same UI modding tools that exist in CK3 are also available in this game (haven't verified that but it would be dumb not to do that when you have the technology and these games have always thrived on mods).
I haven't kept up with all the dev diaries, but I'm excited to see some actual gameplay from various content creators now. I haven't played EU4 in a couple of years, but I used to really enjoy the game, and the newer Paradox titles haven't scratched the same itch.
Paradox have officially announced EUV after months of 'Project Caesar' talks which was even more of an open secret than the Oblivion remake. As someone with a couple thousand hours in EU4, I'm...
Paradox have officially announced EUV after months of 'Project Caesar' talks which was even more of an open secret than the Oblivion remake. As someone with a couple thousand hours in EU4, I'm pumped. Lots of new mechanics and tweaks. EU4 was already incredibly detailed and expansive, so I'm excited to see all the new population mechanics and tech trees and other gameplay elements in action. No release date yet, but hopefully it goes as smoothly as CK3's release, which was mostly problem-free, and less like Vic3 which has taken years to fix major issues.
I've (sporadically) read some of Caesar's diaries in the past months and just tuned in to their live announcement solely because of my playtime in EU4 and... I'm not convinced. There's this level...
I've (sporadically) read some of Caesar's diaries in the past months and just tuned in to their live announcement solely because of my playtime in EU4 and... I'm not convinced.
There's this level of jank to Paradox games that is acceptable to iconic in games before the Clausewitz update. But ever since then it just doesn't quite hit the mark.
Their "complex" systems like pops in Vic3 pale to the original systems. Supply goods and trade centers just feel nebulous and intangible. Not to mention the performance of their latest entries are just bad.
Whenever they delve too far into realism or realistic systems it starts to fray at the seams. EU4 is so incredible because it's just the right level of arcady. People think they want realism, get a title like Imperator, and they end up canning the entire thing because it turns out nobody actually wants that.
Additionally, Johan at the helm of EU4 had this big realism push and nobody actually liked it at the time. His ideas are mid.
When I play EU4 I'm constantly looking towards my next objective, raging at perceived sleights of my rivals, untangling alliance webs, and finding what's the next best step for my country. In Victoria 3 I feel like I'm reading spreadsheets on a slow pc at work.
So far, EU5 looks an awful lot like the latter.
They haven't proven themselves enough since Hearts of Iron IV for me to day-1 buy EU5 despite my play time. I'll hold off until the reviews stop cratering after a DLC or two.
Fair points, but I disagree to some extent. I totally get what you mean about the magic of the jank, and Vic3 definitely is a spreadsheet simulator. But for me personally (I have a few thousand...
Fair points, but I disagree to some extent. I totally get what you mean about the magic of the jank, and Vic3 definitely is a spreadsheet simulator. But for me personally (I have a few thousand hours in the Football Manager series, the grand-daddy of spreadsheet simulators) I don't mind the shift to realism all that much. And that's coming from someone who actually really likes the mana system in EU4 that gets so much flak. I'm not pushing for full realism or anything, but based on my experiences with CK3 and Vic3, which have more-detailed maps and provinces and trade systems and government mechanics, I think EUV is set up for success. My ideal paradox game would be mostly EU4, but with some of the detailed character/government management options of CK3 and some of the intricacies of the economics of Vic3. And from everything I've read about EUV, it seems to fit that bill.
Take a look at the steam screenshots if you haven't. There's quite a few of them and I was impressed to see just how similar everything felt to EU4, just better textures and graphics. All the new tabs and options shown really do seem fairly straightforward. And if not, their nested tooltip system has come a long way since EU4's tooltips, so I think (hope) it'll be fairly easy to adapt.
But ultimately we'll only know when the game comes out. I could be completely wrong and it could suck ass. But here's hoping that's not the case.
I do think that EU5 is taking some of the best mechanics of CK3 and Vic3 without going too far into spreadsheet management. One concern I do have is the decision to move to each tick being one...
I do think that EU5 is taking some of the best mechanics of CK3 and Vic3 without going too far into spreadsheet management. One concern I do have is the decision to move to each tick being one hour a la HOI4, as opposed to one day in EU4. EU4 campaigns are already long, and given the increased timespan of EU5, this will almost certainly make even getting to the midgame of an EU5 campaign much more daunting.
Following the announcement, some YouTubers uploaded their experiences with the game including gameplay footage. Laith, the one in the announcement also released one. Looking at that it also...
Following the announcement, some YouTubers uploaded their experiences with the game including gameplay footage. Laith, the one in the announcement also released one.
Looking at that it also doesn't inspire confidence in me.
I'm seeing what it tries to do and I think it does it well. Unfortunately I simply think it doesn't fit me. It swings far too wide into the serious side of EU4 that I never really liked much to begin with. Estate management is such a bore.
I'm not calling it a bad game, I'd have to try it first, but unlike EU4 it just looks like it won't be for me.
Might be a good time for me to get into the series? I've enjoyed watching a lot of EU4 content but was always too intimidated to get it myself, given the huge amount of DLC available (with many...
Might be a good time for me to get into the series? I've enjoyed watching a lot of EU4 content but was always too intimidated to get it myself, given the huge amount of DLC available (with many people recommending purchasing most of it).
That is a very valid fear. Paradox's dlc policy is very polarizing, with some (like myself) being mostly okay with it because it means the active development of a decade-old game, while others...
That is a very valid fear. Paradox's dlc policy is very polarizing, with some (like myself) being mostly okay with it because it means the active development of a decade-old game, while others (totally understandably) call them greedy parasites for holding so much of the game behind dlcs. It also hits a lot different when you've been playing the game since it released and periodically drop another 10-20 bucks for some dlc every year or two, vs getting into the game now when there's already a million dlc packs and it feels ridiculous to be expected to know which to get and which to avoid. So I totally get it.
The TL;DR is that the base game of EU4 should be all you need to get started (quick edit: just saw that it's on sale right now for $5 on steam). There used to be a few DLC which were considered by many (myself included) to be either essential or damn near it, like Art of War, Rights of Man, and Common Sense, but a few months ago they were integrated into the base version of the game (probably because they were so essential, plus EU5 should be coming out soon).
Paradox sort of learned their lessons with dlc in my opinion. All of the 'must-have' ones were like the first few to come out. People were rightfully pissed that they kept game-changing mechanics behind a paywall, so they haven't really done it since (this was like a decade ago). The dlc nowadays do have some new game mechanics, but they're usually regional or just extra on top of a free update that's always released along side new dlc. So for example, if you have no interest in playing in a certain region, then you probably won't even miss that region's dlc.
So is it a good time to get into EU4? Absolutely in my (very very very biased) opinion. I think it's the best strategy game ever made. I used to play tons of Civ 4 and 5 as well as a bunch of Total War games before I discovered EU4 in college, and now every time I try to boot up a civ game or total war game I end up frustrated at the lack of options available to me and end up booting EU4 instead. Not everyone will feel that way, of course, but I mention that to highlight how incredibly open the game is. It's got more fully-fleshed-out systems than most strategy games, and they interact with each-other beautifully. Trade, war, economy, exploration, diplomacy, politics, technology, terrain, navies, religion, culture, it's got it all and they all affect each other rather than just seeming like an afterthought (looking at you, Total War).
It's definitely not an easy game to get into, but there are a ton of youtube videos and guides as well as the incredible wiki that can help you get started. And if you enjoy strategy games (especially grand strategy) and history, then I really think it's worth a try. (Another quick edit: just saw that the ultimate edition, which comes with all major dlc that you could want, is on sale for 20 bucks. Hard to complain about dlc pricing when you can get the base game and 10+years of development and dlcs for a third of the cost of a regular game nowadays).
And if you're still put off by it, then I'd at least recommend taking a look at EUV whenever it comes out. Paradox have done a much better job of making their games accessible. CK3 and Vic3 are MUCH more accessible (still not easy, but for sure easier to learn) to new players than EU4 ever was, so I suspect that EUV, despite all its moving parts, will be easier to get into than EU4. Plus there won't be any DLC when it first releases, so you won't even have to worry about that unless you continue playing.
I second this. As polarizing as the dlc policy is, the upside is that because of an additional decade of post-release development, you get a game that is so ridiculously fleshed-out that no other...
I second this.
As polarizing as the dlc policy is, the upside is that because of an additional decade of post-release development, you get a game that is so ridiculously fleshed-out that no other game is like it. The downside of it is indeed that it's hard to get into and that even after release it'll take years for EU5 to catch up to it's predecessor if it ever does.
So either get into EU4 now, slowly build your dlc collection and enjoy one of the best strategy games ever made, or wait until EU5 and avoid being disappointed by its initial lack of content.
I think a lot of it comes down to two things: They really did fuck up in the beginning, ~10 years ago. Those first few dlcs really did keep some massive gameplay changes behind a paywall. And...
I think a lot of it comes down to two things:
They really did fuck up in the beginning, ~10 years ago. Those first few dlcs really did keep some massive gameplay changes behind a paywall. And people were rightfully pissed. But I'm fairly certain they've learned their lesson, given that recent dlc for not just EU4 but CK3 and Vic3 as well are way more region-based, while keeping the major universal gameplay changes as part of the free updates. But I'm sure tons of people are still salty from those early days when they were 'forced' to pay to get the objectively better experience.
I immediately judge any game I see with a ton of dlc, fairly or not. And Paradox games have a fuck ton. Not just the major expansions, but tons of cosmetic stuff and content packs that are purely fluff, but add to the intimidation factor of finding a game and seeing a massive wall of paid content available for it. So right off the bat they're losing people who are put off by the overwhelming amount of dlc, despite having a good reason for it (continued game development for a longer-than-average period of time).
But yeah if someone who just picked up EU4 today saw what the game was like back when it first released... oh boy they'd be a bit more appreciative of all the dlc and continued development it's had since then, lol.
Westernization and locking important main features behind Common Sense and Rights of Man was the GOAT I tell ya! They didn't budge on that for years either. Huge mistake. I think the turning point...
Westernization and locking important main features behind Common Sense and Rights of Man was the GOAT I tell ya!
They didn't budge on that for years either. Huge mistake.
I think the turning point when it got from mid to good was just about when they dropped westernization as a mechanic and moved to institutions. Not that those don't have their own issues, but those patches had a lot of content and features that improved the game overall and institutions gave them -and players- far more freedom than forcing everyone to westernize did.
I'm somewhere on the negative side of the spectrum when it comes to subscriptions for games and the like, but trying out the entire game plus all DLC for $8 is a good way to see if you like it. You'd have a month to try and see for yourself and that is honestly not a bad value proposition.
Westernization was pretty bad, and keeping the ability to develop your nation behind Common Sense was awful. For me, the most egregious one was the Art of War dlc that let you transfer occupied...
Westernization was pretty bad, and keeping the ability to develop your nation behind Common Sense was awful. For me, the most egregious one was the Art of War dlc that let you transfer occupied territory. Not including that in the base game is crazy considering that the game is like 75% warfare (100% if you're a map-painting aficionado). I don't even know how you'd play without that feature. Selling ships, army templates, marches as subjects, and the 30 Years War are all significant too, but that transfer occupation thing is crazy.
Good point, Art of War was mandatory too. Rights of Man had Support Independence locked behind it, so playing as any subject -like the Netherlands- was impossible.
Good point, Art of War was mandatory too.
Rights of Man had Support Independence locked behind it, so playing as any subject -like the Netherlands- was impossible.
Found this great post on reddit that recaps a lot of the changes/updates from 4 to 5. A lot easier to digest than reading all the Tinto Talks (development updates).
Really excited for a lot of the stuff listed, since it seems like they're keeping all the stuff that made EU4 great, getting rid of stuff that people have complained about for years (mana, trade only flowing in one direction, etc), and adding new systems to make the game realistic, similar to systems that already exist in other games like Victoria 3 (laws, pop management, etc). So far there's no glaring issues or omissions as far as I can tell.
Edit: oh and the steam page has a lot more in-game screenshots.
The way the game is shaping up reminds me a lot of the mod MEIOU and Taxes. That mod always had terrible performance and frequent crashes when I tried it, and the interface was extremely clunky, both of which likely because they were trying to do something far beyond what EU4's engine and modding support could handle. But I was always intrigued by the idea of it: more focus on population, estate management, logistics, and generally building up your country. Whenever I tried to do a "tall" run I would just get bored and go to war in vanilla EU4, because everything in that game feels like it's just based on planning and executing one war after another. Clicking a development button every once in a while doesn't feel like you're meaningfully developing your country.
But at the same time, they actually let you control armies and it seems like the war system is better than ever now, which was one of the things that put me off Victoria 3. You can still map paint, it will just take more work, and I was never the kind of player to go for world conquests anyway.
I'm also excited to see what modders can do with it. I presume the same UI modding tools that exist in CK3 are also available in this game (haven't verified that but it would be dumb not to do that when you have the technology and these games have always thrived on mods).
I haven't kept up with all the dev diaries, but I'm excited to see some actual gameplay from various content creators now. I haven't played EU4 in a couple of years, but I used to really enjoy the game, and the newer Paradox titles haven't scratched the same itch.
Paradox have officially announced EUV after months of 'Project Caesar' talks which was even more of an open secret than the Oblivion remake. As someone with a couple thousand hours in EU4, I'm pumped. Lots of new mechanics and tweaks. EU4 was already incredibly detailed and expansive, so I'm excited to see all the new population mechanics and tech trees and other gameplay elements in action. No release date yet, but hopefully it goes as smoothly as CK3's release, which was mostly problem-free, and less like Vic3 which has taken years to fix major issues.
I've (sporadically) read some of Caesar's diaries in the past months and just tuned in to their live announcement solely because of my playtime in EU4 and... I'm not convinced.
There's this level of jank to Paradox games that is acceptable to iconic in games before the Clausewitz update. But ever since then it just doesn't quite hit the mark.
Their "complex" systems like pops in Vic3 pale to the original systems. Supply goods and trade centers just feel nebulous and intangible. Not to mention the performance of their latest entries are just bad.
Whenever they delve too far into realism or realistic systems it starts to fray at the seams. EU4 is so incredible because it's just the right level of arcady. People think they want realism, get a title like Imperator, and they end up canning the entire thing because it turns out nobody actually wants that.
Additionally, Johan at the helm of EU4 had this big realism push and nobody actually liked it at the time. His ideas are mid.
When I play EU4 I'm constantly looking towards my next objective, raging at perceived sleights of my rivals, untangling alliance webs, and finding what's the next best step for my country. In Victoria 3 I feel like I'm reading spreadsheets on a slow pc at work.
So far, EU5 looks an awful lot like the latter.
They haven't proven themselves enough since Hearts of Iron IV for me to day-1 buy EU5 despite my play time. I'll hold off until the reviews stop cratering after a DLC or two.
Fair points, but I disagree to some extent. I totally get what you mean about the magic of the jank, and Vic3 definitely is a spreadsheet simulator. But for me personally (I have a few thousand hours in the Football Manager series, the grand-daddy of spreadsheet simulators) I don't mind the shift to realism all that much. And that's coming from someone who actually really likes the mana system in EU4 that gets so much flak. I'm not pushing for full realism or anything, but based on my experiences with CK3 and Vic3, which have more-detailed maps and provinces and trade systems and government mechanics, I think EUV is set up for success. My ideal paradox game would be mostly EU4, but with some of the detailed character/government management options of CK3 and some of the intricacies of the economics of Vic3. And from everything I've read about EUV, it seems to fit that bill.
Take a look at the steam screenshots if you haven't. There's quite a few of them and I was impressed to see just how similar everything felt to EU4, just better textures and graphics. All the new tabs and options shown really do seem fairly straightforward. And if not, their nested tooltip system has come a long way since EU4's tooltips, so I think (hope) it'll be fairly easy to adapt.
But ultimately we'll only know when the game comes out. I could be completely wrong and it could suck ass. But here's hoping that's not the case.
I do think that EU5 is taking some of the best mechanics of CK3 and Vic3 without going too far into spreadsheet management. One concern I do have is the decision to move to each tick being one hour a la HOI4, as opposed to one day in EU4. EU4 campaigns are already long, and given the increased timespan of EU5, this will almost certainly make even getting to the midgame of an EU5 campaign much more daunting.
Following the announcement, some YouTubers uploaded their experiences with the game including gameplay footage. Laith, the one in the announcement also released one.
Looking at that it also doesn't inspire confidence in me.
I'm seeing what it tries to do and I think it does it well. Unfortunately I simply think it doesn't fit me. It swings far too wide into the serious side of EU4 that I never really liked much to begin with. Estate management is such a bore.
I'm not calling it a bad game, I'd have to try it first, but unlike EU4 it just looks like it won't be for me.
Might be a good time for me to get into the series? I've enjoyed watching a lot of EU4 content but was always too intimidated to get it myself, given the huge amount of DLC available (with many people recommending purchasing most of it).
That is a very valid fear. Paradox's dlc policy is very polarizing, with some (like myself) being mostly okay with it because it means the active development of a decade-old game, while others (totally understandably) call them greedy parasites for holding so much of the game behind dlcs. It also hits a lot different when you've been playing the game since it released and periodically drop another 10-20 bucks for some dlc every year or two, vs getting into the game now when there's already a million dlc packs and it feels ridiculous to be expected to know which to get and which to avoid. So I totally get it.
The TL;DR is that the base game of EU4 should be all you need to get started (quick edit: just saw that it's on sale right now for $5 on steam). There used to be a few DLC which were considered by many (myself included) to be either essential or damn near it, like Art of War, Rights of Man, and Common Sense, but a few months ago they were integrated into the base version of the game (probably because they were so essential, plus EU5 should be coming out soon).
Paradox sort of learned their lessons with dlc in my opinion. All of the 'must-have' ones were like the first few to come out. People were rightfully pissed that they kept game-changing mechanics behind a paywall, so they haven't really done it since (this was like a decade ago). The dlc nowadays do have some new game mechanics, but they're usually regional or just extra on top of a free update that's always released along side new dlc. So for example, if you have no interest in playing in a certain region, then you probably won't even miss that region's dlc.
So is it a good time to get into EU4? Absolutely in my (very very very biased) opinion. I think it's the best strategy game ever made. I used to play tons of Civ 4 and 5 as well as a bunch of Total War games before I discovered EU4 in college, and now every time I try to boot up a civ game or total war game I end up frustrated at the lack of options available to me and end up booting EU4 instead. Not everyone will feel that way, of course, but I mention that to highlight how incredibly open the game is. It's got more fully-fleshed-out systems than most strategy games, and they interact with each-other beautifully. Trade, war, economy, exploration, diplomacy, politics, technology, terrain, navies, religion, culture, it's got it all and they all affect each other rather than just seeming like an afterthought (looking at you, Total War).
It's definitely not an easy game to get into, but there are a ton of youtube videos and guides as well as the incredible wiki that can help you get started. And if you enjoy strategy games (especially grand strategy) and history, then I really think it's worth a try. (Another quick edit: just saw that the ultimate edition, which comes with all major dlc that you could want, is on sale for 20 bucks. Hard to complain about dlc pricing when you can get the base game and 10+years of development and dlcs for a third of the cost of a regular game nowadays).
And if you're still put off by it, then I'd at least recommend taking a look at EUV whenever it comes out. Paradox have done a much better job of making their games accessible. CK3 and Vic3 are MUCH more accessible (still not easy, but for sure easier to learn) to new players than EU4 ever was, so I suspect that EUV, despite all its moving parts, will be easier to get into than EU4. Plus there won't be any DLC when it first releases, so you won't even have to worry about that unless you continue playing.
I second this.
As polarizing as the dlc policy is, the upside is that because of an additional decade of post-release development, you get a game that is so ridiculously fleshed-out that no other game is like it. The downside of it is indeed that it's hard to get into and that even after release it'll take years for EU5 to catch up to it's predecessor if it ever does.
So either get into EU4 now, slowly build your dlc collection and enjoy one of the best strategy games ever made, or wait until EU5 and avoid being disappointed by its initial lack of content.
I think a lot of it comes down to two things:
They really did fuck up in the beginning, ~10 years ago. Those first few dlcs really did keep some massive gameplay changes behind a paywall. And people were rightfully pissed. But I'm fairly certain they've learned their lesson, given that recent dlc for not just EU4 but CK3 and Vic3 as well are way more region-based, while keeping the major universal gameplay changes as part of the free updates. But I'm sure tons of people are still salty from those early days when they were 'forced' to pay to get the objectively better experience.
I immediately judge any game I see with a ton of dlc, fairly or not. And Paradox games have a fuck ton. Not just the major expansions, but tons of cosmetic stuff and content packs that are purely fluff, but add to the intimidation factor of finding a game and seeing a massive wall of paid content available for it. So right off the bat they're losing people who are put off by the overwhelming amount of dlc, despite having a good reason for it (continued game development for a longer-than-average period of time).
But yeah if someone who just picked up EU4 today saw what the game was like back when it first released... oh boy they'd be a bit more appreciative of all the dlc and continued development it's had since then, lol.
Westernization and locking important main features behind Common Sense and Rights of Man was the GOAT I tell ya!
They didn't budge on that for years either. Huge mistake.
I think the turning point when it got from mid to good was just about when they dropped westernization as a mechanic and moved to institutions. Not that those don't have their own issues, but those patches had a lot of content and features that improved the game overall and institutions gave them -and players- far more freedom than forcing everyone to westernize did.
I'm somewhere on the negative side of the spectrum when it comes to subscriptions for games and the like, but trying out the entire game plus all DLC for $8 is a good way to see if you like it. You'd have a month to try and see for yourself and that is honestly not a bad value proposition.
Westernization was pretty bad, and keeping the ability to develop your nation behind Common Sense was awful. For me, the most egregious one was the Art of War dlc that let you transfer occupied territory. Not including that in the base game is crazy considering that the game is like 75% warfare (100% if you're a map-painting aficionado). I don't even know how you'd play without that feature. Selling ships, army templates, marches as subjects, and the 30 Years War are all significant too, but that transfer occupation thing is crazy.
Good point, Art of War was mandatory too.
Rights of Man had Support Independence locked behind it, so playing as any subject -like the Netherlands- was impossible.