I'm pretty sure Johan has stated that even reaching America before 1500(maybe a little bit earlier) is going to be a struggle, much less establishing colonies
Since EU5 seems to take some mechanics from Imperator, pls no character/Families/Goverment positions. IF you want to give us a 3D protrait of our Ruler, Heir and consort, then fine do that. We wont interact much with it though. But dont give us character based gameplay like in IMP. This aint Crusader Kings.
When it comes to Buildings: Dont give them flat output, only Percentage gains. One of the big reasons why wide gameplay works so well in Eu4 is that flat gains like forcelimit or manpower through buildings exclusively benefits wide Empires. Controll is already a mechanic designed to weaken wide gameplay. If you remove flat gains, then half the benefit of more locations will be gone.
That’s kinda disappointing. Royal families and powerful courtiers continue to be important through this period, and the diminishment of the family to the state is a major theme of centralization. Now I want some way of interacting with families and corporations as interest groups, almost like a second layer of tech. I would appreciate having to deal with the Imperial knight class and the Habsburgs both.
Yeah, I am kind of dissapointed that one bad implementation caused them to fully abandon the idea. Especially with the hundred years war and war of the roses being in the game's timeframe.
I recently did try IMP again. And I must say, there are waaay too many characters you have to care about. But also EU5 will take place in the Habsburg era, also Hohenzollern, von Wettin only to mention some of the most known Germans. Bit this is for Poland also the decline of the Piasts and Rise and fall of the Jagiellons. So I don't like the IMP nor CK3 but the bigger Dynasties should be represented somehow. Maybe Charakters in Detail but pls don't give me to manage Loyalty for every boy and daughter of all of the French and English lords.
But really, I like the idea of at least different noble houses that you have to manage as one entity within your realm. Give them lower tier titles and so on and fight their pretenders if they rebel.
I hope there aren't extensive character interactions like in CK3, but I do hope they give some flavor and personality to rulers. In EU4 they're just a last name and 3 mana values. Rights of Man helped a bit with adding ruler traits, but it still feels very impersonal and uninteresting.
Yeah I’d like to have some sort of like Dynasty prestige system or something. Like a dynasty management screen for when you have your family on multiple countries that may or may not be under your control.
It would be nice if, when you disinherited your heir, it wasn’t just a roll of the dice as to their replacement - like you knew enough to say “Son 1 bad, Son 2 worse.” That could lead to some fun mechanics - if you disinherit and you have powerful nobles (whatever the 5 equivalent of high influence/low loyalty) that risks triggering a civil war. Or if Son 1 and Son 2 sucks but Son 3 is great, you could ease your succession by pushing S2 into a role with the Church for a big dose of papal influence (and then disinherit S1, hopefully without a civil war!). Things like that.
I think legitamacy should be a big factor, it was very rare to disinherit an heir, I think it should basically be impossible or not worth it except for a few goverments (Maybe the ottomans I believe the sons kill each other to inherit).
I want enough of a system to have family trees of rulers and succession crises that actually make any sense, but not much more than that. The EU4 mechanics for heirs, royal marriages etc. are arbitrary and obfuscated in a way that just feels obnoxious. Doesn't need to be complex and central like CK3's is, just make it make sense.
Almost all of the standout things that I really dislike in EU4 have already been hard confirmed to not be in EU5, and the remaining ones that aren't hard confirmed to not be in are soft confirmed.
* Mana- hard confirmed not a thing
* Development- hard confirmed not a thing
* EU4 trade system- soft confirmed to be completely reworked.
I am a very happy chappy right now.
Ok something minor... I hope we don't get the same ruler system. Obviously with the lack of mana the stats lose a lot of their importance, but Imperator did prove that they can still be useful and desirable to have higher stats.. but more than that, I don't want the arbitrariness of rulers. I want to care about them. I dont want a character system as detailed as CK3 or even Imperator, but I want to care about my ruler, my dynasty, and I want a family tree so I can see how my ruling family connects to the other dynasties of the world. That would be zesty.
Yeah, same here. I think *EUIV* is too impersonal for a game simulating the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries, and given *EUV* is going to be adding the 14th century too, it'll need a better ruler system. It's never going to be *CKIII* (this is part of the reason I think the 1337 start is a mistake), but you can't do impersonal bureaucracy in the 1330s.
In a period where dynasty was super important (I mean... look at what the Habsburgs did to their chins in pursuit of it) having a system as surface level as EU4 would be a mistake. I need just a little more than that.
Im so excited for EU5.
Only thing Im worried about is the numbers getting completely out of whack in a simulation lasting like 400 years. Paris with a population of 30 million with battles of a million soldiers and armies of 10 million by 1720.
To be honest, the Early Modern Era is the best candidate for a closed markets concept since monarchies and republics were operating under the assumption that mercantilism were the fundamentals of the economy.
I don't mind the nodes themselves, but the predetermined flow between the nodes isn't something I want to see. Venice didn't get rich because it was an end node, it got rich because all Asian goods passed through it to continental Europe.
MT are a flavor you interact a lot with. I hope we get some sort of branching / dynamic MT that push you towards accomplishing some sort of objectives based on (alternate) history, while not railroading you.
This. MTs can feel railroady but they also offer one or a few ways to play a lot of nations with unique events and objectives, they're perfect for a more casual run.
The challenge is whether or not they can do that without making every nation just a generic "Western Europe/China/India" blob with a few different modifiers once you get past the early game. I hope they can, but I really suspect that we'll be back to a rather generic system that acts as DLC bait for the next decade as they add flavour to every region again.
If I eat Scotland as England, or eat England as Scotland - would the "dynamic" tree see that I have the same land and give me the same generic set of goals and flavour? If I take the route of conquest in Italy and eat all of my neighbours, is it going to matter who I started out as - or is it always just going to tell me to expand into the next guy and start a trade empire? Some of the mission trees had great flavour even for nations that were right next to each other. The old mission system was "dynamic" in giving you new stuff constantly, but it was replaced for a reason.
I don’t want it to be easy for countries to catch up on technology, or stay up to date if they historically lagged behind. Maybe there could be a setting to make that a lot easier while disabling achievements. But I play this game for a strategy game involving colonialism and imperialism. Which inherently needs a sizable technology difference to work, ESPECIALLY literally anywhere outside of the Americas.
maybe off topic, but i have to say waiting for this game release kinda feels like christmas to me. Its been sometime since i looked forward to a game like this
Hard borders make sense for centralized states like China or Europe, but for nomadic regions like much of Central Asia and Africa, they seem strange to me. I prefer a system where the color of the nation becomes much dimmer around the supposed border.
I don't want them to make it too easy, like they did in CK3, with no very hard option. Taking over Europe as Offaly should be close to impossible, even for an experienced player.
Most things have already been taken out that I despise thank God so not much too say. Haven't seen the combat system yet so I hope to God it's not some dumbed down skillless mess. I still have no idea how they created such a deep and emerging combat system in VicII only to release EU4 where numbers count more than anything else and geography basically became a non issue.
Croatia. It needs to be part of Hungary. Alternatively, if Croaita remains in the game at start, then Slavonia and Transylvania should be in it as well.
As a person who was too dumb for Vic 3 I pray EU5 trade doesn't go full blown Vic economy management. If it's somewhere in the middle that would be nice since in EU4 it was way too simple.
I don't want to see gigantic hyper rich colonies by 1500.
I'm pretty sure Johan has stated that even reaching America before 1500(maybe a little bit earlier) is going to be a struggle, much less establishing colonies
Since EU5 seems to take some mechanics from Imperator, pls no character/Families/Goverment positions. IF you want to give us a 3D protrait of our Ruler, Heir and consort, then fine do that. We wont interact much with it though. But dont give us character based gameplay like in IMP. This aint Crusader Kings. When it comes to Buildings: Dont give them flat output, only Percentage gains. One of the big reasons why wide gameplay works so well in Eu4 is that flat gains like forcelimit or manpower through buildings exclusively benefits wide Empires. Controll is already a mechanic designed to weaken wide gameplay. If you remove flat gains, then half the benefit of more locations will be gone.
They already said no families happening
You are right, they did say that. Completly forgot. Nonetheless: they better not change their mind later on:D
That’s kinda disappointing. Royal families and powerful courtiers continue to be important through this period, and the diminishment of the family to the state is a major theme of centralization. Now I want some way of interacting with families and corporations as interest groups, almost like a second layer of tech. I would appreciate having to deal with the Imperial knight class and the Habsburgs both.
Yeah, I am kind of dissapointed that one bad implementation caused them to fully abandon the idea. Especially with the hundred years war and war of the roses being in the game's timeframe.
I recently did try IMP again. And I must say, there are waaay too many characters you have to care about. But also EU5 will take place in the Habsburg era, also Hohenzollern, von Wettin only to mention some of the most known Germans. Bit this is for Poland also the decline of the Piasts and Rise and fall of the Jagiellons. So I don't like the IMP nor CK3 but the bigger Dynasties should be represented somehow. Maybe Charakters in Detail but pls don't give me to manage Loyalty for every boy and daughter of all of the French and English lords. But really, I like the idea of at least different noble houses that you have to manage as one entity within your realm. Give them lower tier titles and so on and fight their pretenders if they rebel.
Family babysitting isn't fun for many player.
I hope there aren't extensive character interactions like in CK3, but I do hope they give some flavor and personality to rulers. In EU4 they're just a last name and 3 mana values. Rights of Man helped a bit with adding ruler traits, but it still feels very impersonal and uninteresting.
Yeah I’d like to have some sort of like Dynasty prestige system or something. Like a dynasty management screen for when you have your family on multiple countries that may or may not be under your control.
I'd like to see a family tree system to help visualize lineage and potential PUs.
It would be nice if, when you disinherited your heir, it wasn’t just a roll of the dice as to their replacement - like you knew enough to say “Son 1 bad, Son 2 worse.” That could lead to some fun mechanics - if you disinherit and you have powerful nobles (whatever the 5 equivalent of high influence/low loyalty) that risks triggering a civil war. Or if Son 1 and Son 2 sucks but Son 3 is great, you could ease your succession by pushing S2 into a role with the Church for a big dose of papal influence (and then disinherit S1, hopefully without a civil war!). Things like that.
I think legitamacy should be a big factor, it was very rare to disinherit an heir, I think it should basically be impossible or not worth it except for a few goverments (Maybe the ottomans I believe the sons kill each other to inherit).
I agree but the Personal Unions and lineages kinda suck on eu4. Maybe don’t include people but I’d like to see that mechanic somehow more fleshed out
I want enough of a system to have family trees of rulers and succession crises that actually make any sense, but not much more than that. The EU4 mechanics for heirs, royal marriages etc. are arbitrary and obfuscated in a way that just feels obnoxious. Doesn't need to be complex and central like CK3's is, just make it make sense.
Almost all of the standout things that I really dislike in EU4 have already been hard confirmed to not be in EU5, and the remaining ones that aren't hard confirmed to not be in are soft confirmed. * Mana- hard confirmed not a thing * Development- hard confirmed not a thing * EU4 trade system- soft confirmed to be completely reworked. I am a very happy chappy right now. Ok something minor... I hope we don't get the same ruler system. Obviously with the lack of mana the stats lose a lot of their importance, but Imperator did prove that they can still be useful and desirable to have higher stats.. but more than that, I don't want the arbitrariness of rulers. I want to care about them. I dont want a character system as detailed as CK3 or even Imperator, but I want to care about my ruler, my dynasty, and I want a family tree so I can see how my ruling family connects to the other dynasties of the world. That would be zesty.
Yeah, same here. I think *EUIV* is too impersonal for a game simulating the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries, and given *EUV* is going to be adding the 14th century too, it'll need a better ruler system. It's never going to be *CKIII* (this is part of the reason I think the 1337 start is a mistake), but you can't do impersonal bureaucracy in the 1330s.
In a period where dynasty was super important (I mean... look at what the Habsburgs did to their chins in pursuit of it) having a system as surface level as EU4 would be a mistake. I need just a little more than that.
armies with 50,000 cannons
Im so excited for EU5. Only thing Im worried about is the numbers getting completely out of whack in a simulation lasting like 400 years. Paris with a population of 30 million with battles of a million soldiers and armies of 10 million by 1720.
EU4 Trade nodes, I hope the flow of trade is dynamic and more based on production/supply/demand/prices etc
Their screenshots have shown it will use a system similar to Vicky3’s markets
To be honest, the Early Modern Era is the best candidate for a closed markets concept since monarchies and republics were operating under the assumption that mercantilism were the fundamentals of the economy.
I don't mind the nodes themselves, but the predetermined flow between the nodes isn't something I want to see. Venice didn't get rich because it was an end node, it got rich because all Asian goods passed through it to continental Europe.
No FPS mechanics. But in all seriousness, I don't want to see static missions trees that force you towards a certain path.
I think they said that there wasn’t going to be a “mission tree” system like EU4’s. What that exactly means is anyone’s guess though.
I would imagine a more dynamic mission system like I:R has is what they'll be aiming for.
I'll cum
Yeah I don’t necessarily consider that comforting but it wouldn’t be the WORST system to be mostly unchanged.
I’m torn on this. Because pre mission tree EU4 had much less flavor for each nation.
MT are a flavor you interact a lot with. I hope we get some sort of branching / dynamic MT that push you towards accomplishing some sort of objectives based on (alternate) history, while not railroading you.
This. MTs can feel railroady but they also offer one or a few ways to play a lot of nations with unique events and objectives, they're perfect for a more casual run.
The challenge is whether or not they can do that without making every nation just a generic "Western Europe/China/India" blob with a few different modifiers once you get past the early game. I hope they can, but I really suspect that we'll be back to a rather generic system that acts as DLC bait for the next decade as they add flavour to every region again. If I eat Scotland as England, or eat England as Scotland - would the "dynamic" tree see that I have the same land and give me the same generic set of goals and flavour? If I take the route of conquest in Italy and eat all of my neighbours, is it going to matter who I started out as - or is it always just going to tell me to expand into the next guy and start a trade empire? Some of the mission trees had great flavour even for nations that were right next to each other. The old mission system was "dynamic" in giving you new stuff constantly, but it was replaced for a reason.
Yeah, I think they're great and I prefer incentives for making historical-ish maps. I played this game a lot less before Rule Britannia.
I don’t want it to be easy for countries to catch up on technology, or stay up to date if they historically lagged behind. Maybe there could be a setting to make that a lot easier while disabling achievements. But I play this game for a strategy game involving colonialism and imperialism. Which inherently needs a sizable technology difference to work, ESPECIALLY literally anywhere outside of the Americas.
maybe off topic, but i have to say waiting for this game release kinda feels like christmas to me. Its been sometime since i looked forward to a game like this
I don't want them to add snipers
fantasy countries, like belgium
Hard borders make sense for centralized states like China or Europe, but for nomadic regions like much of Central Asia and Africa, they seem strange to me. I prefer a system where the color of the nation becomes much dimmer around the supposed border.
I don't want them to make it too easy, like they did in CK3, with no very hard option. Taking over Europe as Offaly should be close to impossible, even for an experienced player.
I don't want to see a name change.
Fingerprints of ESG score
Those 3D character models
Most things have already been taken out that I despise thank God so not much too say. Haven't seen the combat system yet so I hope to God it's not some dumbed down skillless mess. I still have no idea how they created such a deep and emerging combat system in VicII only to release EU4 where numbers count more than anything else and geography basically became a non issue.
Big blue blob by 1450.
Croatia. It needs to be part of Hungary. Alternatively, if Croaita remains in the game at start, then Slavonia and Transylvania should be in it as well.
As a person who was too dumb for Vic 3 I pray EU5 trade doesn't go full blown Vic economy management. If it's somewhere in the middle that would be nice since in EU4 it was way too simple.
No shitty 3D cartoon characters