What year should EU5 begin in and why?
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
What year should EU5 begin in and why?
What year should EU5 begin in and why?
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
It shouldn't be made. Paradox has gone full predatory and shifted their mechanics towards fan service for the autistic, neutralizing their anxiety by gutting roleplay elements and emphasizing micromanagement and sorting that is therapeutic for spergs.
Just look at VIC3 and the latest build of stellaris. EU4 is a gem and should be preserved.
Is there really nothing you would want to be changed? For me it's the game being too linear, every game always ends the same.
A problem is also that the game swells too much. After 200 years (around 1600) it no longer becomes fun because the map has been eaten completely by the same standard 5 nations. It becomes a chore of waiting for truces and dealing with rebellions. The mechanics are too simple. It needs more sophistication.
Also, I kinda hate colonialism. I find the game to be the most fun before it kicks off. My start year would be at least in the 1200, maybe directly after the 4th crusade.
>After 200 years (around 1600) it no longer becomes fun
>My start year would be at least in the 1200
You condradict yourself. If the game becomes boring quickly, it should be shorter, not longer.
I don't think he's saying it should have the same end date as Eu4, just start in an earlier period.
A game covering the period of the Crusades and rise and fall of the Mongol Empire would be pretty interesting imo.
CK2 already exists.
have a nice day neckbeards
You first homosexual.
>gutting roleplay elements
Good. Frick roleplay homosexualry.
Roleplaying elements make ck2 and ck3 the goats. And flavor is absolutely essential
no Black person
Without it you're just playing a spreadsheet.
>NO FUN ALLOWED!
Go play in pretend in a discord server instead.
What do you think roleplaying means? I mean adding depth to your gameplay with flavor and unique characteristics to the country you’re playing. Why would you want every country to be the exact same? That’s why modern eu4 sucks
EU4 sucks and is the prime example of bad oaradox games built around memes.
>Le warrior prussians
>Le swiss bankers
EU3 allowed you to develop your country however you desires, if France wanted to become a highly militarist country with a very high quality military they could, if Spain wanted to be a very liberal country they could.
>prussians became warriors because they totally just chose to be them
Lmao.
Yes, a series of kings specifically chose to focus on the army to an autistic degree. There wasn’t some natural part of being Prussian that made them better soldiers or generals. If anything Hesse had better soldiers and a more militarized soviety anyway, they were simply too small to have the impact of Prussia.
>if France wanted to become a highly militarist country with a very high quality military they could, if Spain wanted to be a very liberal country they could.
I mean you can do this with idea groups and government reforms. You can make Brandenburg into a Republic if you want.
I think the only state now that is really locked into a particular kind of government is the Tsardom of Russia.
The issue is national ideas which give the biggest benefits. If France and Prussia both go full quality army Prussia will always be better man for man, while in EU3 you might have events that change quality for a few years but once you max out sliders you’re done, the best soldiers in militarist France will be as good as the best soldiers in militarist Prussia.
Personally I find that makes each state more unique-feeling, while also having a high degree of customization.
I think this helps a lot with replayability.
I guess it's just a matter of preference though.
My issue is the sheer span of time and the lack of flexibility. Prussia is portrayed as the militarist elite nation despite only being so for about 50 years of a 350+ year game, really more like 40 years if you consider Prussian failings during the Napoleonic Wars.
Even if you like national ideas they should have options within nations allowing for more flexibility while remaining unique, for example Brandenburg had considerable conflicts over control of the Baltic and could have developed into a maritime power, or they could have sought political domination within the empire securing control of Imperial electors (during the 30 years war the Elector of Brandenburg was the brother in-law to Gustavus Adolphus and could have potentially genuinely allied with Sweden and used that leverage to become the dominant protestant elector).
Overall I think branching mission trees would be better to allow you to develop each nation individually without shoehorning them into meme territory.
It does have branching mission trees now, and some of them offer permanent bonuses that will make you more competent at something your nation isn't necessarily good at. The real problem is that the mana system enables meme style minmaxing and hyperspecialization, where sliders plus pops also do, but in a different way. In Victoria 2 you're basically doomed to be stuck as a specific style of nation as well, but it at least gives you a shot more than EU4 does.
Victoria 2 is also over a much shorter timeframe where you have pops who are likely to prefer certain ideas. America in 1836 couldn’t reasonably have ended up an autocratic state by 1936, and France in 1836 couldn’t reasonably have ended up as a hyper-militarist state like Prussia/Germany as they constantly had to deal with intellectual liberals and communists. Starting in 1444 you could create over 350 years a China with a small elite army and a liberal democratic government focused on freedom of religion, or a Russia which ends up small and isolationist or a Bavaria who politically dominates the Holy Roman Empire.
The issue with EU IV is more the timeframe than the inherent design. If you play the game for maybe 50-100 years its fine but it quickly becomes blobs of meme countries. No other game sans Hoi is more prone to blobbing.
You're right. It's in kind of a weird gap between the more traditional grand strategy, which would be smaller and cover only specific periods with period specific mechanics, and 4X stuff, which would be more arcadey. A good way to fix that might be to leave specific mechanics to specific campaign start dates, and make grand campaigns an option but not the default. CK2 kind of did that with its start dates, so maybe it would have been an option the developers considered, but it also doesn't make as good of content as the blobbing does. See how most casual players want to be able to conquer things fast like DDRJake.
>CK2 kind of did that with its start dates
What specific mechanics does CK2 have for specific start dates except for crusades?
Strength of pagan religions and some heresies, mostly. Also the technology enables different laws. It's not great, but that's what you get with oversystemized games in general. The inkling of a good idea doesn't connect to enough stuff to be noticeable.
I guess you can say that EU4 also has it with its ages mechanics and everything they involve.
Yeah, it's almost there in the age mechanics, but they disincentivize using it outside of a grand campaign because you only get achievements in 1444 or 1776. Honestly, if they made a game that was somewhere between Victoria 2 and 1.30 EU4 in terms of scope, but filled it full of fun mechanics and three or four big start dates they'd have an amazing game that gets them all the things they want. It would be a nightmare to develop, though, because the trend with this sort of stuff is to go ham exponentially until you can't anymore.
Even when I blob I like a lore realistic surrohnding world. Even then my default style of play nowadays tends to be to play a single character and see how my realm fairs after my death
>Start as Philip Augustus of France
>See how much of France I can reconquer and how my descendents fair
>Start as first Latin Emperor and conquer Greece, Bulgaria, and put my heir on the Hungarian throne
>Watch as my empire collapses in three generations
>Play as King of Prussia and try to unite Germany and expand Prussian power in a single lifetime
>See how Prussia fairs after my death and how it slowly loses ground to France and Russia never fully uniting Germany
It’s often depressing doing so much to build your dynasty only for your heirs to destroy all you built.
Honestly the HRE is probably my favorite part in EU4 cause its the area most volative and dynamic. Every playthrough is different here.
The answer is to make large countries like England, Spain, and France less centralized. Make Spain and France become more like HRE where the state is chopped up until small vassals, where you play only as the "crownland" which only owns like less than 10% of the land.
This is why starting earlier can be a benefit. Spain for example will be in the reconquista phase so its smaller kingdoms in Iberia competing.
In 1337 the borders were almost exactly the same in Iberia as they were in 1444
>The answer is to make large countries like England, Spain, and France less centralized. Make Spain and France become more like HRE where the state is chopped up until small vassals, where you play only as the "crownland" which only owns like less than 10% of the land.
That’s literally just crusader kings
NTA, but I think EU should provide this sort of transition from CK-level of feudalism to more advanced government systems to the first national states, i.e. revolutionary France. And players should feel handicapped in the beginning by the obsolete state structures.
Consolidation of domestic power should be a constant achielles heel and would prevent blobbing. The game should start out that you have to maintain your own realm before you can make any major external conquest.
Conquest should also be difficult. It should be slow and take time. There shouldnt be a Sweden or France controlling 1/4 of Europe already by 1550.
Never played CK so I wouldnt know. It was just an idea.
You should try it. They’re good games
>My game none plays is better
What you just criticized those other games for is exactly what the latest versions of eu4 have become. It’s also completely ahistorical and gay. All of America is colonized by 1550 and some super feather Indian confederation has conquered half the continent and has the same tech as Europe. Then middle of nowhere Uganda has the same tech as euros by 1700. By the late game it’s a complete slog through 20 level 6 forts against some disgusting blob (whether the blob is Austria, Ottomans, Russia, France, Spain, it doesn’t matter because they’re all the same).
This.
The game is dead after 150 years. it doesnt represent history and at the same time its too linear to offer something new. They fail at both aspects.
This is really what they need to fix. Make blobbing hard and not make every game the same with the same 5 nations.
They need to change it from the core. No more DLC. Start again.
Restricting blobbing is cringe. What they need is to give players something apart from blobbing. CK lets you autistically manage your character and their dynasty, Victoria - buldings and economy, HOI - warfare itself with multiple fronts and numerous units. EU is supposed to have all these elements and predictably fails to make them entertaining enough.
Then just turn the althist stuff off and keep Lucky Countires on Historical.
No, then it just becomes slightly altered European history with nothing interesting.
>doesnt want whacky althist bullshit
>doesnt want byzantium reconquista and grosse germaniums #46432
So what do you actually want? Or, are you just bored because you've gotten all of the fun that you can get out of this game? Have you tried playing something new?
This is a valid point. Perhaps the very core of the game simply doesnt offer the replay value. Most of the time its the simple games like Medieval Total War which becomes immortal.
EU concept simply doesnt hold up in the end and its a fundemental structure problem. Its okay to get bored of a game, but you need to recognize that fact too. It's just time to stop playing.
You can make blobbing hard by making it more tedious, which is unfun.
Or making controlling a nation extremely involved. Which can become unfun really easily.
It's the opposite, they are stabbing their core autistic fanbase in the back by arcadizing their games for normies.
>core autistic fanbase
This is the fanbase that also called for the removal of "uncivilized" and "nonwestern" from the games and made EUIV and Vic3 the horrible arcade games they are. Normies dont stick around and pump millions into DLC, only the trannie minded leftists gays do
When I said "core autistic fanbase" I meant the history autists, not the trannies.
What's the difference?
History autists care about historical accuracy
meh EU4 used to be good but it's gotten too mainstream. Aside from AI being better at wars, it's downhill compared to years ago
Or maybe you just overplayed it.
there should be a grand paradox universe. i want to create white people, see them destroy and conquer the world, then ultimately die at the end of spore- i mean stellaris
You mean a megacmpaign? You can transfer saves from one game to another.
yes, a megamccampaign. that would be epic. imagine playing through a crackgame of ck3 and then the end of that game is the start of an eu4 game, that but with all the games
Like I said, you can do it via save transfer, but it's cumbersome.
I don't see the fun in this. Just in 150 years in EU4 my state usually balloons to a size that is just not fun to manage anymore and dwarfs most of the other major powers.
I don't like chasing 10 rebel armies across the Eurasian steppe, taking close to a year to traverse.
And travel by boat and naval combat just gets ridiculously tedious at this point as well.
Typically you tag-switch as you go through.
Beat your original country.
You have been able to do this with mods since EU2.
You want to roleplay as Yakub
We already know it is going to be 1337. I don’t like that start date at all. It should be later from late 1300s to early 1400s. 1337 is too early. Colonization, the reformation, and the rise of the modern state are what Europa universalis is. Putting the start date in 1337 ruins it. Colonization will be a late game development and we already know most people don’t finish a campaign. They only get at most 200 years into the game. So most people will only play until 1530s. And they’ll miss what made the game unique. I just don’t see a point making it that early. Play Ck3 or 2 if you want to play medieval history.
>1337
Fricking zoomers don't get it
1488 is the superior meme number for that if you want to play within an interesting early modern timeframe.
>1494
The beginning of European colonialism
Yeah, but then you can't do fun alt history stuff like save Granada.
European colonialism began 1408 when the portuguese took Ceuta. Although it was restricted to Iberichuds fricking around in north africa and going down the coast to west africa. Here is a short relation of it: First, Ceuta is taken, then the euro-atlantic Islands are conquered and colonized. Then the Gambia is discover and the slave trade proper begins, along with trade with Dying Mali, not that long after, Cabo Verde is discovered and colonized as a plantation colony along with the discovery of the guinea. In the gulf of guinea gold trading posts on what is now Ghana are established, this is the 1460s. Keep in mind the Portuguese and to a lesser extent Spanish are also expending a lot of effort to conquer morocco.
Ok, now it is the 1470s, portuguese caravels cross the equator and soon after the first ever colonial war breaks out as a tiny episode in the wider war of castillian sucession. A Spanish fleet attempts to take control of Portuguese posts in the gold coast, and is BTFO by the portuguese. Spain was then forced to sign a treaty that barred them from ever venturing down a line a bit south the canaries. From this came the impetus to hire Columbus. In 1481 the first proper colonial holding in subsaharan africa is established in the form of Elmina castle in Ghana.
The next year the Kingdom of the Kongo is discovered and a very fruitful and long-lasting relationship is quickly established. By 1488, portuguese Caravels had Rounded the Cape of Good hope, just four years after that, Christopher Columbus would discover the America's. Ending thus our early colonization timeline.
1337 is the start of the Hundred Years’ War. Has nothing to do with leet. Why do millennials always think everyone is referencing their shitty culture?
I'm a zenniel, kid. 1996 master race. Sit down and learn
Lowering the chances of the Ottoblob will already make it 10x better
You already know the ottomans will get very beneficial events and modifiers. And Byzaboos who think the earlier date will help them reconquer the empire will be disappointed by very bad events and modifiers. They still will make it historically similar to an extent. Especially if there is a historically lucky nation setting.
The late medieval period in crusader kings is shit. It represents the early and high medieval periods much better. In fact before the expansions that added the Black Death for both games there was literally no reason to play past 1300. There are no hussites or guns or anything.
My theory is that they push the end date back to 1650, and make a new game between 1650 and 1830 to represent enlightenment and revolution
1650-1337 = 313 years
1821-1444 = 377 years
I was thinking something similar too. They’ll bring back March of the Eagles and make it more focused on warfare like Hearts of iron.
nah 1337 is great
gives a lot more variation to the state of east asia, the ashikaga shogunate is literally a year old, the yuan dynasty is about to collapse but hasn't yet, and will make it more interesting to see who actually wins the China bowl, and Goryeo still exists and in theory could survive
in europe it's early enough you aren't almost guaranteed to have france/austria dominating, and the ottomans aren't necessarily the winning turkish state.
the only semi awkward points are the mamluks and especially dehli who is at its peak
Hopefully they do a second start date a la Crusader Kings.
One start date at 1337 to feature some late medieval things, and one maybe at 1453 or 1492 to get straight into colonization and the reformation
1337 is a perfect year to show the great Mali Empire.
Going to play as one of the Italian city states and BLEACH them
If an EU game starts before Kingdom Come : Deliverance, it’s too early. If it starts after Assassins Creed 2, it’s too late.
EU4 is a ruined game for the current version because you can only colonize a tiny fraction of North America before the indians spread over the whole continent with cities as developed as Paris, and field 10s of thousands of men who are easy to defeat but are a boring ahistorical chore you have to waste birdpoints and paperpoints on now instead of oh idk colonizing like how it really happened in history all because some losers wanted playing as ooga booga natives to be as easy as playing European natives
God I hate that fricking update
*as easy as playing European nations
Also ABBOS SHOULD NOT EXIST IN EU4 they barely had fire or villages much less thousands of troops for armies
Nope, israelitehan commands the Palawa have Naval bonuses stronger than Britain's.
Personally I think the problem with EU4 is that it can't pace itself. By 1600 everything already got colonized, something is already ultra-lobbing. Asian colonialism as practiced historically doesn't even have a mechanical basis to exist.
Yes this is also a major problem. Great Britain is formed in 1500. World is colonized by 1600. France and Sweden expands uncontrollably. Some tribe controls half a continent somewhere.
Idk. It needs to restrain itself.
Either it can choose to be a historical sandbox and follow a historical pattern.
Or it can choose to simply be whatever, but then it needs to become less linear so not every single game virtually ends up the same with the same 5 nations across the map.
A collapse or decline mechanic would help immensely. Mingsplosions for everybody of that size.
Congrats, colonial empires now collapse but mega Sultanates in nog Africa with no bordering enemies survive
You're being autistic. Decline and collapse don't simply have to be modeled in the exact same way as China does it. The real current problem with disasters and rebels is that they can be defeated easily by any large army, thus making it very difficult to keep them going. It should be more like instant tag release plus truce plus no allies offensive wars if you don't centralize them in a way that will always be limited, like accepted cultures but further out than burning bird mana.
Cool, you got any real life examples where these kinds of collapses happened to anyone besides backwaters and the unruly chinks? Even the Ottomans lost minimal land when they were "in decline"
We're talking about a game where the Okinawans are supposed to create a unified world government. You either simulate history or make it fun.
You can meet in the middle by having it historically accurate in what you can ultimately do but not totally limited. You should be able to form a modest Central African empire as Uganda if you’re a good player, but the AI should not be able to form a giant mega empire with the same tech as Britain by 1700 every single time.
Its that simple.
Poland-Lithuania
This. EU4 is ahistorical and gay now. The only way to play is with mods railroading colonization/removing natives abilities to get that way
golden bull, 1356
should end in 1812
Should also include better cultural mechanics like ck3 tbh
I like how nobody calls this offtopic because we know eu4 and paradox is the backbone of this boards historical knowledge.
For me it has improved my geographic knowledge, but I actually do know a good bit about the ancient Near East.
My non paradox knowledge is mostly cultural and social history, but I at least read primary sources on stuff.
1500
byzaboos get the rope
I'd be disappointed to see my Darling Burgundy go, but a later start-date would only be for the better.
1491 would probably work the best for actually modeling what they're trying to model.
Should begin at the dawn of time, like you and your tribe have to hunt more mammoths than the neighbors.
EU3 is superior because it recognizes the historical superiority of the European race and incorporates that as a core gameplay mechanic. While it’s possible to play a non-European power, they must westernize in order to compete.
If a game doesn’t do this, then it’s simply not being honest.
I want to voice my autistic fantasy in this thread:
A 4x game with a procedurally generated world similar to Sid Meier's Civilization in the sense that the world is fictional, but Earth like. AND the mechanics are like Crusader Kings.
Crusader Kings 2 have a Shattered world mechanics where everything is randomised, if I'm not mistaken.
Should begin with the hundred years war and end with the peace of Westphalia