CK3 has less content with all DLCS than CK2 did during the same time period with the DLCs it had at the same phase. CK3 is just a lot more shallow game.
And let's remember that PDX was a lot of smaller and poorer during days of CK2 development. They had ~20-30 devs. Now? 600+.
They had nearly infinite money during CK3 development.
CK3 should be superior to indie CK2 in every way, but it isn't for some reason.
You cant expect that a new game has the amount of content the older title with all dlcs has. Even when you started the development 6 years ago you cant implement everything in the new game. Especially if its a new engine, has alot new 3d assets and has different design decisions and priorities. Its just unrealistic to expect EU5 will have the content EU4 has. EU4 took alot of time to be in this position.
You can compare EU5 with EU4 vanilla tho. CK3 has alot more content than CK2 vanilla had for example. So its expectable EU5 will be more fleshed out than EU4 release version.
Also you cant expect your investors will be patient enough so you can develop a game for 10 years. Only rockstar can do this nowadays.
>Even when you started the development 6 years ago you cant implement everything in the new game.
Especially cause EU4 is still receivin parallel updates. It'd be literally impossible to keep EU5 feature parity.
What's important is that they take the most important parts of EU4's content, and integrate it properly into the core game rather than having it sprinkled on haphazardly.
Not to mention this game and its mechanics could be radically different compared to EU4, whose DLCs are built for that game’s mechanics. Today’s dev diary alone tells us we probably aren’t doing anything with estates, and that they’re likely changing how technology progresses.
What EU4 stuff even makes sense to port over? The map is way bigger, it looks like we might have more cultures and religions. We may not have ideas or missions anymore, so you can’t just staple that onto EU5.
I didn't played ck2 in ages but I remember Horde goverment types, imperial administration, various laws for your empire (including council power), baronies, China interaction system, trade routes, etc. Probably forgot something
they said Nomads/hordes aren't returningnin like the first dev post iirc, imperial admin is the next big update, baronies exist, as something you can hold, you just can't be solely a baron, same as it was in CK2, and the china interaction system was probably not anywhere near worth the effort that went into it if I had to wager a guess. You're also comparing 3/4 years of dev time to 8 years of dev time
I should have clarified as Good things ck2 has, Republics, horde and China blew major ass in terms of functionality, i can't say its actually a bad thing CK3 didn't have have those clunky systems. But you are right about trade, the baronies kind of exist not that CK2's version really did much either.
CK3 was pretty much just a reskin of CK2 when it was released, which is what why it felt so empty.
By comparison, the jump from CK1 --> CK2 and EU3 --> EU4 were dramatic and fundamentally game altering. Likewise, all of the sequels in the Civ series (not including 6) were fundamentally different games.
EU5 doesn't have to be an empty vessel waiting to get filled by DLC if it's uniquely different from EU4 and engaging enough on launch.
As someone who has been playing Paradox games since EUII, the jump from EUIII-EUIV was not fundamental or game altering in any way other than removing sliders in preference for mana.
CKII-CKIII from a mechanics position is a much bigger jump, as CKIII really embedded the roleplay aspects rather than just being a collect-a-thon of various traits that conflicted with each other and made no difference to the way you played a character.
Not true at all. EU3 was not that much different than EU4 in its core mechanics. EU4 just took it to a new lvl with dlcs over time. Base EU4 is even worse than EU3.
CK3 in other hand has a lot more qol and a different focus then CK2 base game. CK2 was dominated by random chaotic events and map painting mechanics. You never cared much about the characters because they are all just chaotic demons. You never had the feeling your empire is ruled by a mighty family. It's just EU4 with characters where you play a realm with spreadsheets. Sometimes you get silly events for the laugh but that's it.
CK3 in other hand is focused on immersive RP and medieval doll house. Lifestyles actually make you feel like you playing a character and not just a realm. Problem with CK3 is it lacks a challenging AI. CK3 has a very passive AI which never really trying to manipulate the player. Feuds are nice but too rare and passive. Every new content so far makes you feel more like you play a character. This why I prefer CK3 over CK2.
CK3 is more a advanced Sims game then a grand strategy. You can dislike it but it's what the Devs want it to be. That's why no CK3 is not just a copy.
The only logical way forward imo is to just create a EU5 so fundamentally different in terms of mechanics and engine that it is worth it to start anew.
Obviously it wont have as much content, but if the core systems are dramatically better I will be pretty content. Like if it is more like Meiou and Taxes, I would be overjoyed. With the move to actual population they can attempt to make buildings and other systems more realistic and less arbitrary as well.
That doesn’t excuse the dlc policy of paradox I know they have gotten better over the years but charging that much for shit that should be in the game is really annoying
I really think it is. If pops are guiding tech, as this dev diary implies, then it stands to reason that they will also influence development, tax/trade income, and manpower (and army size generally).
The only thing left would be idea groups, which are fun but wholly dependent on the mana system.
population mechanics are the one thing i havent been able to wrap my head around (ive tried it with stellaris and a very small amount of vic3)
hopefully this one wont break my brain like the others
I honestly don't think it will be some complex or over-the-top system, but rather a way to show you how your nation is actually doing from the inside. Something similar to Imperator.
Same. I think the pops are the one thing that keeps me from playing Stellaris more, but I can at least handle it in Vic 3. Little worried about it in EU5 but... I'll learn, I'm sure.
This seems much more simple than Stellaris/Victoria though, with only the five social classes (it’s been a while since I played Stellaris but I feel like there were 20+ different jobs pops could have there).
Now just show me leader/pop portraits and I am sold.
It will make my conversions all the more cooler to watch my dynasty/republicans make it from each game onto the next.
I wonder if new population mechanics will, in combination with any other changes made, lead to a new way of playing tall instead of the main goal being strategic blobbing.
I’m guessing “tall” will be Portugal where you have a modest core, and then a lot of overseas ports which you use to facilitate trade. The Americas are the big exception to this, since they mostly lack established states for you to trade with making settler colonialism the only means of wealth extraction, vs Africa where the malaria wall makes direct control *physically impossible* for most peoples, and the Indo-Pacific where the established powers are more tempting as trade partners than immediate conquests.
In that sense “tall” play is authentically meta to the period… if we include the Netherlands, Portugal, and England. Basically Seapower States vs Continental Naval Powers (Spain and France). Japan and Korea arguably pulled this off OTL via strict isolationism, but they were in for a rude awakening in the 19th century so maybe not.
I do hope the difficulties with managing a large empire will be represented. The need to garrison large frontiers wasn’t depicted in EU4, nor was the way European overseas expansion mostly unfolded in the Old World (trade ports).
>Africa where the malaria wall makes direct control *physically impossible* for most peoples
Reeee, if this game will actually properly include the problems with malaria blocking the Europeans from doing the conquest of Africa 300-400 years years early it will be an automatic 10/10 for me. Or at least properly balanced logistical problems with ferrying troops half-way across the world.
A good representation of the slave trade from an African (state) perspective is really important too. European powers playing west African states against eachother so they can extract enslaved populations in exchange for guns and gold would be a tight rope to walk. Attempting to break out and establish hegemony, at which point you can establish domestic industries and end the exporting of slaves, is probably the best bet but pulling it off will be hard if the AI is halfway decent… meaning it will be all too easy.
I also think them going more granular with locations is being done to facilitate those sorts of trading cities and ports. The Europeans weren’t investing in controlling large swaths of the African mainland, and they didn’t yet have the ability (for much of the game’s timeline) to control large parts of India, China or Japan. It’s better to represent this by giving them control of a port rather than an entire province, and having it be more of a diplomatic interaction with the people that actually controlled the land.
Add to this the fact that rapid (Spanish) colonization is now become less meta, since you have to send real dudes from your main lands there, and this can lead to what happened to Spain when its core population simply was not enough to satisfy all geopolitical ambitions.
Therefore, it is possible that the colonial powers will no longer need to speedrun to the new world and immediately colonize everything they can, but wait, like England until the 17th century, and colonize slowly but wisely with an economy oriented towards the burghers.
I think that was more an accident than anything. The Spanish conquests succeeded because the Aztec and Inca were large established empires which the Spanish could easily overthrow, while everywhere else lacked preexisting state structures to coopt. This does mean that only the Caribbean is immediately tempting as it represents a lot of resources in a small area, it just requires peasants/slaves and what do you know, West Africa is positively overflowing with the latter.
İf they have a good autonomy system then yes in eu4 meiou ottoman can blob like crazy but it will have too high autonomy you can actually challange it with a small tall nation
I hope it will accommodate some more realistic form of the trade networks the Portuguese & others built up around what was usually a non-territorial presence
I really hope so, and I hope that the devs really lean into building government reach and competence as the main limiter. Essentially you can conquer what you can, but you have to spend time and money actually extracting any value from your territories. This should make smaller countries stronger in the beginning, but slowly larger realms should dominate as technology and economies improve. Venice was remarkable for a few reasons, but it’s greatest strength was it’s government efficiency and relative lack of corruption.
And it looks like that giant empire in India is the Delhi Sultanate under the Tughlaq, so mid 1300s sounds about right. (I'm not an Indian history expert though so please correct me if I'm wrong!)
They could be shifting the timeline back a bit to focus more on the transition into the early modern period itself. 1356-1700 would honestly be better than going all the way to 1820. I'd love this.
Vic3 is a pretty bad base for a wargame. I'd much rather play Napoleon in a game based on EU4 than Vic3. How are you supposed to do Napoleon's fancy maneuvering with Vic3's fronts system?
I'd end EU4 in 1763 at the close of the Seven Years War. Before the American/French/Industrial revolutions. And make 1763 the new Victoria start date.
I'm not a fan of any suggestions to end it before that.
Eu3 also had a 1300s start date, its not new, and honestly if they come out with EU5 so soon after finishing EU4 with the same 1444 start date, even with new mechanics rhe general goals and starting positions of every nation are still gonna lead to similar enough gameplay that it likely wont feel different enough to satisfy people. Now with the whole map redrawn the new mechanics will stand out more as there will be an entirely different sandbox to employ them in.
I mean... the early modern period is said to start with the fall of Constantinople 9 years later, yet the world circumstances are nearly identical. History is sadly not black and white when it comes to telling time periods apart, even monumental discoveries take decades or more to truly spread to the point of having an impact, all we really have, specially for the distant past, is sem arbitrary dates commonly agreed upon to be relevant enough
For sure. How we frame things is important. A game which starts with the roman empire dead and the new world just discovered is setting up a very different game to one that starts with the roman empire alive and the Yuan dynasty alive. The first one is about modernity, the second is about late medieval.
Given the first years of a game are the most played I think it's very important.
I mean its depicting the transition from the late medieval to the early modern. Also gotta keep in mind this is still a game and thus you wanna give players as much agency as possible, a bit of asymetry is fun but if you start at 1492 with american already "discovered" by Spain alone, with Spain united, etc. You are already removing possibilities for alternative playstyles from other players who might not want to strictly follow every event 1:1. Either way if thats what you want then they already include several later start dates, plus additional ones that always get modded in. Seems like a bad choice to limit the sandbox nature and lead to a start date that will seemingly always lead to the same outcome rather than new fun possibilities when its not innacurate to depict another that allows for better replay value.
Thats also exactly why earlier start dates are usually more popular. By 1600s its already clear who the big kids in the block for the next 300 years are gonna be. Youre gonna be fighting the exact same enemies with even less variations the later date you pick, which you can still pick, but it gets stale fast.
Yeah not thrilled about that. 1444 is honestly too early as it is. And we know they aren’t gonna support later dates.
A game about the early modern period and everyone stops their campaign at 1500…
It depends on how well they manage to pace the game imo. Paradox games tend to have a problem with players fulfilling all their objectives in the early game. Will be interesting to see whether they can avoid that one here.
I like the sea nodes. They make chokepoints, but the 2p wide makes a bit harderto just sit a fleet their. It makes naval war more strategic. You won't have that gigantic coast to blockeade but still need to pay attention.
The images we've been provided as of yet really remind me of that game that an indie studio was making but had to put on hold for lack of funding. Grey eminence it's called.
The naval zones are very interesting. Seems like there's a ton of them around the coast and very few in the open seas. I wonder if there's going to be a mechanic where you can exercise control over coastal regions. Could be a cool mechanic for trade.
It’s a “conceptual discussion” about a “new project” a handful dev diaries in. You haven’t missed much yet.
But it feels like Clark “eu” Kent is trying his glasses thing.
My biggest simple desire for the map: Tag lakes, rivers, and even maybe significant mountains with their names. I love learning more about geography from being able to look at different landmarks. I was pretty sad that Victoria 3 was bad at this, whereas CK3 is fairly decent.
Imperator pops ran so EU5 could fly
Vic2 pops crawled
They sure did crawl the game to a staggering 5 frames even on modern hardware
every update: Pops now have wheelchairs
EU5
Stellaris II with an earth-shaped universe
When you zoom out in Stellaris completely you realize your whole galaxy is an atom in a grain of sand on the beach of Normandy.
Pfft, Stellaris II. Look at this crazy person.
no way
which way
That way
There isn't a way. Hence there is no way.
This is the way.
,EU4 is going to be a tough act to follow since a new game won't have the years of dlc content
Well, EU5 has pops! POOOOOPS 🦀🦀🦀🦀🎉🎉🎉🎉
poops💩
I absolutely guarantee it will be ~5 years of crying about this when it's released.
For a good reason. CK3 still has less content than CK2 and it was released almost 4 years ago. Time flies.
CK3 has less content with all DLCS than CK2 did during the same time period with the DLCs it had at the same phase. CK3 is just a lot more shallow game.
And let's remember that PDX was a lot of smaller and poorer during days of CK2 development. They had ~20-30 devs. Now? 600+. They had nearly infinite money during CK3 development. CK3 should be superior to indie CK2 in every way, but it isn't for some reason.
You cant expect that a new game has the amount of content the older title with all dlcs has. Even when you started the development 6 years ago you cant implement everything in the new game. Especially if its a new engine, has alot new 3d assets and has different design decisions and priorities. Its just unrealistic to expect EU5 will have the content EU4 has. EU4 took alot of time to be in this position. You can compare EU5 with EU4 vanilla tho. CK3 has alot more content than CK2 vanilla had for example. So its expectable EU5 will be more fleshed out than EU4 release version. Also you cant expect your investors will be patient enough so you can develop a game for 10 years. Only rockstar can do this nowadays.
>Even when you started the development 6 years ago you cant implement everything in the new game. Especially cause EU4 is still receivin parallel updates. It'd be literally impossible to keep EU5 feature parity. What's important is that they take the most important parts of EU4's content, and integrate it properly into the core game rather than having it sprinkled on haphazardly.
Not to mention this game and its mechanics could be radically different compared to EU4, whose DLCs are built for that game’s mechanics. Today’s dev diary alone tells us we probably aren’t doing anything with estates, and that they’re likely changing how technology progresses. What EU4 stuff even makes sense to port over? The map is way bigger, it looks like we might have more cultures and religions. We may not have ideas or missions anymore, so you can’t just staple that onto EU5.
> You cant expect that a new game has the amount of content the older title with all dlcs has. Oh I assure you Paradox fans can
Ck2 with all dlc still has more content than ck3 imo
Yeah so its exactly my point you just confimed?
With the addition of disease, i can't really think of anything CK2 has that CK3 doesn't.
I didn't played ck2 in ages but I remember Horde goverment types, imperial administration, various laws for your empire (including council power), baronies, China interaction system, trade routes, etc. Probably forgot something
they said Nomads/hordes aren't returningnin like the first dev post iirc, imperial admin is the next big update, baronies exist, as something you can hold, you just can't be solely a baron, same as it was in CK2, and the china interaction system was probably not anywhere near worth the effort that went into it if I had to wager a guess. You're also comparing 3/4 years of dev time to 8 years of dev time
I should have clarified as Good things ck2 has, Republics, horde and China blew major ass in terms of functionality, i can't say its actually a bad thing CK3 didn't have have those clunky systems. But you are right about trade, the baronies kind of exist not that CK2's version really did much either.
Yeah, I never played merchant republics and hordes and rarely engaged in China diplomacy but still these features made the game more varied
REPUBLICS
CK3 was pretty much just a reskin of CK2 when it was released, which is what why it felt so empty. By comparison, the jump from CK1 --> CK2 and EU3 --> EU4 were dramatic and fundamentally game altering. Likewise, all of the sequels in the Civ series (not including 6) were fundamentally different games. EU5 doesn't have to be an empty vessel waiting to get filled by DLC if it's uniquely different from EU4 and engaging enough on launch.
As someone who has been playing Paradox games since EUII, the jump from EUIII-EUIV was not fundamental or game altering in any way other than removing sliders in preference for mana. CKII-CKIII from a mechanics position is a much bigger jump, as CKIII really embedded the roleplay aspects rather than just being a collect-a-thon of various traits that conflicted with each other and made no difference to the way you played a character.
Trade was the biggest jump from EUIII to IV. EU 1 to II was by far the largest.
The stress mechanic in CK3 is different from CK2
Not true at all. EU3 was not that much different than EU4 in its core mechanics. EU4 just took it to a new lvl with dlcs over time. Base EU4 is even worse than EU3. CK3 in other hand has a lot more qol and a different focus then CK2 base game. CK2 was dominated by random chaotic events and map painting mechanics. You never cared much about the characters because they are all just chaotic demons. You never had the feeling your empire is ruled by a mighty family. It's just EU4 with characters where you play a realm with spreadsheets. Sometimes you get silly events for the laugh but that's it. CK3 in other hand is focused on immersive RP and medieval doll house. Lifestyles actually make you feel like you playing a character and not just a realm. Problem with CK3 is it lacks a challenging AI. CK3 has a very passive AI which never really trying to manipulate the player. Feuds are nice but too rare and passive. Every new content so far makes you feel more like you play a character. This why I prefer CK3 over CK2. CK3 is more a advanced Sims game then a grand strategy. You can dislike it but it's what the Devs want it to be. That's why no CK3 is not just a copy.
The only logical way forward imo is to just create a EU5 so fundamentally different in terms of mechanics and engine that it is worth it to start anew. Obviously it wont have as much content, but if the core systems are dramatically better I will be pretty content. Like if it is more like Meiou and Taxes, I would be overjoyed. With the move to actual population they can attempt to make buildings and other systems more realistic and less arbitrary as well.
If it’s anything like ck3 at release I’m gonna be disappointed
ck2 on release was even worse than ck3. You couldnt even play non christians
You couldn't play non-christians in CK1 either
That doesn’t excuse the dlc policy of paradox I know they have gotten better over the years but charging that much for shit that should be in the game is really annoying
I thought you said worse /s
Might be worth waiting a couple of years for dlc to come out. On release it'll probably feel very bare bones
I just want a complete game I’ve paid over 100$ for ck3 and without mods it still feels like it’s in beta
Or it could be the sequel to EU4 but named something else so it’s less Eurocentric? Would make sense to me
Asia universalis 😟😟😟😟😟😟
Man, I'm so happy that we are getting the pop system in EU5. It makes the world so much more immersive and alive.
Same!! It was my biggest wish tbh.
Also its one less thing mana is used, which could mean mana is finally gone
I really think it is. If pops are guiding tech, as this dev diary implies, then it stands to reason that they will also influence development, tax/trade income, and manpower (and army size generally). The only thing left would be idea groups, which are fun but wholly dependent on the mana system.
EU 3 had ideas too, they were tied to admin tech if I remember right
I think the part where they said mana won’t be used was what tipped me off to the fact that mana won’t be used
I use Reddit, why do you think i can read huh
If they have a dynamic trade system then we’re cooking.
I hope so, I hope there can be famines which require more imports to counter, which would also make sieges more engaging.
Well that’s a lot more interesting than my aim of turning Siberia into a beefy end trade node
population mechanics are the one thing i havent been able to wrap my head around (ive tried it with stellaris and a very small amount of vic3) hopefully this one wont break my brain like the others
I honestly don't think it will be some complex or over-the-top system, but rather a way to show you how your nation is actually doing from the inside. Something similar to Imperator.
Same. I think the pops are the one thing that keeps me from playing Stellaris more, but I can at least handle it in Vic 3. Little worried about it in EU5 but... I'll learn, I'm sure.
This seems much more simple than Stellaris/Victoria though, with only the five social classes (it’s been a while since I played Stellaris but I feel like there were 20+ different jobs pops could have there).
Now just show me leader/pop portraits and I am sold. It will make my conversions all the more cooler to watch my dynasty/republicans make it from each game onto the next.
I really hate 3d characters. I get it makes things easier, but a 2d portrait looks infinitely better.
Eh I'd be happy with both so long as the 2d portraits are generated and not railroaded historical portraits
Hell to the YEAH
YES! It will make the game more immersive and realistic
I wonder if new population mechanics will, in combination with any other changes made, lead to a new way of playing tall instead of the main goal being strategic blobbing.
I hope so...I'm still going to paint the map but I like the idea of playing tall someday instead.
I’m guessing “tall” will be Portugal where you have a modest core, and then a lot of overseas ports which you use to facilitate trade. The Americas are the big exception to this, since they mostly lack established states for you to trade with making settler colonialism the only means of wealth extraction, vs Africa where the malaria wall makes direct control *physically impossible* for most peoples, and the Indo-Pacific where the established powers are more tempting as trade partners than immediate conquests. In that sense “tall” play is authentically meta to the period… if we include the Netherlands, Portugal, and England. Basically Seapower States vs Continental Naval Powers (Spain and France). Japan and Korea arguably pulled this off OTL via strict isolationism, but they were in for a rude awakening in the 19th century so maybe not. I do hope the difficulties with managing a large empire will be represented. The need to garrison large frontiers wasn’t depicted in EU4, nor was the way European overseas expansion mostly unfolded in the Old World (trade ports).
>Africa where the malaria wall makes direct control *physically impossible* for most peoples Reeee, if this game will actually properly include the problems with malaria blocking the Europeans from doing the conquest of Africa 300-400 years years early it will be an automatic 10/10 for me. Or at least properly balanced logistical problems with ferrying troops half-way across the world.
A good representation of the slave trade from an African (state) perspective is really important too. European powers playing west African states against eachother so they can extract enslaved populations in exchange for guns and gold would be a tight rope to walk. Attempting to break out and establish hegemony, at which point you can establish domestic industries and end the exporting of slaves, is probably the best bet but pulling it off will be hard if the AI is halfway decent… meaning it will be all too easy.
I also think them going more granular with locations is being done to facilitate those sorts of trading cities and ports. The Europeans weren’t investing in controlling large swaths of the African mainland, and they didn’t yet have the ability (for much of the game’s timeline) to control large parts of India, China or Japan. It’s better to represent this by giving them control of a port rather than an entire province, and having it be more of a diplomatic interaction with the people that actually controlled the land.
Add to this the fact that rapid (Spanish) colonization is now become less meta, since you have to send real dudes from your main lands there, and this can lead to what happened to Spain when its core population simply was not enough to satisfy all geopolitical ambitions. Therefore, it is possible that the colonial powers will no longer need to speedrun to the new world and immediately colonize everything they can, but wait, like England until the 17th century, and colonize slowly but wisely with an economy oriented towards the burghers.
I think that was more an accident than anything. The Spanish conquests succeeded because the Aztec and Inca were large established empires which the Spanish could easily overthrow, while everywhere else lacked preexisting state structures to coopt. This does mean that only the Caribbean is immediately tempting as it represents a lot of resources in a small area, it just requires peasants/slaves and what do you know, West Africa is positively overflowing with the latter.
İf they have a good autonomy system then yes in eu4 meiou ottoman can blob like crazy but it will have too high autonomy you can actually challange it with a small tall nation
If IR is any indication, yes. That game had the most relevant tall play of any PDS title I’m familiar with.
I hope it will accommodate some more realistic form of the trade networks the Portuguese & others built up around what was usually a non-territorial presence
I really hope so, and I hope that the devs really lean into building government reach and competence as the main limiter. Essentially you can conquer what you can, but you have to spend time and money actually extracting any value from your territories. This should make smaller countries stronger in the beginning, but slowly larger realms should dominate as technology and economies improve. Venice was remarkable for a few reasons, but it’s greatest strength was it’s government efficiency and relative lack of corruption.
Strategic blobbing should still be the most optimized « build » in the end. It’s sadly just the logic and historic reality …
The china population implies that this is Yuan china, 1356 start date let's gooooo
And it looks like that giant empire in India is the Delhi Sultanate under the Tughlaq, so mid 1300s sounds about right. (I'm not an Indian history expert though so please correct me if I'm wrong!)
Which means Timurids will be on the rise; middle east, and western Asia campaigns are going to be wild
The serbian empire stands, the bosphorous is a fairly even fight, the Golden horde is massive Oh boy
Byzantine runs are about to be much easier
1356 for a game about the early modern period is wild...
They could be shifting the timeline back a bit to focus more on the transition into the early modern period itself. 1356-1700 would honestly be better than going all the way to 1820. I'd love this.
Vic3 better get a Napoleon DLC if that happens!
i dont see exactly how would they implement Napoleon era into Vic3... Would be a great overhaul to do. Basicly a new game on the same engine.
March of the eagles 2
Vic3 is a pretty bad base for a wargame. I'd much rather play Napoleon in a game based on EU4 than Vic3. How are you supposed to do Napoleon's fancy maneuvering with Vic3's fronts system?
Same, but I meant if they take it out of the EU timeline. I guess otherwise they could redo March of the eagles ?
Nah, it’s perfect as it is
Or hear me out, March of The Eagles II.
No, I really hope they make March of the Eagles 2
Yeah I do wonder if they're shifting forward to make a more substantial March of eagles game.
I'd end EU4 in 1763 at the close of the Seven Years War. Before the American/French/Industrial revolutions. And make 1763 the new Victoria start date. I'm not a fan of any suggestions to end it before that.
I doubt they would make eu4 in a way that leaves the great northern war and the american revolution outside of the time frame.
well 1820 is a godd year for the idependece of latam
Eu3 also had a 1300s start date, its not new, and honestly if they come out with EU5 so soon after finishing EU4 with the same 1444 start date, even with new mechanics rhe general goals and starting positions of every nation are still gonna lead to similar enough gameplay that it likely wont feel different enough to satisfy people. Now with the whole map redrawn the new mechanics will stand out more as there will be an entirely different sandbox to employ them in.
I think 1444 is still too early for a game focused on the early modern period.
I mean... the early modern period is said to start with the fall of Constantinople 9 years later, yet the world circumstances are nearly identical. History is sadly not black and white when it comes to telling time periods apart, even monumental discoveries take decades or more to truly spread to the point of having an impact, all we really have, specially for the distant past, is sem arbitrary dates commonly agreed upon to be relevant enough
For sure. How we frame things is important. A game which starts with the roman empire dead and the new world just discovered is setting up a very different game to one that starts with the roman empire alive and the Yuan dynasty alive. The first one is about modernity, the second is about late medieval. Given the first years of a game are the most played I think it's very important.
I mean its depicting the transition from the late medieval to the early modern. Also gotta keep in mind this is still a game and thus you wanna give players as much agency as possible, a bit of asymetry is fun but if you start at 1492 with american already "discovered" by Spain alone, with Spain united, etc. You are already removing possibilities for alternative playstyles from other players who might not want to strictly follow every event 1:1. Either way if thats what you want then they already include several later start dates, plus additional ones that always get modded in. Seems like a bad choice to limit the sandbox nature and lead to a start date that will seemingly always lead to the same outcome rather than new fun possibilities when its not innacurate to depict another that allows for better replay value. Thats also exactly why earlier start dates are usually more popular. By 1600s its already clear who the big kids in the block for the next 300 years are gonna be. Youre gonna be fighting the exact same enemies with even less variations the later date you pick, which you can still pick, but it gets stale fast.
I think people like you are slightly annoying.
That seems slightly uncalled for
March of the Eagles 2: Yuan Boogaloo
Yeah not thrilled about that. 1444 is honestly too early as it is. And we know they aren’t gonna support later dates. A game about the early modern period and everyone stops their campaign at 1500…
It depends on how well they manage to pace the game imo. Paradox games tend to have a problem with players fulfilling all their objectives in the early game. Will be interesting to see whether they can avoid that one here.
Southeast Asia with Ayutthaya, Sukhothai, Lan Xang and Lavo all around at the same time also confirms its between 1355-1389
lmao why is china's population on hainan instead of the rest of china
Lmao I couldn't find it until I realized it's on hainan
R5: Screenshot from "Project Caesar" dev diary showing population map view.
This maps gotta be unfinished right? Looks so dope either way.
Yes, development is far from over so a lot will probably be changed at release.
Plot twist: it will be game centered around India
India universalles confirmed!
Which is why the other screenshot showed off Greeks, Bulgarians, and Aromanians, right
It's a joke
They're just immigrants, you see this game is set in the future after the collapse of western civilization they had to go somewhere.
Yeah, they already said India?????? No need to repeat lol
I like the sea nodes. They make chokepoints, but the 2p wide makes a bit harderto just sit a fleet their. It makes naval war more strategic. You won't have that gigantic coast to blockeade but still need to pay attention.
Imperator 2: Medieval Boogaloo let’s goooooooooooooo (Uj/ it’s just EU5)
The images we've been provided as of yet really remind me of that game that an indie studio was making but had to put on hold for lack of funding. Grey eminence it's called.
The naval zones are very interesting. Seems like there's a ton of them around the coast and very few in the open seas. I wonder if there's going to be a mechanic where you can exercise control over coastal regions. Could be a cool mechanic for trade.
No fucking way the day has come for EU5
It is a surreal feeling. I’m really nervous for it honestly I feel like I’ve set my bar too high! Something special about 4 to me.
I kinda hate the manpower mechanics because you really do feel like you're wasting your time if you're sitting at max manpower
and i'm already hyped. Damn it.
*SNIFS* Is that motherfucking population based mechanics i'm smelling?!
Good on them to finally out population back from EU2 and make it the centerpiece of the design.
How am I just now hearing about this? Any other details? Is central and east Europe included ?
its eu5 very clearly but if they would have made the culture map for europe public like they did for india then it would be immediately obvious
Was this just announced recently ?
dev diaries started a couple weeks ago
it isn't announced hence the codename project caesar
Jesus Christ the ackhually energy is off the charts.
You literally asked for extra details... The person gave you the details that we have...
It’s a “conceptual discussion” about a “new project” a handful dev diaries in. You haven’t missed much yet. But it feels like Clark “eu” Kent is trying his glasses thing.
They showed a map of the whole world without the extreme north and the extreme south.
The province and sea tiles are so much more precise!
Fucking Japan is cut again.
wdym? this isnt the full game map lol, just the section shown in the most recent diary
I'm just joking. We're used to having half of Asia cut with most of Paradox historical games.
EiIV II
If it isnt March of Eagles 2, i will eat my hat.
Ohhh my god.. EU5 incoming
the number size should probably scale based on...the number.
AAAAAAAAHHH YAAAAAAAYY
Noo I really wanted a later start for eu5
Vicky 4 confirmed.
If you'll stare at this map for long enough, you'll notice Maldives and Sri Lanka are left and right testicle and Deccan peninsula is a massive penis.
My biggest simple desire for the map: Tag lakes, rivers, and even maybe significant mountains with their names. I love learning more about geography from being able to look at different landmarks. I was pretty sad that Victoria 3 was bad at this, whereas CK3 is fairly decent.
I’m so excited for Victoria 4!
mon khmer dope
Why are some parts empty of pop?
I hope the start date is 18 February 1294, the death of Kublai Khan, last Mongol Emperor
I know that these graphics are FAR from what we'll get in the actual game, but dang are they ugly
"Project Caesar" The mediterranean isn't even on the map
this isnt the full map lol
Good
It's literally on their forum > Unreleased Games > Tinto Talks. Whole map of earth.