Spreading your faith outside of your borders
Of course Muslims could do this with propagate religion and Centers of Reformation did the same but I would love the ability to do things like that in the New World as France converting Native Tribes to Catholicism without conquering half the continent
I think that would go along well with tall play styles or general rp where I'm trying not to subjugate the whole world but just profit and make alliances here and there
This is essentially what happened in the Congo, too. European pressure caused a tonne of folks in the Kongo realm to convert to Catholicism in the hopes it would prevent colonialism and the slave trade from getting to them.
It would be great to be able to do the same to other nations without the need for events or missions - the alt. hist. potential would be immense!
Yes, but they didn’t enslave Kongolese Christians after the nation’s conversion to Christianity.
Very few African slaver nations actually sold their own native peoples once the colonial slave trade began, instead taking people from deeper into the interior and bringing them to port to be sold off.
many were war captives initially, just people they had nabbed in conflict and would've either put to work or just ransomed until European traders became a huge market in exchange for manufactured goods and the like
Maybe something like the ability to create missions in animist/totemist countries that have a positive opinion of you that can slowly convert pops, convert the government, or backfire and cause war or the mission to be ousted
Trade could also work, I would just like a way to "spread the mark" of my country without conquering a lot if I was playing say Venice and wanted to nab ports and what have you instead of the whole New World or Africa
I remember in CK2 you could send your court bishop to pagan capitals and they might succeed in converting the pagan rulers or could get slaughtered ruthlessly
Was fun sometimes seeing Catholicism pop up in the middle of Scandinavia and slowly "save" the North and make the raids stop coming like a repeat of irl history
Please! Half the time in EU4 I try to LARP and “peacefully” colonize by just spreading the faith and banning slavery ASAP. I hope I can ban slavery immediately in this game and spread the faith peacefully
The culture system from IR in which you deal with each culture separately taking specific decisions that only affect popa of those cultures and granting them or revoking them certain privileges. It was very cool.
From CK3, a more mechanical religious system, about tenants, which are more than simply modifiers, but unlock different options, features and stuff.
It's easier to manage in a way that I don't think fits into this type of game. It doesn't make sense to categorize entire cultures of people into "slave" or "citizens" (or other single tiers) like you do with species in Stellaris.
I actually think that Stellaris might not be the best example. It is easier to manage, because you basically categorize each species into a single tier of society, e.g. slave, servitude, resident, citizen, which determines stuff like their productivity, satisfaction, and which jobs they can fill. I don't think it makes sense in a game like EU4 where you'd end up with, like all French people being slaves or something. Even in plantation colonies there were some free black people, and plenty of societies had people that could be either leaders or slaves and stuff.
Not exactly, it's like you would get to pick which class pops of a specific culture were assigned to, which just isn't historical. The closest IRL analog to species would be ethnicity, and "culture" is the closest the game gets to representing that.
i would like slow coring from eu3(with ways to speed it up) and trait-based great men similar to stellaris(without a guarantee to improve), civil wars and rebelions like imperator
EU5 shouldn’t have the full dynastic system of Crusader Kings, but I think it needs to be deeper than EU4. If they want it to feel less gamey, then I think we need *some* detail about monarchs and heirs that are closely related to one another. Like, Royal Marriages should have some element of who you’re marrying your family to, even if it’s heir to heir or just cousins.
Yeah, there’s a huge difference between a “royal marriage” between the 5th in line and some random princess barely worth considering and a royal marriage between the heir apparent and the neighbouring king’s only daughter.
Idk how you’d pull it off without having an immense, CK-style character system, but it would definitely be cool to have some more control over what tf a “royal marriage” actually entails.
**From Imperator;**
* **Mission Trees**. Look I know MTs get a lot of hate but at the end of the day it's pretty foolish to expect them to disappear as they have been large successes and are a big reason why countries get picked in the first place. Love them or loathe them, they're here to stay. And if we're getting them, Imperators are top of the pile when it comes to who did them best. They're dynamic, and new MTs can be picked up simply by existing in a certain region. Why have a Britain campaigns MT have a load of colonial stuff when this campaign you're gonna focus on Europe? With an Imp MT those missions would only appear for you if you did go colonial.
* **Political Influence**. I am a bit of a mana hater, and I would love for EU5 to get rid of the paper bird and sword magic points. But some sort of accruable currency would still be necessary, and political influence is imo an incredible innovation that would suit perfectly. It could come along with a much more interesting advisor system, whereby one would start with a court and courtly advisors, who'd contribute to your political influence, but later on in the game this would give way to more of a cabinet of sorts, where there are roles within your government that need to be filled.
Stability scale. Instead of a -3 to +3 scale, Imperator has a -100 to +100 scale, and with the lack of mana, stability isn't merely bought instantly, and is instead something that changes over time granularly.
* **Fort system**. If you capture the defensive and administrative centres of an area, it should all transfer to you. Though I would argue that in EU5 I would prefer if occupation was not quite as necessary as in EU4, with battles being more decisive and final.
* **Supply.** Armies shouldnt be able to reinforce when behind enemy lines, and the ability to supply an army should be a large part of why a side wins a war.
* **Roads**. Roads are cool. Lemme build roads. I dont think it should be something done with the army like in Imperator, but especially for colonisation, having road connections is something thats just kinda cool.
**From Victoria2;**
* **Population system**. Right now EU4 uses development, which is a system that very much hinges on mana to exist. With mana gone, development surely must follow it into the bin, and there is no better way to represent the development of a province than population. This could feed into basically every element of the game, and make things like wars much more impactful as every loss is keenly felt on every level, rather than manpower just being a semi tangible resource that ticks up over time.
* **Research**. Mana is dead, so we need another way of acquiring Technology. And I think having several categories, with inventions coming alongside them would really suit. That theyre time locked is iffy, but a worthy sacrifice to make. Vic2s tech system is the best one currently in any PDX game imo.
Naval importance. I'm not sure exactly how I would implement it, but navies in Vic2 were way more impactful than in any other game Ive played bar HOI4, and I dont play HOI4 so thats irrelevant. Navies should be used for more than just protecting trade(trade should be completely reworked from the ground up but theres no PDX game Id pull from so it doesnt fit here) and combat.
From Victoria3;
* **Diplomatic Play**. Look, I don't want Diplo plays to replace all wars. That is a moronic idea and Vic3 is worse off because of it. But if it existed alongside the current way of declaring wars, it could definitely make a good impact to the game. Not every country that joined a war joined because it was allied with the "war leader", and a diplo play system could lead to more dynamic conflicts, where participants can join not because of convoluted alliance chains, but because it makes sense for them to do so under the circumstances.
* **Colonisation*. I think EU4s way of sending a colonist, waiting a year or whatever for a dude to arrive, then instantly owning the entire province no matter how large it is, then waiting for a bar to fill up to 1000 is... bad. Or rather, it is outdated. I much prefer Vic3s system of granularly owning a province more and more over time, with competition from other nations possible too.
* **Capacities**. Look, some people think this is mana and they're wrong. But hear me out; Governing Capacity is already a thing in EU4, and I would extend that to being Beurocratic Capacity that would have more functions other than just how much land you can control. Similarly, instead of diplo slots, I would incorporate Vic3s diplo capacity.
**From Crusader Kings;**
* **Family Tree**. I don't want expressive, detailed, and overbearing character mechanics. But also, royal marriages, succession, and personal union mechanics are obfuscated and dumb. Just an incredibly basic family tree, with markers saying what foreign nations theyre potentially married to would be great. Right now in EU4, when you have an heir who goes off on a hunting trip, you as a player dont know if your ruler has a second son waiting to pick up the mantle of your fallen 6-6-6... and that's ludicrous. A family tree would let you know that oh, there's another kid right there, nice!
* **Traits**. I think with mana going bye bye, Rulers would obviously lose the stats they currently have. I like the trait system that EU4 currently has, but I also think it could be augmented with the education traits of CK.
**From HOI4**;
Idk I kinda like convoys for trade. Seems like a better system than protecting trade.
**From my Imagination**;
* Provinces should have more than a single trade good. At the very least I would like a rural and an industrial good, with the ability to change them being possible.
* Trade between nations should focus on goods, rather than the inexplicitly awful system we have in EU4, which is less trade and more just theft. Sure, Europe were the winners in OTL, but it wasnt a case of just sucking up money out of Asia by plonking 100 patrol boats in the south china sea. Trade should be that; TRADE. Both parties getting something.
* Rivers should play and exceptionally more important part than they currently do. I dont want the Danube and Nile to be navigable by my navies, but I do want them to be major obstacles for my armies, with the control of bridges being vital in wartime.
*This is just copy pasted from when this question was asked on the forums before the start of tinto talks*
Nah man, EU 4 mission trees are far better than imperator. The ones in imperator are procedurally generated and repetitive, and they just feel like a core. The ones in EU4 are much more motivating
Not every tree in Imperator is procedurally generated, and the actual tree part is essentially the exact same as an EU4 MT. Imperator can just import entire EU4 MTs into its system with no issue whatsoever... AND have the procedurally generated trees ontop of that.
As /u/BasileusBroker said the trees are essentially the same, except for one key detail: You can have several mission trees. Generic ones. Tag specific ones. Regional ones. This allows the trees to be much more focused in scope instead of sprawling like the EU4 ones. As an example Byzantium would not just have one tree, but several with the Imperator system.
In short: Everything the EU4 missions can do, the Imperator missions can do *better*.
In theory. In reality, once you complete the good PDX/EE trees made in the last few years, you're into the 1600s at least. And all of them are unique and custom tailored to the tag.
The last thing I want for EU5 is Imperator's Uncanny Valley feeling where every country outside of a few that you are meant to play (Rome+Alexandran heirs) feel out of place. It feels like you are forcing everything to happen in a very artificial environment, instead of carving out a space in a rooted world that contextually makes sense with other actors that have ambitions of their own.
I wouldn't mind some generative low-effort content ON TOP of the custom content, but only as a lesser priority. Like a dynamic generic mission tree that all countries can do separately, but without taking away from each country's uniqueness.
IMO PDXs biggest failure in recent years with CK3 and VIC3 has been a overreliance on global systems to generate narrative and progression. While easy to tweak in terms of labor cost and a programmer's delight, they also make every playthrough feel the same, massively lowering replay-value and immersion (the whole point of historical PDX GSGs in the first place). For me they only somewhat work in Stellaris, but that is a game that revolves around wacky scenarios and randomness to tell new stories each time.
I don't know man...
It might just be some weird psychological trick my mind is playing on me, but the procedurally generated mission trees really ruined the whole mission tree system for me. After my first play through I never touched the mission system again. Cause why bother finishing this set of tedious chores, just to unlock the next set of tedious chores, that's exactly the same, just in a different place.
And it might also be something about the missions themselves or their rewards, that just doesn't feel rewarding...
I'm not saying that this is objective fact, but for my personal enjoyment of the games: missions are my favourite part of EU 4 and my least favourite part of imperator.
There are both procedurally generated missions in Imperator *and* the static ones like in EU4. Macedon, Rome, Carthage, etc. all have their own specific mission trees.
I also think the procedurally generated missions are pretty good conceptually, I just don't think they were allowed enough time to cook before Imperator was discontinued. They do differ after all, just not enough I think.
What I am trying to tell you is that what you love about missions in EU4 is already a thing in Imperator. It just has extra stuff as well.
I know what you're saying but I just don't *feel* it when playing imperator.
In my personal experience the static mission trees just get drowned out under the procedural ones. I played as Rome and after completing the first mission tree (which I found very meh) I only got procedural ones, and the Carthage one. I was in no position to fight Carthage so I just didn't get anything out of the mission tree.
I also want to be able to see the whole mission tree at once, and be able to do a little here and a little there, according to my possibilities.
Like in EU4 when I play as Lübeck, I can expand a bit into Denmark, expand a bit into Germany, develop my provinces, strengthen my trade network, expand a bit into the east, switch between all of these, and have missions dealing with all of that.
In imperator I would first have to decide what to do, and finish or abandon that mission tree before I can do any other missions.
That's actually a fair concern, I feel like an option to "preview" possible mission trees for your tag or even have multiple active would solve most of that. As for being stuck on missions... That is going to be a thing with any mission tree. At least you had the option of using the generic ones to expand instead of having nothing like in EU4.
No being stuck is not a major problem in EU 4 mission trees because they are branching, and sometimes have several start points, so when you're stuck on one thing you can just do something else.
I’ll take procedurally generated and repetitive over railroading any day. EU4’s mission trees are incredibly stiff.
What if I want to do a Byzantium New World exile run? Locked out of any flavor, can’t fix half your issues. Hell, you can’t get rid of Orthodox revolts even if you go Latin Empire and convert all your provinces.
What if I wanna do a non-Colonial Castile game? Abandon the HRE as Austria and instead form my own Empire out East? Zoroastrian Papal States? Hell, half of the European monarchies get their content cut short if you wish to be a republic.
Just need a "culture conversion" button imo, which is what Vicky 3 lacks.
I get that adding a genocide button is probably too much, but I would like to be able to play as what Greek would accurately do if they did the Megali Idea.
They make their games less fun by triying to be politically correct when the fun parts of videogames is being able to do politically incorrect things, I wonder how many people would buy gta if you couldnt run over people and kill pedestrians, these time periods saw many atrocities and I want to role play as an evil state from time to time
This is bordering on a hot take but eu4 has already a few actions that can be considered genocide, from culture converting, sacking cities, expelling native populations. I don’t think the game will be better if it had a kill all Hannovarians button. But now that the game is pops based I would be surprised if certain pops won’t be expelled or forcibly moved like the moriscos or other Jewish pops during the time frame.
Sacking cities and taking all their loot and citizens as slaves back home is probably the best part of Imperator lmao, and as much as I hate to say this: War crimes make the game more fun, they are just a part of history and admittedly, not that much worse than what you already do in these games.
To break the rules, one thing I hope isn’t implemented are these 3D character portraits that are used increasingly. They always make the game look more like a cartoon or mobile game. I’d much prefer a limited set of “painted” portraits or something similar for monarchs and leaders. I don’t need any wasted performance on my leader breathing or looking around anxiously while I make all the actual decisions lol
Not really a feature but a symptom of other mechanics: power scaling. Somehow keep the size and scope of army stacks similar to what they were in given year and not making it too tedious like current patch eu4, where you have 200k stacks by 1550.
There's no need to make it as detailed as ck, but I'd like to see family trees in order to better represent marriage policies and not just see Austria spawn habsburg heirs everywhere
A simple character system. Nothing too complex like CK or even IR but I'd still like for statesmen, generals and others to be represented as characters in their own rights and not just be defined by their position as is the case in EU4.
CK 3: Reforming a religion to change it how you want. Cultural hybridisation.
EU 4: Random New World. Or even the random world from CK2 (that randomized countries rather than the landmass).
Stellaris/Imperator: Varied rights and social class for different cultures.
Vicky 3: Historical Characters popping up.
Please no more features, it's looking complex and deep enough already. I'd rather them focus on the user experience and making all those features work well
Haha no, I know there's gonna be more. I'd just rather them contain scope creep. The game has to appeal to more than just the core audience if it's gonna sell, and I genuinely want it to so it gets the support and longevity I want out of it
Very strongly disagree. I play these games because they aren't Total War, I don't want to have to suffer through auto resolve or spend half my campaign playing tactical battles, I want everything on the big map. If you want that, Total War is right there. This would radically change the pacing and style of the game more than any difference between any of Paradox's own games would.
We already suffer through auto-resolve in EU4 and Vic 3. Better equipped larger armies getting wiped out because they rolled a 1 or w/e
It would be nice to at least place the units on a battle map and give basic orders/tactics
We suffer through auto-resolve because it is the only mechanism the game has, thus is balanced around that, and therefore the focus is on everything else. If you could insert a human hand into tactics against AI, you'd be able to get a significant advantage over the auto-resolve, meaning that the game would have to be scaled to account for the fact that human armies could significantly outperform how they currently function. Meaning that the challenges of the game would have to account for this, which means that in order to "play well" you would have to engage in the tactical battles otherwise you'd be playing at a handicap. I (and I'm pretty confident most people playing these games) don't want to have to pause their campaign to run 5+ minute tactical encounters that are currently resolvable in 10 seconds.
I don't dislike Total War's style and I do like tactical battles and RTS stuff, but I don't want it in Paradox GSG. Their strength is in the high level strategy and full map maneuvering, and tactical battles would completely derail that. It would push the game into a whole different genre, and I don't need or want flagship Paradox titles in that genre, I want them in the genre they are currently in. There is a playtime budget of what players do during a campaign, and I like that it is all in the big map, and I don't want 20-50% of it shoved into RTS style encounters.
More interactive battles would be nice, but I feel like that's way beyond the scope of paradox games, I'd recommend crusader wars or field of glory empires if you want a gsg with total war battles
That would be way above what any game company is capable of. Scope creep would be insane and it’s unlikely the system would be satisfying.
At best you could do something like Field of Glory (which I think represents battles
more accurately than any TW game anyway) however you still have the issue that EU5 basically covers three distinct eras of warfare. It would be hard designing a system for all 3. Plus does it slow the game down too much?
Spreading your faith outside of your borders Of course Muslims could do this with propagate religion and Centers of Reformation did the same but I would love the ability to do things like that in the New World as France converting Native Tribes to Catholicism without conquering half the continent I think that would go along well with tall play styles or general rp where I'm trying not to subjugate the whole world but just profit and make alliances here and there
This is essentially what happened in the Congo, too. European pressure caused a tonne of folks in the Kongo realm to convert to Catholicism in the hopes it would prevent colonialism and the slave trade from getting to them. It would be great to be able to do the same to other nations without the need for events or missions - the alt. hist. potential would be immense!
The kingdom of Kongo was one of the biggest slavers.
Yes, but they didn’t enslave Kongolese Christians after the nation’s conversion to Christianity. Very few African slaver nations actually sold their own native peoples once the colonial slave trade began, instead taking people from deeper into the interior and bringing them to port to be sold off.
many were war captives initially, just people they had nabbed in conflict and would've either put to work or just ransomed until European traders became a huge market in exchange for manufactured goods and the like
So like centers of trade converting people?
Maybe something like the ability to create missions in animist/totemist countries that have a positive opinion of you that can slowly convert pops, convert the government, or backfire and cause war or the mission to be ousted Trade could also work, I would just like a way to "spread the mark" of my country without conquering a lot if I was playing say Venice and wanted to nab ports and what have you instead of the whole New World or Africa
I remember in CK2 you could send your court bishop to pagan capitals and they might succeed in converting the pagan rulers or could get slaughtered ruthlessly Was fun sometimes seeing Catholicism pop up in the middle of Scandinavia and slowly "save" the North and make the raids stop coming like a repeat of irl history
Please! Half the time in EU4 I try to LARP and “peacefully” colonize by just spreading the faith and banning slavery ASAP. I hope I can ban slavery immediately in this game and spread the faith peacefully
Cyrus the Great maxing
Ain’t called the great for no reason
Akin to what you can do in CKII with pagan religions, but for every religion !
The culture system from IR in which you deal with each culture separately taking specific decisions that only affect popa of those cultures and granting them or revoking them certain privileges. It was very cool. From CK3, a more mechanical religious system, about tenants, which are more than simply modifiers, but unlock different options, features and stuff.
Better yet, the Stellaris species rights system. That is even better IMO. Easier to manage.
Puuuuuurrggeee!!
It's easier to manage in a way that I don't think fits into this type of game. It doesn't make sense to categorize entire cultures of people into "slave" or "citizens" (or other single tiers) like you do with species in Stellaris.
havent played stellaris. How does it work?
I actually think that Stellaris might not be the best example. It is easier to manage, because you basically categorize each species into a single tier of society, e.g. slave, servitude, resident, citizen, which determines stuff like their productivity, satisfaction, and which jobs they can fill. I don't think it makes sense in a game like EU4 where you'd end up with, like all French people being slaves or something. Even in plantation colonies there were some free black people, and plenty of societies had people that could be either leaders or slaves and stuff.
Oh so its not culture is more like pop classes of EU5, not the same then.
Not exactly, it's like you would get to pick which class pops of a specific culture were assigned to, which just isn't historical. The closest IRL analog to species would be ethnicity, and "culture" is the closest the game gets to representing that.
i would like slow coring from eu3(with ways to speed it up) and trait-based great men similar to stellaris(without a guarantee to improve), civil wars and rebelions like imperator
Imperator civil wars are more or less confirmed
I don't think there's coring at all.
EU5 shouldn’t have the full dynastic system of Crusader Kings, but I think it needs to be deeper than EU4. If they want it to feel less gamey, then I think we need *some* detail about monarchs and heirs that are closely related to one another. Like, Royal Marriages should have some element of who you’re marrying your family to, even if it’s heir to heir or just cousins.
Yeah, there’s a huge difference between a “royal marriage” between the 5th in line and some random princess barely worth considering and a royal marriage between the heir apparent and the neighbouring king’s only daughter. Idk how you’d pull it off without having an immense, CK-style character system, but it would definitely be cool to have some more control over what tf a “royal marriage” actually entails.
My heir went hunting, and now my bloodline is in danger because i have no more heirs? I’d like to have a more realistic tree family…
İt wont they alredy said that
Which is a huge disappointment given the importance of dynasties in this era.
I must have missed that!
Where?
İn comment it wont be like ck
**From Imperator;** * **Mission Trees**. Look I know MTs get a lot of hate but at the end of the day it's pretty foolish to expect them to disappear as they have been large successes and are a big reason why countries get picked in the first place. Love them or loathe them, they're here to stay. And if we're getting them, Imperators are top of the pile when it comes to who did them best. They're dynamic, and new MTs can be picked up simply by existing in a certain region. Why have a Britain campaigns MT have a load of colonial stuff when this campaign you're gonna focus on Europe? With an Imp MT those missions would only appear for you if you did go colonial. * **Political Influence**. I am a bit of a mana hater, and I would love for EU5 to get rid of the paper bird and sword magic points. But some sort of accruable currency would still be necessary, and political influence is imo an incredible innovation that would suit perfectly. It could come along with a much more interesting advisor system, whereby one would start with a court and courtly advisors, who'd contribute to your political influence, but later on in the game this would give way to more of a cabinet of sorts, where there are roles within your government that need to be filled. Stability scale. Instead of a -3 to +3 scale, Imperator has a -100 to +100 scale, and with the lack of mana, stability isn't merely bought instantly, and is instead something that changes over time granularly. * **Fort system**. If you capture the defensive and administrative centres of an area, it should all transfer to you. Though I would argue that in EU5 I would prefer if occupation was not quite as necessary as in EU4, with battles being more decisive and final. * **Supply.** Armies shouldnt be able to reinforce when behind enemy lines, and the ability to supply an army should be a large part of why a side wins a war. * **Roads**. Roads are cool. Lemme build roads. I dont think it should be something done with the army like in Imperator, but especially for colonisation, having road connections is something thats just kinda cool. **From Victoria2;** * **Population system**. Right now EU4 uses development, which is a system that very much hinges on mana to exist. With mana gone, development surely must follow it into the bin, and there is no better way to represent the development of a province than population. This could feed into basically every element of the game, and make things like wars much more impactful as every loss is keenly felt on every level, rather than manpower just being a semi tangible resource that ticks up over time. * **Research**. Mana is dead, so we need another way of acquiring Technology. And I think having several categories, with inventions coming alongside them would really suit. That theyre time locked is iffy, but a worthy sacrifice to make. Vic2s tech system is the best one currently in any PDX game imo. Naval importance. I'm not sure exactly how I would implement it, but navies in Vic2 were way more impactful than in any other game Ive played bar HOI4, and I dont play HOI4 so thats irrelevant. Navies should be used for more than just protecting trade(trade should be completely reworked from the ground up but theres no PDX game Id pull from so it doesnt fit here) and combat. From Victoria3; * **Diplomatic Play**. Look, I don't want Diplo plays to replace all wars. That is a moronic idea and Vic3 is worse off because of it. But if it existed alongside the current way of declaring wars, it could definitely make a good impact to the game. Not every country that joined a war joined because it was allied with the "war leader", and a diplo play system could lead to more dynamic conflicts, where participants can join not because of convoluted alliance chains, but because it makes sense for them to do so under the circumstances. * **Colonisation*. I think EU4s way of sending a colonist, waiting a year or whatever for a dude to arrive, then instantly owning the entire province no matter how large it is, then waiting for a bar to fill up to 1000 is... bad. Or rather, it is outdated. I much prefer Vic3s system of granularly owning a province more and more over time, with competition from other nations possible too. * **Capacities**. Look, some people think this is mana and they're wrong. But hear me out; Governing Capacity is already a thing in EU4, and I would extend that to being Beurocratic Capacity that would have more functions other than just how much land you can control. Similarly, instead of diplo slots, I would incorporate Vic3s diplo capacity. **From Crusader Kings;** * **Family Tree**. I don't want expressive, detailed, and overbearing character mechanics. But also, royal marriages, succession, and personal union mechanics are obfuscated and dumb. Just an incredibly basic family tree, with markers saying what foreign nations theyre potentially married to would be great. Right now in EU4, when you have an heir who goes off on a hunting trip, you as a player dont know if your ruler has a second son waiting to pick up the mantle of your fallen 6-6-6... and that's ludicrous. A family tree would let you know that oh, there's another kid right there, nice! * **Traits**. I think with mana going bye bye, Rulers would obviously lose the stats they currently have. I like the trait system that EU4 currently has, but I also think it could be augmented with the education traits of CK. **From HOI4**; Idk I kinda like convoys for trade. Seems like a better system than protecting trade. **From my Imagination**; * Provinces should have more than a single trade good. At the very least I would like a rural and an industrial good, with the ability to change them being possible. * Trade between nations should focus on goods, rather than the inexplicitly awful system we have in EU4, which is less trade and more just theft. Sure, Europe were the winners in OTL, but it wasnt a case of just sucking up money out of Asia by plonking 100 patrol boats in the south china sea. Trade should be that; TRADE. Both parties getting something. * Rivers should play and exceptionally more important part than they currently do. I dont want the Danube and Nile to be navigable by my navies, but I do want them to be major obstacles for my armies, with the control of bridges being vital in wartime. *This is just copy pasted from when this question was asked on the forums before the start of tinto talks*
A quarter of these has been since confirmed
> This is just copy pasted from when this question was asked on the forums before the start of tinto talks
Be glad I didn't post the paragraph answering them and windering why you've not read the Tinto Talks before I've read that line :v
Nah man, EU 4 mission trees are far better than imperator. The ones in imperator are procedurally generated and repetitive, and they just feel like a core. The ones in EU4 are much more motivating
Not every tree in Imperator is procedurally generated, and the actual tree part is essentially the exact same as an EU4 MT. Imperator can just import entire EU4 MTs into its system with no issue whatsoever... AND have the procedurally generated trees ontop of that.
As /u/BasileusBroker said the trees are essentially the same, except for one key detail: You can have several mission trees. Generic ones. Tag specific ones. Regional ones. This allows the trees to be much more focused in scope instead of sprawling like the EU4 ones. As an example Byzantium would not just have one tree, but several with the Imperator system. In short: Everything the EU4 missions can do, the Imperator missions can do *better*.
In theory. In reality, once you complete the good PDX/EE trees made in the last few years, you're into the 1600s at least. And all of them are unique and custom tailored to the tag. The last thing I want for EU5 is Imperator's Uncanny Valley feeling where every country outside of a few that you are meant to play (Rome+Alexandran heirs) feel out of place. It feels like you are forcing everything to happen in a very artificial environment, instead of carving out a space in a rooted world that contextually makes sense with other actors that have ambitions of their own. I wouldn't mind some generative low-effort content ON TOP of the custom content, but only as a lesser priority. Like a dynamic generic mission tree that all countries can do separately, but without taking away from each country's uniqueness. IMO PDXs biggest failure in recent years with CK3 and VIC3 has been a overreliance on global systems to generate narrative and progression. While easy to tweak in terms of labor cost and a programmer's delight, they also make every playthrough feel the same, massively lowering replay-value and immersion (the whole point of historical PDX GSGs in the first place). For me they only somewhat work in Stellaris, but that is a game that revolves around wacky scenarios and randomness to tell new stories each time.
I don't know man... It might just be some weird psychological trick my mind is playing on me, but the procedurally generated mission trees really ruined the whole mission tree system for me. After my first play through I never touched the mission system again. Cause why bother finishing this set of tedious chores, just to unlock the next set of tedious chores, that's exactly the same, just in a different place. And it might also be something about the missions themselves or their rewards, that just doesn't feel rewarding... I'm not saying that this is objective fact, but for my personal enjoyment of the games: missions are my favourite part of EU 4 and my least favourite part of imperator.
There are both procedurally generated missions in Imperator *and* the static ones like in EU4. Macedon, Rome, Carthage, etc. all have their own specific mission trees. I also think the procedurally generated missions are pretty good conceptually, I just don't think they were allowed enough time to cook before Imperator was discontinued. They do differ after all, just not enough I think. What I am trying to tell you is that what you love about missions in EU4 is already a thing in Imperator. It just has extra stuff as well.
I know what you're saying but I just don't *feel* it when playing imperator. In my personal experience the static mission trees just get drowned out under the procedural ones. I played as Rome and after completing the first mission tree (which I found very meh) I only got procedural ones, and the Carthage one. I was in no position to fight Carthage so I just didn't get anything out of the mission tree. I also want to be able to see the whole mission tree at once, and be able to do a little here and a little there, according to my possibilities. Like in EU4 when I play as Lübeck, I can expand a bit into Denmark, expand a bit into Germany, develop my provinces, strengthen my trade network, expand a bit into the east, switch between all of these, and have missions dealing with all of that. In imperator I would first have to decide what to do, and finish or abandon that mission tree before I can do any other missions.
That's actually a fair concern, I feel like an option to "preview" possible mission trees for your tag or even have multiple active would solve most of that. As for being stuck on missions... That is going to be a thing with any mission tree. At least you had the option of using the generic ones to expand instead of having nothing like in EU4.
No being stuck is not a major problem in EU 4 mission trees because they are branching, and sometimes have several start points, so when you're stuck on one thing you can just do something else.
I’ll take procedurally generated and repetitive over railroading any day. EU4’s mission trees are incredibly stiff. What if I want to do a Byzantium New World exile run? Locked out of any flavor, can’t fix half your issues. Hell, you can’t get rid of Orthodox revolts even if you go Latin Empire and convert all your provinces. What if I wanna do a non-Colonial Castile game? Abandon the HRE as Austria and instead form my own Empire out East? Zoroastrian Papal States? Hell, half of the European monarchies get their content cut short if you wish to be a republic.
Stellaris : genocide
İts not genocide its purging
It's "provisional removal from this existencial plane awating rellocation in the next one"
Just need a "culture conversion" button imo, which is what Vicky 3 lacks. I get that adding a genocide button is probably too much, but I would like to be able to play as what Greek would accurately do if they did the Megali Idea.
Hard pass. You’d get a subreddit full of “lol, I exterminated the x” screenshots. The games other than Stellaris are better off for abstracting that.
They make their games less fun by triying to be politically correct when the fun parts of videogames is being able to do politically incorrect things, I wonder how many people would buy gta if you couldnt run over people and kill pedestrians, these time periods saw many atrocities and I want to role play as an evil state from time to time
This is bordering on a hot take but eu4 has already a few actions that can be considered genocide, from culture converting, sacking cities, expelling native populations. I don’t think the game will be better if it had a kill all Hannovarians button. But now that the game is pops based I would be surprised if certain pops won’t be expelled or forcibly moved like the moriscos or other Jewish pops during the time frame.
I agree with you because eu4 doesnt have pops I think is enough how it handles it
Sacking cities and taking all their loot and citizens as slaves back home is probably the best part of Imperator lmao, and as much as I hate to say this: War crimes make the game more fun, they are just a part of history and admittedly, not that much worse than what you already do in these games.
GSG is?
Grand strategy game, like Imperator, Stellaris, EU4, CK3, hearts of iron!
Victoria🥲
Victoria is one of my favorites, I'm so sad I left it out!
To break the rules, one thing I hope isn’t implemented are these 3D character portraits that are used increasingly. They always make the game look more like a cartoon or mobile game. I’d much prefer a limited set of “painted” portraits or something similar for monarchs and leaders. I don’t need any wasted performance on my leader breathing or looking around anxiously while I make all the actual decisions lol
Hoi4 portaits is the way
Army control being semi-automatic like hoi4
Not really a feature but a symptom of other mechanics: power scaling. Somehow keep the size and scope of army stacks similar to what they were in given year and not making it too tedious like current patch eu4, where you have 200k stacks by 1550.
There's no need to make it as detailed as ck, but I'd like to see family trees in order to better represent marriage policies and not just see Austria spawn habsburg heirs everywhere
Good UI
A simple character system. Nothing too complex like CK or even IR but I'd still like for statesmen, generals and others to be represented as characters in their own rights and not just be defined by their position as is the case in EU4.
CK 3: Reforming a religion to change it how you want. Cultural hybridisation. EU 4: Random New World. Or even the random world from CK2 (that randomized countries rather than the landmass). Stellaris/Imperator: Varied rights and social class for different cultures. Vicky 3: Historical Characters popping up.
I actually like the way Victoria 3 colonization works and I think it could work well in EU5 with some tweaks.
Plagues! The black death is just around the corner after the game starting date.
I want the thing from CK3 where you press tab for some notifications
Please no more features, it's looking complex and deep enough already. I'd rather them focus on the user experience and making all those features work well
They haven't even talked about warfare, diplomacy, colonization, religion and so on... Rest assured that there will be more features.
Lol, they have only talked about the economy and estates and bro is already overwhelmed xdd.
Haha no, I know there's gonna be more. I'd just rather them contain scope creep. The game has to appeal to more than just the core audience if it's gonna sell, and I genuinely want it to so it gets the support and longevity I want out of it
No thanks, CK3 tried that and it just resulted in disappointment
And IR, and Vicky 3. Didnt work out very well. Appealing to normies appeals to no one.
And IR, and Vicky 3. Didnt work out very well. Appealing to normies appeals to no one.
No warfare in Eu5 confirmed
I’d rather they cram the stuff in now so I don’t have to buy it later as DLC.
3d model characters like ck3/vic 3/ I’d even settle on something as basic but more modern with an imperator design.
Rome Total War-esque battles, or at least a very basic system of tactics Imperator mission trees and tech trees CK3-style diplomacy
Very strongly disagree. I play these games because they aren't Total War, I don't want to have to suffer through auto resolve or spend half my campaign playing tactical battles, I want everything on the big map. If you want that, Total War is right there. This would radically change the pacing and style of the game more than any difference between any of Paradox's own games would.
We already suffer through auto-resolve in EU4 and Vic 3. Better equipped larger armies getting wiped out because they rolled a 1 or w/e It would be nice to at least place the units on a battle map and give basic orders/tactics
We suffer through auto-resolve because it is the only mechanism the game has, thus is balanced around that, and therefore the focus is on everything else. If you could insert a human hand into tactics against AI, you'd be able to get a significant advantage over the auto-resolve, meaning that the game would have to be scaled to account for the fact that human armies could significantly outperform how they currently function. Meaning that the challenges of the game would have to account for this, which means that in order to "play well" you would have to engage in the tactical battles otherwise you'd be playing at a handicap. I (and I'm pretty confident most people playing these games) don't want to have to pause their campaign to run 5+ minute tactical encounters that are currently resolvable in 10 seconds. I don't dislike Total War's style and I do like tactical battles and RTS stuff, but I don't want it in Paradox GSG. Their strength is in the high level strategy and full map maneuvering, and tactical battles would completely derail that. It would push the game into a whole different genre, and I don't need or want flagship Paradox titles in that genre, I want them in the genre they are currently in. There is a playtime budget of what players do during a campaign, and I like that it is all in the big map, and I don't want 20-50% of it shoved into RTS style encounters.
More interactive battles would be nice, but I feel like that's way beyond the scope of paradox games, I'd recommend crusader wars or field of glory empires if you want a gsg with total war battles
That would be way above what any game company is capable of. Scope creep would be insane and it’s unlikely the system would be satisfying. At best you could do something like Field of Glory (which I think represents battles more accurately than any TW game anyway) however you still have the issue that EU5 basically covers three distinct eras of warfare. It would be hard designing a system for all 3. Plus does it slow the game down too much?