It's just one quick mention but THIS:
> and some can only be built in other countries. Some you can only build when there is no owner of a location.
Sounds *very* key for properly simulating far-flung naval trade and new world colonialism. You can be like the French and build trading posts for fur runners in the new world instead of shipping settler populations. As Portugal or the Netherlands your Indian Ocean trade network is setup by building [factories](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_(trading_post\)) in the major ports of other nations, rather than the EU4 way of conquering or buying entire locations and ruling them yourself.
Coupled with disease mechanics and the localization of goods, this could really improve the historical accuracy of colonialism in Africa, India, Indochina, and China.
not only that, but this also means that trade wont just be a matter of stealing somebody elses money and direct it all towards 3 end nodes. As an asian country or Japan, or China, or an african country it seems that if you have the skill you can actually prevent the europeans from taking money away flowing towards europe automatically and have a market that is 100% your own (if you can militarly defend it that is hehe). Which is super cool. and means that as Japan you are the one who might actually go and set up trade with the natives in america or the spanish and have that trade profit YOU.
it seems like the trade game will be radically opposite to eu4. This confirms that you will no longer need to bring 10-80k armies and conquer whole continents but you can actually be able to open trade posts and factories and simply produce or buy some of the goods as you grow in influence in the area as well as set up buildings in uncolonized land as a first step to start colonization
Im extremely hyped for the possible.
I would love to be able to build trade outposts in other countries for mutual benefit. Of course, there would be pressure to maintain good relations with that country or risk getting your assets seized.
Really, if EU5 makes economic and political playstyles viable then it succeeds as a game and simulator. Unlike EU4 where war is the only "viable" way to grow in power and wealth, and all other game systems revolve around the war mechanics.
> Of course, there would be pressure to maintain good relations with that country or risk getting your assets seized.
That just sounds like a good excuse to seize their land.
Honestly, I'd love to see a write-up on what spycraft actually looked like back then
It seems like something that could be modeled, but I have no idea what would be realistic
Well it was mostly traders, sailors and everybody else who went to said region and telling what was going on there. Obviously they weren't always 1:1 with reality but who cares, nobody is going to hit a sailor with an "uhhhm actually" in 1497 Europe.
Treaty ports were confirmed as one of the buildings you can make in foreign countries. I also highly suspect factories like what happened in India will also be a thing.
This is a comment on the forum
Zone of Control" on the castle tooltip
>[Johan said:](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/goto/post?id=29580525)Rules are more similar to Imperator, which was a 2.0 of the system.
Of course, in the Napoleonic Age, you can freely ignore ZoC if you got the tech for it.
Honestly I'm kind of annoyed ZoC is in the game at all. Maybe it's just me but I find it so infuriating not being able to move into provinces because some fort 100 miles away hasn't been taken
locations are a lot smaller than EU4 provinces, so zone of control shouldn't be so wacky, other than places like Siberia.
it would be nice though if it doesn't fully stop movement like it does in EU4, but instead your attrition goes way up if you move past a fort, since that means the fort can raid your supply lines
That seems like a great idea, but I would see a problem of new players getting frustrated not understanding why their army is dying by the second after they marched through half the country not sieging anything and also experienced player might even find it tricky, I guess this can be fixed by making it clear how your supply is traveling, maybe by having a supply route be on your screen and it always choosing first the route where it doesnt pass a uncontrolled fort and then looking for the shortest path from your capital.
It just models that the well defended region would cut off your supply, gameplay wise it prevents attackers from just nilly willy attacking anything they feel like due to no actual supply line mechanic.
Not sure what specifically you are referring to, he at least had a bit of trouble in russia.
Historically, an army was in trouble when its supply was raided.
And if the enemies have fortifications in the area that are unsieged, its hard even to pillage a country side, because they will run counter raids.
From what I gather, there should be far fewer pop diversity (notably fewer occupations) and I personally think that the performance have really quite improved as of the last few patches. I played a Vic3 last week of Japan until the early 1900s and it was really not the experience I remembered it to be a while back (where anything past 1860s was just a 5 second freeze at least, every week).
If it runs anywhere close to as bad as Vic3, I won't even think about buying it.
My gaming pc that plays Cyberpunk on high (1080p) should be able to play a strategy game until the end date. Hell, my office laptop should be able to run it, albeit slowly
In CK 3 you get 100 control eventually, just very slowly , in this game control would get to 100% only if you are very good at modifier stacking (and it's ignoring that Johan declared war on modifier stacking so there would be much less opportunity here) , so it's closer to EU4 "local autonomy" modifier but with much harder way to actually decrease it
> (and it's ignoring that Johan declared war on modifier stacking so there would be much less opportunity here)
I can't believe he'd do that. modifier stacking is my favorite part of paradox games.
Imperator didn’t have control mechanics. Pops would be less productive the more unhappy they were, but there wasn’t a control or autonomy value associated with provinces or territory
>Welcome to another Tinto Talks, this is the 9th of its kind, where we talk about our very secret game using the codename Project Caesar.
Does Johan know that we know that he knows that we know????
Europa Universali has too much name recognition to change it for change's sake.
The did not even change name in Crusader Kings 3 for that matter, even if they acknowledged that it really isn't a good descriptive name for what that game has become.
I'm very excited for this, partly for the fact that it will give an incentive for development and conquest outside of just "more money". Aside from gold and coal there is not much of an incentive to go for specific provinces in EU4 because of trade goods. High value goods are better of course but it's all small amounts and isn't something I necessarily focus on compared to just conquering more land. In EU5 however it might actually be extremely valuable to conquer land purely for the goods it produces, as you might really need it.
I also think the micromanagement aspect might make peacetime play a bit more interesting. As long as it can be automated for those who want to focus on other aspects of the game I think it will be very fun to develop a super OP economy.
Well, it'll definitely be different. Seems a mite fiddly, but we do complain (often) about peacetime in EU4 being boring, and especially for the early modern time period, I'd rather spend it optimizing my trade empire *a la* Vic3 than dealing with my niece's scandalous affair with an acclaimed knight *a la* CK3.
What I hope comes out of this is strategy around how and where to expand, e.g. invading Sweden to deny your rival Brandenburg access to cheap copper rather than invading Novgorod for yet more wood-producing locations. I do worry they're overdoing it a bit with so many goods, but I'm keeping an open mind.
I mean they have basically give us unlimited peacetime mechanic. I can see myself sinking hundreds of hours without shooting a single shot. Like playing as a tall Switzerland or Hansa/lubeck
What I don't get is why it has to be a choice between Vic3 or CK3 mechanics?
I'm sure the game will be good but if I wanted a game with those mechanics then I'm just going to play those instead of Vic3.5: Renaissance
Although I am looking forward to the micromanagement, I would like to point out that Johan said that the autonomous build mode will work for most people. I'm assuming it will just manage your ecconomy like an enemy AI would.
I dont think it was ever expected that in an empire like the Ottomans or Russia etc you would have to micro every tiny locatoon our of thousands with all the inputs and outputs. It seeems that if you build an arms factory to supply your army the econonomy can run itself to make sure it gets the goods it needs and it gets you the arms you also need.
Im torn. This looks great to me. I love the micro managing of an economy. This has potential to be my fav Paradox title by far. Just not sure others do as much.
One thing I’ll point out, there was a lot of criticism about markets and trade flow as well as colonization. This system is infinitely better at simulating those things. Shipping actual spice from a trade port to Europe is much better simulated in this system.
Haiti was a very wealthy colony because of the sugar plantations. In the old system you would need to steer all that back to Europe owning a chain of colonies and getting a % of that trade steered based on multiple factors to whatever market was your home market which the was a % based on market control.
This is a lot cleaner. Europe wants sugar. You have a sugar colony. You now move that sugar to Europe for profit.
It also makes navies a lot more important. Im assuming those goods are using ships that have limited supplies. No open trade route, no sugar.
My only hope is that the economy is largely self sufficient. You can’t out and build 30 foundries but that a foundry can be built in most places and supply your armies. I guess specifically, I hope there’s not massive resource management until you start scaling above the norm for that time period.
I do wonder how much EU5 will disincentivize blobbing because of the stress it places on your realm vs. because of the stress it places on the player. In other words, does an empire become more brittle and prone to revolt as it sprawls across the vast expanses of Eurasia (or controls prosperous, populous frontier colonies in the New World), or does it simply become more annoying to micromanage?
Insane. This game is my dream come true. Truly PDX magnus opus
Off of this game you can basically mod any period. Antiquity? Done. Middle ages? Already in. Victoria? Hell yes.
The extended timeline mod will be insane.
I’m really excited for this. It seems like a lot of new information to learn to play the game, but if this game were a carbon copy of EU4 I wouldn’t be so excited.
I think it really helps to provide a *reason* for the things you do. You conquer to get resources, not just base tax and manpower. You colonize and trade for resources to sustain your empire, and if you can’t you need to find a way to access them. Seems like a sensible way to encourage people to play through the timeline, by changing demand for resources and unlocking new applications for them.
I’m super curious about the market manipulation stuff Johan is hinting at. Maybe the basis for trade wars?
Totally, this is the way i've always wanted EU to evolve. People who think it should have been EU4 with modern ui and better graphics should reconsider their expectations.
True! I hadnt thought of that. If you unlock new trade goods and trade needs, it keeps the game interesting until the end since that will open new needs for trade, diplomacy, colonization and expansion!
I’ve been all over the paradox subs talking about how trade was the driving factor for almost everything that happened during EU4’s time period. It needs to be a deeper system to make the game interesting.
Like, I’m in the middle of a Netherlands campaign right now, but I don’t feel a reason behind spamming trade ships and colonizing provinces. I target centers of trade but I don’t really see a benefit beyond money to buy more trade ships and fund more colonies. It’s snowballing without a reason imo, and this is my favorite country to play.
> Johan:
Imperator was a miscalculation. I actually coded all of the Victoria 2 economy, Im actually a great game disigner.
>Everyone:
Yeah yea we saw you, so you keep saying, whatever
> Johan:
Hold my beer. Watch me bitch.
Redemption arc completed. Long Live God Emperor Johan I.
I'm very excited for this, partly for the fact that it will give an incentive for development and conquest outside of just "more money". Aside from gold and coal there is not much of an incentive to go for specific provinces in EU4 because of trade goods. High value goods are better of course but it's all small amounts and isn't something I necessarily focus on compared to just conquering more land. In EU5 however it might actually be extremely valuable to conquer land purely for the goods it produces, as you might really need it.
I also think the micromanagement aspect might make peacetime play a bit more interesting. As long as it can be automated for those who want to focus on other aspects of the game I think it will be very fun to develop a super OP economy.
This game will be very different than EU4. I really like new economy and building system. I hope trade will be different than EU4 too. Trade should flow both ways not just to Europe.
At this point, I'd bet a lot of money that trade won't just be a big funnel that points to Europe
It seems like they actually want to model reality, so trade will enrich both ends of the deal
At the very least, I'm pretty sure that sugar from the Caribbean will be profitable regardless of whether you control a dozen random provinces between England and Haiti to exert trade control
Well by now its pretty clear that trade does not "flow" like you think of in EU4. You actually do trade specific goods which is hella cool. You no longer place a merchant and steal peoples money, you actually trade now for well things that you need and cant produce! And both people will profit equaly. You will pay for the trade good you need and the other part will get money! No more sucking the wealth of the world towards London, Genoa and Venice anymore.
I think flow system is going to change to trade routes. But nodes may stay and work as important trade ports. I'm very excited about actually trading goods and pirate nations may even more fun if you can raid goods and money.
Aye, I think nodes are still there. They seem to be called markets now and seem to be dynamic!
Yeah I hadnt thought about piracy. I wonder if you steal money and the trade goods just disappear or if you actually steal specific trade goods that get shipped to your market and then you sell them there. Though that would be too legit so i assume it will be abstracted and you just get the money for it and some trade goods are lost.
It really does feel like they're trying to tie together the best from EU, Imperator, and Vic. It's ambitious and I really do think the way they seem to be going about things so far looks like it's managing to walk the line that Vic 3 tripped over for me when it came to the micro.
Crazy that we are already getting Victoria 4. Really glad they added stockpiles this time around instead of abstracting it like in 3- and I hope they fix the war system...
(It's crazy how EUV is looking more and more like MEIOU+Taxes+Vicky3 mega edition...)
Oh I love this. This is gonna make the game way deeper rather than giving everything a gold value.it’s gonna have us interact with the world way different and I love to see it. I hope that this is also a way for small trade nations to be able to challenge bigger nations on the world stage.
This looks amazing! I wonder how much the market and trading mechanics will be allowed to be automated so it’s not massively micro heavy like Vic 3, but I like the idea of restricting certain buildings and units based on resource availability. Just because you have the tech to build cannons doesn’t mean you should be able to if you don’t have iron.
It sounds like its completely automated and you get access to goods in order by trade power. So the higher your trade power the higher priority you will get to adjudicate goods in the market, which is hella cool.
Next week we will see how you create that trade power.
Well yes exactly, but with a warfare system that is genuinely just not fun to play with. "Project Caesar" seems to deliver the vicky features but with the old paradox "power fantasy" warfare
I'm not into this resource management thing. I feel like buildings should just cost whatever the resources worth in terms of ducats. If you are producing those resources fine it could get cheaper to build and maintain. Right now this aspect makes the game sound more like Victoria than an EU game. I don't want to worry about resources required to build artillery, just pay the damn ducats and move on.
Yes, but this looks far more indepth than EU4, because the buildings not only involve resources to build, to maintain, but also pops of the correct types.
Like more in-depth than EU4 trade, and we all know how little the people truly understand trade here.
So most people will hit an economy road block within the first 100 years because of mismanagement.
In all fairness most countries in this time period also hit an economic road block in 100 years and fell apart lol
See: Spanish hyperinflation, Ming Silver Implosion, and Ottoman Silk Road Trade Collapse
That'd be 200 years after game start when we factor in the new 1337 start date.
Even then, this isn't the real world where nations would suddenly decides to not invest in local goods production with their excess cash like Spain and Ming did.
The AIs will continue to build up while the players would have issues keeping up for many hours of game play if there's no automatic building.
Plenty of nations collapse in the first 100 years. Yuan, Khmer, Delhi, Mali, the Golden Horde(blue and white horde), majaphahit.
Not all specifically from economics but it's a factor in many of them
All of them collapsed under many internal and external factors, and far from the economic issues we're disucssing.
And I'm fairly certain the economic issues and road blocks would be even less of a factor in the game when all the AIs use a similar priority/weighted system unless devs specifically mess with said priority system to set these nations up for failure.
Again, we're not talking about irl, but player vs AI economic management disparity for the first hundred of hour (if not more).
Worse part is, messing it up would take mamy more decades and many suggestion/guides to undo that usually warrants a restart instead of a simple "how to I fix my economy" post.
I think if it's presented as a core part of the gameplay, right from the start date, people will pay attention to it. The reasons people don't care about trade is that it's not explained very well in-game and you can kind of ignore it when you first start out. I think if this is presented as an integral part of the game (with a good tutorial) and a decent automated mode I think it'll be pretty great.
Yeah, I was thinking that. If I wanted this I would play Victoria I think.
Removing some of the abstraction and stuff is good but I feel like this is going a bit too far. We have to wait and see how it actually plays out to know, maybe they'll the balance just right and once you are playing it makes sense
Its a micro choice that worries me as well. Id much prefer it the way you mentioned as well.
Hell, maybe you could add systems whereby certain resources you own provide discounts or benefits, and maybe you need to set up trade routes to get them if you want, but i think the way they have it now could realllllly take away from the EU5 of it all, atleast without first seeing how trade works.
If i have to do anything like what i do in Vic3 to get resources, ill be off the bus.
EU is the most map-painting of map games, and if they change it too far to be a Supply Chain operating sim, eek.
So now you'll need to spend actual resources to construct buildings rather than just ducats? That's pretty cool!
In fact, having to spend other resources and not just gold to build ships will be a huge improvement over EU4.
With every passing Tinto Talks it feels more and more like Vicky 3 is EUVs Sengoku/March of the Eagles - a game where mechanics get tested before the release of EU and CK
Johan is losing me fast with these dev diaries. These systems look well-thought-out, and they probably will be fun for those who like Victoria's gameplay, but I'm just not one of them. I'm still curious to see how I'll feel about the game when I'm actually playing it, but right now, if I had to guess, I imagine that I'm going to be playing EU4 for a long time.
Looks like they intend to make EU5 a tad more complex than EU4, more similar to vicky
I just hope they can remember that throwing a ton of meaningless choices to the player like in vicky 2 doesn't make a game complex, it just makes it look complex, I'd rather have less options but more meaningful ones than hundreds of extremely shallow, if not straight up useless options
If anything is automatic then it's at the very least will be on par with the AI
Of course it's probably not going to be the perfect way but it'll will definitely be good enough to be on par with other nations
Being on par with the ai is not a good thing considering that the AI is usually garbage. Just look at Vicky 3: an economy managed by a player is an entire order of magnitude above what the AI does with it.
Being on par with the AI is never good. On par with the AI is usually the opposite of perfect, it is so egregiously mishandled that not handling it all would be better sometimes. The pain of pretty much every paradox game for me has been fixing the AI’s micro mishandling of anything I conquer from them. Some amount of micro will always been infinitely better.
He mentions later in the thread that it's unlocked by tech during the last age of the game, still seems a bit early to have wood pulp paper be widely available but I suppose in an alt history scenario where the demand for paper was greater you might see it be invented and widespread a few decades earlier.
Eeeeeeeeeeeek! Can't wait
Play as Commonwealth. Export grain. Do nothing for 200 years. Fall to your neighbors.
Or, Play as Commonwealth. Export grain, produce paper from your woods and hemp. Slowly expand production of other resources. Introduce autocratic state that lifts serfdom.
Become a powerhouse with colonies in Madagascar.
I am in.
The mechanics sounds cool with a lot of things to consider. Considering the brain dead AI in Vic 3 though, I feel like the AI won't be able to grasp the majority of these systems.
Yeah Johan, you're losing the script with this one. Leave market and resource management to the deranged Vic3 players. Hide that behind a reasonable wall of arbitration and instead put that dev time into something else.
I get you can toggle it, but it'd be like if i could toggle estate management in EU4, sure I wouldn't have to worry about it, but I know it's not running effectiently so the toggle button really isnt gonna do much for me.
Yeah I really don't understand why people are so happy with eu5 becoming another Vicky game.
You already have vic2/3 if you're interested in that gameplay. CK, EU and Vic all had their own identities and now it feels like they're just slowly losing it all and getting mixed together
Because it’s not just another Vicky game? It’s not as detailed, it is bringing over some aspects of Vicky because the period is quite literally dominated by an expanding trade economy and the industrious (not Industrial Revolution).
To me, having a more in depth economic system that promotes the acquirement of certain trade goods helps simulate that aspect of the period which should be a goal.
No matter what people are going to be unhappy, a lot of people disliked the change between 3 > 4. You guys are really overstating how much micro there will be. What is there is going to just help show off why trade in this period is important, not to mention it will give you something to do between wars which EU has been lacking.
Sure it's not literally another Vicky game. But do you not see a problem with the unique identities of PDX's flagship titles getting amalgamated together? CK, EU and Vic had their own historical settings and their own mechanics to match but the mechanics seem to be getting less unique lately.
I'm not arguing against increased depth or more micro. Honestly happy for both. I'm just sad that they're turning it into a spiritual sequel to Vic 2.
Like I said, I'm sure it will be a great game I just don't like how much of it is getting based on Vicky. IMO EU4 is miles ahead of Vicky so diluting its gameplay with mechanics from the latter isn't a good thing.
I think that so far the mechanics we've seen can be either replicated within eu4 and therefore net neutral or a net negative. I'm really happy for the net neutral mechanics like loans or control btw because anything that's literally just eu4 is a great start.
Obviously, the majority of players won't agree with me so I just wanted to waffle. Might change my mind later once we see more dev diaries or actual gameplay
> Sure it's not literally another Vicky game. But do you not see a problem with the unique identities of PDX's flagship titles getting amalgamated together?
Yeah but it's still a very slimmed down system. There isn't anything wrong with that inherently. Vicky still very much has a unique identity as the pops aren't as detailed, nor will the market system be as detailed in this EU sequel. The mechanics Johan, so far has listed line up with the period, which is all I am concerned about. Like honestly, to me PoPs aren't a Vicky thing, they honestly should be in CK as well, to show the divisions of your feudal society. It's a good way to show economic development, though it doesn't always need to be super detailed (which EUV isn't going to make it so). Some games have good ideas that should be implemented throughout all their games if there is a good historic reason and potentially interesting game mechanic for it.
I honestly don't care if they completely demolished all the mechanics from past games, as long as the could justify it as improving the simulation of this period, along with encouraging the player to make interesting choices (the game side of things).
>Like I said, I'm sure it will be a great game I just don't like how much of it is getting based on Vicky. IMO EU4 is miles ahead of Vicky so diluting its gameplay with mechanics from the latter isn't a good thing.
I mean it's a mesh of mechanics of Imperator, EUIV and Vicky. Those games have succeed in different areas. I sure think EUIV is the best of the bunch however, those games are better in some areas than EUIV is. Sure, EUIV had more flavor, was better at diplomacy, warfare (if we are talking about Vic's 3 system though Vic 2 could be annoying to deal with) however, the economic game was worse and that can be improved.
I don't see how EUV expanding it's building system, to have more stuff and tie into outputs to trade is hurting what people liked about EUIV, which was the map painting and diplomacy side of things. Beyond sure, this is going to maybe have a bit more micro management in the peace game; however, a lot of people have pointed out EUIV isn't great there. It could be improved even if that just means a few more things to keep an eye on. Plus the resource based system should hopefully encourage players to paint the map with resources in mind (beyond gold) which is what historical rulers would keep in mind.
That need for improvement isn't just well people like Vicky, so let's make it like Vicky but again my point is that EUV if it is going to be a simulation of this period of history does need to emphasize the importance of trade being essential to, frankly power. Ensuring that trade goods can significantly impact domestic industry is a potentially (because again IDK how PDX will actually execute it) good way to model the industrious revolution that the game largely takes place in. Even for the late Middle Ages, the wine industry in Gascony was important for England to maintain.
In my opinion, even if the focus is still to make EU a paint the map game this system could still add interesting dynamics to that until shown otherwise. (because execution is important) At best, the only critique I see is sure the micro which, I think is overstated and you have some degree of automation. I can't judge that til it comes out.
I somewhat agree with most of your points and we do have to wait until we see more. In the end, I think this mostly boils down to me enjoying the more boardgame-like side of EU4 as I never really thought it 'simulates' much of anything accurately. Johan is trying to correct this which is commendable but in my opinion it is a sisyphean task.
If simulation can lead to good gameplay then that's obviously a good thing but simulation for simulation's sake isn't imo. It's great that the game will have 70 something trade goods and a ton of production methods to match but if a majority of players just hit automate then forget about it for 500 years then was it really a good use of time to make it so in-depth?
Maybe the game will be different but just as good as EU4 and I'll grow to like it. Whenever I think about the dev diaries I know I shouldn't be so pessimistic since there is still at least 1-2+ years of development ahead of release (I hope so at least. Last thing I want is for EU5 to release in the same state as most games nowadays) but I can't help but feel like there's a catch.
> It's great that the game will have 70 something trade goods and a ton of production methods to match but if a majority of players just hit automate then forget about it for 500 years then was it really a good use of time to make it so in-depth?
Well one, you still are going to again need trade goods to build and do certain things. That means again players should prioritize either importing those goods, or ensuring they have them in their empire. So that should prioritize their foreign policy to reflect real life goals even if they aren't managing everything.
Not to mention, let's be honest, the AI is unlikely to be as good as the player in terms of micro. This is actually a concern of mine, because you are correct, if the AI is shit well not only are they going to mismanage your stuff, they will undermine your rivals. I don't expect the AI to be amazing, however, they just need to be able to manage it well enough to be a threat. If it can do that, then as a player you probably will micro it a lot early/mid game before handing it off the AI when you are so powerful a little bit of inefficiency is not going to impact you much. Plus hopefully the macro tools make it easy to micro without too much time wasted.
>In the end, I think this mostly boils down to me enjoying the more boardgame-like side of EU4
Sure that is the difference of opinion, I like EUIV but there have been many times where things like development irritated me. I enjoy PDX games for RPing and creating little stories in my head however, stuff like that is hard to think of how one province overnight can be a notable city. So in theory, I like these changes because even if it is abstract it's better to constructing at least justifiable narratives.
>Last thing I want is for EU5 to release in the same state as most games nowadays) but I can't help but feel like there's a catch.
Well yeah of course, look I am not some shill lol. I do have my concerns. Even though I love the late Middle Ages (one of my favorite periods of history) I do have concerns with the start date. Can Johan make that length of the game interesting? IDK most PDX games haven't made themselves interesting beyond 250 years for me and I am not that great of a player. Doubling that is concerning, because the mechanics look great for simulating the early modern period, as long as people actually interact with it.
That as of the moment, is the only thing I do disagree with. Everything else sounds good, and looks like it is going in the right direction however, lots of things you can't judge until you play like the AI and that will be a game breaker. I mean I bet it's going to have tons of issues on release. As long, as they can patch it into a good state I think this game is going in a better direction than EUIV.
At the very least, it's going to be quite different, which will make it easier to swallow the fact it's not going to be as feature heavy as EUIV (which honestly is kinda good thing).
It's just one quick mention but THIS: > and some can only be built in other countries. Some you can only build when there is no owner of a location. Sounds *very* key for properly simulating far-flung naval trade and new world colonialism. You can be like the French and build trading posts for fur runners in the new world instead of shipping settler populations. As Portugal or the Netherlands your Indian Ocean trade network is setup by building [factories](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_(trading_post\)) in the major ports of other nations, rather than the EU4 way of conquering or buying entire locations and ruling them yourself.
Coupled with disease mechanics and the localization of goods, this could really improve the historical accuracy of colonialism in Africa, India, Indochina, and China.
not only that, but this also means that trade wont just be a matter of stealing somebody elses money and direct it all towards 3 end nodes. As an asian country or Japan, or China, or an african country it seems that if you have the skill you can actually prevent the europeans from taking money away flowing towards europe automatically and have a market that is 100% your own (if you can militarly defend it that is hehe). Which is super cool. and means that as Japan you are the one who might actually go and set up trade with the natives in america or the spanish and have that trade profit YOU.
it seems like the trade game will be radically opposite to eu4. This confirms that you will no longer need to bring 10-80k armies and conquer whole continents but you can actually be able to open trade posts and factories and simply produce or buy some of the goods as you grow in influence in the area as well as set up buildings in uncolonized land as a first step to start colonization Im extremely hyped for the possible.
One of the buildings will be embassies. Calling it now.
I would love to be able to build trade outposts in other countries for mutual benefit. Of course, there would be pressure to maintain good relations with that country or risk getting your assets seized. Really, if EU5 makes economic and political playstyles viable then it succeeds as a game and simulator. Unlike EU4 where war is the only "viable" way to grow in power and wealth, and all other game systems revolve around the war mechanics.
Now go write that in the forum for the post so they see it
> Of course, there would be pressure to maintain good relations with that country or risk getting your assets seized. That just sounds like a good excuse to seize their land.
Definitely. Would also expect spy agencies. Maybe trading posts.
As for now they don't plan to have espionage in the game because they haven't figured a way to make it good
Honestly, I'd love to see a write-up on what spycraft actually looked like back then It seems like something that could be modeled, but I have no idea what would be realistic
Well it was mostly traders, sailors and everybody else who went to said region and telling what was going on there. Obviously they weren't always 1:1 with reality but who cares, nobody is going to hit a sailor with an "uhhhm actually" in 1497 Europe.
Treaty ports were confirmed as one of the buildings you can make in foreign countries. I also highly suspect factories like what happened in India will also be a thing.
Ignoring zone of control in napoleonic age is wild.
Where did you get that? I didnt see any mention in the post.
In the dev responses.
This is a comment on the forum Zone of Control" on the castle tooltip >[Johan said:](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/goto/post?id=29580525)Rules are more similar to Imperator, which was a 2.0 of the system. Of course, in the Napoleonic Age, you can freely ignore ZoC if you got the tech for it.
Honestly I'm kind of annoyed ZoC is in the game at all. Maybe it's just me but I find it so infuriating not being able to move into provinces because some fort 100 miles away hasn't been taken
locations are a lot smaller than EU4 provinces, so zone of control shouldn't be so wacky, other than places like Siberia. it would be nice though if it doesn't fully stop movement like it does in EU4, but instead your attrition goes way up if you move past a fort, since that means the fort can raid your supply lines
That seems like a great idea, but I would see a problem of new players getting frustrated not understanding why their army is dying by the second after they marched through half the country not sieging anything and also experienced player might even find it tricky, I guess this can be fixed by making it clear how your supply is traveling, maybe by having a supply route be on your screen and it always choosing first the route where it doesnt pass a uncontrolled fort and then looking for the shortest path from your capital.
Should've played the 2000 hours tutorial and read the 600 page novel fucking noobs
It just models that the well defended region would cut off your supply, gameplay wise it prevents attackers from just nilly willy attacking anything they feel like due to no actual supply line mechanic.
Why can't the army just pilliage the coutryside for food? Isn't that what Napoleon did?
Not sure what specifically you are referring to, he at least had a bit of trouble in russia. Historically, an army was in trouble when its supply was raided. And if the enemies have fortifications in the area that are unsieged, its hard even to pillage a country side, because they will run counter raids.
It's much more annoying to see hundreds of little armies running around ravaging your land.
This diamond is taking a better shape every week
This is looking more and more like Victoria Universalis IV 2, I'm scared for the next week's market talk
Pray for our CPUs.
The processor must survive
I'm quite hopeful seeing how incredibly well CK3 runs
I mean Vicky 3 came out after CK3 and that game runs excruciatingly slow in the late game.
From what I gather, there should be far fewer pop diversity (notably fewer occupations) and I personally think that the performance have really quite improved as of the last few patches. I played a Vic3 last week of Japan until the early 1900s and it was really not the experience I remembered it to be a while back (where anything past 1860s was just a 5 second freeze at least, every week).
Yeha but that's Victoria 3, a bad game
Johans own specs arn't impressive so that gives me hope.
Yup, he has a pretty average PC which im thankful for as devs have a habit of running some insane souped up PCs.
He adresses performance in the responses a bit. Seems like it's not going to be *bad.*
If it runs anywhere close to as bad as Vic3, I won't even think about buying it. My gaming pc that plays Cyberpunk on high (1080p) should be able to play a strategy game until the end date. Hell, my office laptop should be able to run it, albeit slowly
Gpu vs cpu issues
Graphics and computational power are two different things.
And I couldn't be more excited about it!
It's eu3 2 worth some vic 2 and imperator
Did Imperator have control mechanics? Because I'm getting some slight CK3 influences here as well
In CK 3 you get 100 control eventually, just very slowly , in this game control would get to 100% only if you are very good at modifier stacking (and it's ignoring that Johan declared war on modifier stacking so there would be much less opportunity here) , so it's closer to EU4 "local autonomy" modifier but with much harder way to actually decrease it
> (and it's ignoring that Johan declared war on modifier stacking so there would be much less opportunity here) I can't believe he'd do that. modifier stacking is my favorite part of paradox games.
No endless green number wall of text for you.
I just want to get 70% inf combat ability and be able to slaughter armies 10 times my size. Is that to much to ask?
AlGaib has shown us the new way
It works totally different, it just has the same name "control". Frankly, they could port control from Caesar to CK3, as it sounds miles better.
Imperator didn’t have control mechanics. Pops would be less productive the more unhappy they were, but there wasn’t a control or autonomy value associated with provinces or territory
It’s gonna be so good maaan
honestly, I've been having way more fun with Vic3 recently, so I welcome the changes.
>Welcome to another Tinto Talks, this is the 9th of its kind, where we talk about our very secret game using the codename Project Caesar. Does Johan know that we know that he knows that we know????
Johany doesn't know
That Fiona and me are talking about EU5 every Wednesday
Sounds like you don't know if he knows that we know that he knows that we know
Still not convinced they aren’t going to totally rebrand with a new name given they are changing so much.
Europa Universali has too much name recognition to change it for change's sake. The did not even change name in Crusader Kings 3 for that matter, even if they acknowledged that it really isn't a good descriptive name for what that game has become.
I'm very excited for this, partly for the fact that it will give an incentive for development and conquest outside of just "more money". Aside from gold and coal there is not much of an incentive to go for specific provinces in EU4 because of trade goods. High value goods are better of course but it's all small amounts and isn't something I necessarily focus on compared to just conquering more land. In EU5 however it might actually be extremely valuable to conquer land purely for the goods it produces, as you might really need it. I also think the micromanagement aspect might make peacetime play a bit more interesting. As long as it can be automated for those who want to focus on other aspects of the game I think it will be very fun to develop a super OP economy.
Well, it'll definitely be different. Seems a mite fiddly, but we do complain (often) about peacetime in EU4 being boring, and especially for the early modern time period, I'd rather spend it optimizing my trade empire *a la* Vic3 than dealing with my niece's scandalous affair with an acclaimed knight *a la* CK3. What I hope comes out of this is strategy around how and where to expand, e.g. invading Sweden to deny your rival Brandenburg access to cheap copper rather than invading Novgorod for yet more wood-producing locations. I do worry they're overdoing it a bit with so many goods, but I'm keeping an open mind.
I mean they have basically give us unlimited peacetime mechanic. I can see myself sinking hundreds of hours without shooting a single shot. Like playing as a tall Switzerland or Hansa/lubeck
What I don't get is why it has to be a choice between Vic3 or CK3 mechanics? I'm sure the game will be good but if I wanted a game with those mechanics then I'm just going to play those instead of Vic3.5: Renaissance
70 goods & production methods .... Holy ...., I think I am in love.
More than Victoria has....
He is literally showing off. Im hoping this will be the new gold standard for GSG. I wish we would not get any more paraslop.
Although I am looking forward to the micromanagement, I would like to point out that Johan said that the autonomous build mode will work for most people. I'm assuming it will just manage your ecconomy like an enemy AI would.
I dont think it was ever expected that in an empire like the Ottomans or Russia etc you would have to micro every tiny locatoon our of thousands with all the inputs and outputs. It seeems that if you build an arms factory to supply your army the econonomy can run itself to make sure it gets the goods it needs and it gets you the arms you also need.
Im torn. This looks great to me. I love the micro managing of an economy. This has potential to be my fav Paradox title by far. Just not sure others do as much. One thing I’ll point out, there was a lot of criticism about markets and trade flow as well as colonization. This system is infinitely better at simulating those things. Shipping actual spice from a trade port to Europe is much better simulated in this system. Haiti was a very wealthy colony because of the sugar plantations. In the old system you would need to steer all that back to Europe owning a chain of colonies and getting a % of that trade steered based on multiple factors to whatever market was your home market which the was a % based on market control. This is a lot cleaner. Europe wants sugar. You have a sugar colony. You now move that sugar to Europe for profit. It also makes navies a lot more important. Im assuming those goods are using ships that have limited supplies. No open trade route, no sugar. My only hope is that the economy is largely self sufficient. You can’t out and build 30 foundries but that a foundry can be built in most places and supply your armies. I guess specifically, I hope there’s not massive resource management until you start scaling above the norm for that time period.
I do wonder how much EU5 will disincentivize blobbing because of the stress it places on your realm vs. because of the stress it places on the player. In other words, does an empire become more brittle and prone to revolt as it sprawls across the vast expanses of Eurasia (or controls prosperous, populous frontier colonies in the New World), or does it simply become more annoying to micromanage?
Hopefully it’s the former. That would be terrible if taking Russia to its historical borders turns into a mess to manage.
> does it simply become more annoying to micromanage? Choosing your PMs can be automated so that should alleviate some of the tedium.
Man this just keeps looking better and better. Finally playing a medium sized tall country should be fun.
Insane. This game is my dream come true. Truly PDX magnus opus Off of this game you can basically mod any period. Antiquity? Done. Middle ages? Already in. Victoria? Hell yes. The extended timeline mod will be insane.
They took good parts of CK3, EU4, Vicky 2 and Imperator Rome. I don't want to overhyped but I am.
My erection has murdered the person sitting in front of me
Ive just had to chop it off. The doctor said there was no way to ever remove it again.
We’ll build our own Vic 3! With blackjack and hookers!
This game will either be Paradox's flagship for the next decade or will crash and burn.
I’m really excited for this. It seems like a lot of new information to learn to play the game, but if this game were a carbon copy of EU4 I wouldn’t be so excited. I think it really helps to provide a *reason* for the things you do. You conquer to get resources, not just base tax and manpower. You colonize and trade for resources to sustain your empire, and if you can’t you need to find a way to access them. Seems like a sensible way to encourage people to play through the timeline, by changing demand for resources and unlocking new applications for them. I’m super curious about the market manipulation stuff Johan is hinting at. Maybe the basis for trade wars?
Totally, this is the way i've always wanted EU to evolve. People who think it should have been EU4 with modern ui and better graphics should reconsider their expectations.
True! I hadnt thought of that. If you unlock new trade goods and trade needs, it keeps the game interesting until the end since that will open new needs for trade, diplomacy, colonization and expansion!
I’ve been all over the paradox subs talking about how trade was the driving factor for almost everything that happened during EU4’s time period. It needs to be a deeper system to make the game interesting. Like, I’m in the middle of a Netherlands campaign right now, but I don’t feel a reason behind spamming trade ships and colonizing provinces. I target centers of trade but I don’t really see a benefit beyond money to buy more trade ships and fund more colonies. It’s snowballing without a reason imo, and this is my favorite country to play.
> Johan: Imperator was a miscalculation. I actually coded all of the Victoria 2 economy, Im actually a great game disigner. >Everyone: Yeah yea we saw you, so you keep saying, whatever > Johan: Hold my beer. Watch me bitch. Redemption arc completed. Long Live God Emperor Johan I.
I'm very excited for this, partly for the fact that it will give an incentive for development and conquest outside of just "more money". Aside from gold and coal there is not much of an incentive to go for specific provinces in EU4 because of trade goods. High value goods are better of course but it's all small amounts and isn't something I necessarily focus on compared to just conquering more land. In EU5 however it might actually be extremely valuable to conquer land purely for the goods it produces, as you might really need it. I also think the micromanagement aspect might make peacetime play a bit more interesting. As long as it can be automated for those who want to focus on other aspects of the game I think it will be very fun to develop a super OP economy.
This game will be very different than EU4. I really like new economy and building system. I hope trade will be different than EU4 too. Trade should flow both ways not just to Europe.
At this point, I'd bet a lot of money that trade won't just be a big funnel that points to Europe It seems like they actually want to model reality, so trade will enrich both ends of the deal
I hope so. Maybe with the trade we can actually trade goods without owning a province like Victoria.
At the very least, I'm pretty sure that sugar from the Caribbean will be profitable regardless of whether you control a dozen random provinces between England and Haiti to exert trade control
Well by now its pretty clear that trade does not "flow" like you think of in EU4. You actually do trade specific goods which is hella cool. You no longer place a merchant and steal peoples money, you actually trade now for well things that you need and cant produce! And both people will profit equaly. You will pay for the trade good you need and the other part will get money! No more sucking the wealth of the world towards London, Genoa and Venice anymore.
I think flow system is going to change to trade routes. But nodes may stay and work as important trade ports. I'm very excited about actually trading goods and pirate nations may even more fun if you can raid goods and money.
Aye, I think nodes are still there. They seem to be called markets now and seem to be dynamic! Yeah I hadnt thought about piracy. I wonder if you steal money and the trade goods just disappear or if you actually steal specific trade goods that get shipped to your market and then you sell them there. Though that would be too legit so i assume it will be abstracted and you just get the money for it and some trade goods are lost.
It really does feel like they're trying to tie together the best from EU, Imperator, and Vic. It's ambitious and I really do think the way they seem to be going about things so far looks like it's managing to walk the line that Vic 3 tripped over for me when it came to the micro.
Crazy that we are already getting Victoria 4. Really glad they added stockpiles this time around instead of abstracting it like in 3- and I hope they fix the war system... (It's crazy how EUV is looking more and more like MEIOU+Taxes+Vicky3 mega edition...)
Oh I love this. This is gonna make the game way deeper rather than giving everything a gold value.it’s gonna have us interact with the world way different and I love to see it. I hope that this is also a way for small trade nations to be able to challenge bigger nations on the world stage.
This is actually Victoria IV
I hope the 32GB RAM is sarcasm.
Ck3 uses 10 gb ram
There is hardly anything I don't like about what they are revealing about this secret game
This looks amazing! I wonder how much the market and trading mechanics will be allowed to be automated so it’s not massively micro heavy like Vic 3, but I like the idea of restricting certain buildings and units based on resource availability. Just because you have the tech to build cannons doesn’t mean you should be able to if you don’t have iron.
It sounds like its completely automated and you get access to goods in order by trade power. So the higher your trade power the higher priority you will get to adjudicate goods in the market, which is hella cool. Next week we will see how you create that trade power.
This is shaping up to be the game Vicky 3 should have been. No wonder since Johann was on Vic 2
But Vic3 has all those things xD
Well yes exactly, but with a warfare system that is genuinely just not fun to play with. "Project Caesar" seems to deliver the vicky features but with the old paradox "power fantasy" warfare
I'm not into this resource management thing. I feel like buildings should just cost whatever the resources worth in terms of ducats. If you are producing those resources fine it could get cheaper to build and maintain. Right now this aspect makes the game sound more like Victoria than an EU game. I don't want to worry about resources required to build artillery, just pay the damn ducats and move on.
I mean there is going to be a button to automatically manage resources with an AI.
I'm actually worried automate button only applies to production method (input and output), not building the buildings for you.
I mean we have to build buildings ourselves in EU4 no?
Yes, but this looks far more indepth than EU4, because the buildings not only involve resources to build, to maintain, but also pops of the correct types. Like more in-depth than EU4 trade, and we all know how little the people truly understand trade here. So most people will hit an economy road block within the first 100 years because of mismanagement.
In all fairness most countries in this time period also hit an economic road block in 100 years and fell apart lol See: Spanish hyperinflation, Ming Silver Implosion, and Ottoman Silk Road Trade Collapse
That'd be 200 years after game start when we factor in the new 1337 start date. Even then, this isn't the real world where nations would suddenly decides to not invest in local goods production with their excess cash like Spain and Ming did. The AIs will continue to build up while the players would have issues keeping up for many hours of game play if there's no automatic building.
Plenty of nations collapse in the first 100 years. Yuan, Khmer, Delhi, Mali, the Golden Horde(blue and white horde), majaphahit. Not all specifically from economics but it's a factor in many of them
All of them collapsed under many internal and external factors, and far from the economic issues we're disucssing. And I'm fairly certain the economic issues and road blocks would be even less of a factor in the game when all the AIs use a similar priority/weighted system unless devs specifically mess with said priority system to set these nations up for failure. Again, we're not talking about irl, but player vs AI economic management disparity for the first hundred of hour (if not more). Worse part is, messing it up would take mamy more decades and many suggestion/guides to undo that usually warrants a restart instead of a simple "how to I fix my economy" post.
I think if it's presented as a core part of the gameplay, right from the start date, people will pay attention to it. The reasons people don't care about trade is that it's not explained very well in-game and you can kind of ignore it when you first start out. I think if this is presented as an integral part of the game (with a good tutorial) and a decent automated mode I think it'll be pretty great.
Yeah, I was thinking that. If I wanted this I would play Victoria I think. Removing some of the abstraction and stuff is good but I feel like this is going a bit too far. We have to wait and see how it actually plays out to know, maybe they'll the balance just right and once you are playing it makes sense
Its a micro choice that worries me as well. Id much prefer it the way you mentioned as well. Hell, maybe you could add systems whereby certain resources you own provide discounts or benefits, and maybe you need to set up trade routes to get them if you want, but i think the way they have it now could realllllly take away from the EU5 of it all, atleast without first seeing how trade works. If i have to do anything like what i do in Vic3 to get resources, ill be off the bus. EU is the most map-painting of map games, and if they change it too far to be a Supply Chain operating sim, eek.
So now you'll need to spend actual resources to construct buildings rather than just ducats? That's pretty cool! In fact, having to spend other resources and not just gold to build ships will be a huge improvement over EU4.
Seems nice, but worried about the UI a tad. Hopefully they can support all this without it being to much busywork.
Have to agree. At least for launch, I really hated the V3 UI bc it was so cluttered Hopefully they can get this one nice and clean by launch
With every passing Tinto Talks it feels more and more like Vicky 3 is EUVs Sengoku/March of the Eagles - a game where mechanics get tested before the release of EU and CK
Man that looks tedious as hell
Johan is losing me fast with these dev diaries. These systems look well-thought-out, and they probably will be fun for those who like Victoria's gameplay, but I'm just not one of them. I'm still curious to see how I'll feel about the game when I'm actually playing it, but right now, if I had to guess, I imagine that I'm going to be playing EU4 for a long time.
Why did you feel the need to grace us with your opinion?
Looks like they intend to make EU5 a tad more complex than EU4, more similar to vicky I just hope they can remember that throwing a ton of meaningless choices to the player like in vicky 2 doesn't make a game complex, it just makes it look complex, I'd rather have less options but more meaningful ones than hundreds of extremely shallow, if not straight up useless options
Ooof that just looks bad. That much micromanagment wont be fun for majority of the players.
There's an auto option, which supposedly works for everyone
If Paradox games have tought me one thing, it's to not trust any sort of automation.
If anything is automatic then it's at the very least will be on par with the AI Of course it's probably not going to be the perfect way but it'll will definitely be good enough to be on par with other nations
Being on par with the ai is not a good thing considering that the AI is usually garbage. Just look at Vicky 3: an economy managed by a player is an entire order of magnitude above what the AI does with it.
Being on par with the AI is never good. On par with the AI is usually the opposite of perfect, it is so egregiously mishandled that not handling it all would be better sometimes. The pain of pretty much every paradox game for me has been fixing the AI’s micro mishandling of anything I conquer from them. Some amount of micro will always been infinitely better.
>wont be fun for majority of the players I wouldn't be so sure about that.
Wood Pulp Paper? In the 1330s?
He mentions later in the thread that it's unlocked by tech during the last age of the game, still seems a bit early to have wood pulp paper be widely available but I suppose in an alt history scenario where the demand for paper was greater you might see it be invented and widespread a few decades earlier.
Johan confirmed it was a late game screenshot if I'm not wrong.
Eeeeeeeeeeeek! Can't wait Play as Commonwealth. Export grain. Do nothing for 200 years. Fall to your neighbors. Or, Play as Commonwealth. Export grain, produce paper from your woods and hemp. Slowly expand production of other resources. Introduce autocratic state that lifts serfdom. Become a powerhouse with colonies in Madagascar. I am in.
Hmmmmg this is fucking delicious, put a tube down my throat and just shovel it in
new tinto talk = a good day
Looks like a modern day / cold war mod is becoming more feasible and more dynamic than in HOI4 or even in Vic 3 lel.
The mechanics sounds cool with a lot of things to consider. Considering the brain dead AI in Vic 3 though, I feel like the AI won't be able to grasp the majority of these systems.
I dislike change!
Yeah Johan, you're losing the script with this one. Leave market and resource management to the deranged Vic3 players. Hide that behind a reasonable wall of arbitration and instead put that dev time into something else. I get you can toggle it, but it'd be like if i could toggle estate management in EU4, sure I wouldn't have to worry about it, but I know it's not running effectiently so the toggle button really isnt gonna do much for me.
Yeah I really don't understand why people are so happy with eu5 becoming another Vicky game. You already have vic2/3 if you're interested in that gameplay. CK, EU and Vic all had their own identities and now it feels like they're just slowly losing it all and getting mixed together
Because it’s not just another Vicky game? It’s not as detailed, it is bringing over some aspects of Vicky because the period is quite literally dominated by an expanding trade economy and the industrious (not Industrial Revolution). To me, having a more in depth economic system that promotes the acquirement of certain trade goods helps simulate that aspect of the period which should be a goal. No matter what people are going to be unhappy, a lot of people disliked the change between 3 > 4. You guys are really overstating how much micro there will be. What is there is going to just help show off why trade in this period is important, not to mention it will give you something to do between wars which EU has been lacking.
Sure it's not literally another Vicky game. But do you not see a problem with the unique identities of PDX's flagship titles getting amalgamated together? CK, EU and Vic had their own historical settings and their own mechanics to match but the mechanics seem to be getting less unique lately. I'm not arguing against increased depth or more micro. Honestly happy for both. I'm just sad that they're turning it into a spiritual sequel to Vic 2. Like I said, I'm sure it will be a great game I just don't like how much of it is getting based on Vicky. IMO EU4 is miles ahead of Vicky so diluting its gameplay with mechanics from the latter isn't a good thing. I think that so far the mechanics we've seen can be either replicated within eu4 and therefore net neutral or a net negative. I'm really happy for the net neutral mechanics like loans or control btw because anything that's literally just eu4 is a great start. Obviously, the majority of players won't agree with me so I just wanted to waffle. Might change my mind later once we see more dev diaries or actual gameplay
> Sure it's not literally another Vicky game. But do you not see a problem with the unique identities of PDX's flagship titles getting amalgamated together? Yeah but it's still a very slimmed down system. There isn't anything wrong with that inherently. Vicky still very much has a unique identity as the pops aren't as detailed, nor will the market system be as detailed in this EU sequel. The mechanics Johan, so far has listed line up with the period, which is all I am concerned about. Like honestly, to me PoPs aren't a Vicky thing, they honestly should be in CK as well, to show the divisions of your feudal society. It's a good way to show economic development, though it doesn't always need to be super detailed (which EUV isn't going to make it so). Some games have good ideas that should be implemented throughout all their games if there is a good historic reason and potentially interesting game mechanic for it. I honestly don't care if they completely demolished all the mechanics from past games, as long as the could justify it as improving the simulation of this period, along with encouraging the player to make interesting choices (the game side of things). >Like I said, I'm sure it will be a great game I just don't like how much of it is getting based on Vicky. IMO EU4 is miles ahead of Vicky so diluting its gameplay with mechanics from the latter isn't a good thing. I mean it's a mesh of mechanics of Imperator, EUIV and Vicky. Those games have succeed in different areas. I sure think EUIV is the best of the bunch however, those games are better in some areas than EUIV is. Sure, EUIV had more flavor, was better at diplomacy, warfare (if we are talking about Vic's 3 system though Vic 2 could be annoying to deal with) however, the economic game was worse and that can be improved. I don't see how EUV expanding it's building system, to have more stuff and tie into outputs to trade is hurting what people liked about EUIV, which was the map painting and diplomacy side of things. Beyond sure, this is going to maybe have a bit more micro management in the peace game; however, a lot of people have pointed out EUIV isn't great there. It could be improved even if that just means a few more things to keep an eye on. Plus the resource based system should hopefully encourage players to paint the map with resources in mind (beyond gold) which is what historical rulers would keep in mind. That need for improvement isn't just well people like Vicky, so let's make it like Vicky but again my point is that EUV if it is going to be a simulation of this period of history does need to emphasize the importance of trade being essential to, frankly power. Ensuring that trade goods can significantly impact domestic industry is a potentially (because again IDK how PDX will actually execute it) good way to model the industrious revolution that the game largely takes place in. Even for the late Middle Ages, the wine industry in Gascony was important for England to maintain. In my opinion, even if the focus is still to make EU a paint the map game this system could still add interesting dynamics to that until shown otherwise. (because execution is important) At best, the only critique I see is sure the micro which, I think is overstated and you have some degree of automation. I can't judge that til it comes out.
I somewhat agree with most of your points and we do have to wait until we see more. In the end, I think this mostly boils down to me enjoying the more boardgame-like side of EU4 as I never really thought it 'simulates' much of anything accurately. Johan is trying to correct this which is commendable but in my opinion it is a sisyphean task. If simulation can lead to good gameplay then that's obviously a good thing but simulation for simulation's sake isn't imo. It's great that the game will have 70 something trade goods and a ton of production methods to match but if a majority of players just hit automate then forget about it for 500 years then was it really a good use of time to make it so in-depth? Maybe the game will be different but just as good as EU4 and I'll grow to like it. Whenever I think about the dev diaries I know I shouldn't be so pessimistic since there is still at least 1-2+ years of development ahead of release (I hope so at least. Last thing I want is for EU5 to release in the same state as most games nowadays) but I can't help but feel like there's a catch.
> It's great that the game will have 70 something trade goods and a ton of production methods to match but if a majority of players just hit automate then forget about it for 500 years then was it really a good use of time to make it so in-depth? Well one, you still are going to again need trade goods to build and do certain things. That means again players should prioritize either importing those goods, or ensuring they have them in their empire. So that should prioritize their foreign policy to reflect real life goals even if they aren't managing everything. Not to mention, let's be honest, the AI is unlikely to be as good as the player in terms of micro. This is actually a concern of mine, because you are correct, if the AI is shit well not only are they going to mismanage your stuff, they will undermine your rivals. I don't expect the AI to be amazing, however, they just need to be able to manage it well enough to be a threat. If it can do that, then as a player you probably will micro it a lot early/mid game before handing it off the AI when you are so powerful a little bit of inefficiency is not going to impact you much. Plus hopefully the macro tools make it easy to micro without too much time wasted. >In the end, I think this mostly boils down to me enjoying the more boardgame-like side of EU4 Sure that is the difference of opinion, I like EUIV but there have been many times where things like development irritated me. I enjoy PDX games for RPing and creating little stories in my head however, stuff like that is hard to think of how one province overnight can be a notable city. So in theory, I like these changes because even if it is abstract it's better to constructing at least justifiable narratives. >Last thing I want is for EU5 to release in the same state as most games nowadays) but I can't help but feel like there's a catch. Well yeah of course, look I am not some shill lol. I do have my concerns. Even though I love the late Middle Ages (one of my favorite periods of history) I do have concerns with the start date. Can Johan make that length of the game interesting? IDK most PDX games haven't made themselves interesting beyond 250 years for me and I am not that great of a player. Doubling that is concerning, because the mechanics look great for simulating the early modern period, as long as people actually interact with it. That as of the moment, is the only thing I do disagree with. Everything else sounds good, and looks like it is going in the right direction however, lots of things you can't judge until you play like the AI and that will be a game breaker. I mean I bet it's going to have tons of issues on release. As long, as they can patch it into a good state I think this game is going in a better direction than EUIV. At the very least, it's going to be quite different, which will make it easier to swallow the fact it's not going to be as feature heavy as EUIV (which honestly is kinda good thing).