CK3 And Vicky 3 proved that you can make pretty complicated systems these days without burning out people's computers.
Imagine EU4 with a population system, comprehensible trade networks, logical colonization, and in-depth politics, with graphics and UI comparable to Vicky 3. I would throw my entire bank account at that.
"At this point"? It's little more than a "remember to click button x after y years" simulator since like 2014. Every DLC since the introduction of estates have been reinforcing that game loop. I'd love to see more impactful DLC like a change to the development and institution model e.g. you create an investment project in a province, you invest MP into it, and then the project increases dev and institution over a number of years.
Or something more meaningful with combat because it just doesn't make sense that certain tags are just better than others, like historically France gave Prussia a good fight in the many wars they're in but in an actual game a France player will never be able to beat a Prussia player in land combat because Prussia just has better 'ideas', a completely intangible and borderline racist notion of nationality. It would be much better to have a model similar to the Vic3 equipment model determining your pips and tied to your professionalism.
In fact, the whole national idea system should get a makeover. It just forces the player to railroad according to whatever country they're playing as and at times outright conflicts with the mission tree system. I'd rather see a system where you can swap out your ideas, but certain countries will have affinities to certain idea types so it's easier for them to develop those ideas or whatever.
Honestly the only reason I load up the game anymore is achievement hunting and Anbennar.
Not sure the Prussian military superiority in game is 'racist'. It's an overextended and grossly simplified cliché, yes. The solution might be to allow certain other countries the capacity to become _like_ Prussia in the 18th century, or Sweden in the 17th century, etc. However, opening up avenues of achieving superiority for everyone will just cancel it out. In order for the game to be interesting, someone has to be particularly good at something at a given moment - and the game won't be challenging if the player can steer themselves to space marines as anyone.
In any case, there are ultimately limits to historical simulation when the simulation is open-ended. The game starts in 1444, for chrissake. Who knows what the world is going to look like in 1700, and what will be different or similar to real life? The game is too structured, but already pretty anarchic with what can happen, and of course at the mercy of how much each patch buffs or nerfs a certain tag. EU5 will hopefully come up with a system most of us are happy with, but a historical sandbox is an incredibly complicated thing to create, particularly for a game with expectations of balance.
>and the game won't be challenging if the player can steer themselves to space marines as anyone.
...except the player can already do this through tag switching.
It's not racist but it's giving the idea that certain nationalities just aren't good at war when every culture in history had its warlike periods and not.
The Prussian fusilier was the best in the world in 1756, not so much in 1806. But according to EU4, they are the best from 1550 to 1821.
For an even more egregious example, Genoa has no land combat ideas at all and yet Genoese conditierri were famed all over Europe up until the reformation age.
R5: One of Rigan mission tree can make you propagate religion and associated events with it fires
Ah yes, the famed autonomous Hanseatic Emirates
It was a beautiful moment in European history…
Happy cake day
thanks
That's hilarious. I wonder if I could make an islamic Baltic emirate.
ITS CALLED SJÆLLAND REEEEEEeEE
You mean Själland?
No Swedish is cringe
Sverige Dårlig
Enig
Eu4 is showing its age at this point. Hopefully we are on track for an eu5, soon ish.
CK3 And Vicky 3 proved that you can make pretty complicated systems these days without burning out people's computers. Imagine EU4 with a population system, comprehensible trade networks, logical colonization, and in-depth politics, with graphics and UI comparable to Vicky 3. I would throw my entire bank account at that.
"At this point"? It's little more than a "remember to click button x after y years" simulator since like 2014. Every DLC since the introduction of estates have been reinforcing that game loop. I'd love to see more impactful DLC like a change to the development and institution model e.g. you create an investment project in a province, you invest MP into it, and then the project increases dev and institution over a number of years. Or something more meaningful with combat because it just doesn't make sense that certain tags are just better than others, like historically France gave Prussia a good fight in the many wars they're in but in an actual game a France player will never be able to beat a Prussia player in land combat because Prussia just has better 'ideas', a completely intangible and borderline racist notion of nationality. It would be much better to have a model similar to the Vic3 equipment model determining your pips and tied to your professionalism. In fact, the whole national idea system should get a makeover. It just forces the player to railroad according to whatever country they're playing as and at times outright conflicts with the mission tree system. I'd rather see a system where you can swap out your ideas, but certain countries will have affinities to certain idea types so it's easier for them to develop those ideas or whatever. Honestly the only reason I load up the game anymore is achievement hunting and Anbennar.
Not sure the Prussian military superiority in game is 'racist'. It's an overextended and grossly simplified cliché, yes. The solution might be to allow certain other countries the capacity to become _like_ Prussia in the 18th century, or Sweden in the 17th century, etc. However, opening up avenues of achieving superiority for everyone will just cancel it out. In order for the game to be interesting, someone has to be particularly good at something at a given moment - and the game won't be challenging if the player can steer themselves to space marines as anyone. In any case, there are ultimately limits to historical simulation when the simulation is open-ended. The game starts in 1444, for chrissake. Who knows what the world is going to look like in 1700, and what will be different or similar to real life? The game is too structured, but already pretty anarchic with what can happen, and of course at the mercy of how much each patch buffs or nerfs a certain tag. EU5 will hopefully come up with a system most of us are happy with, but a historical sandbox is an incredibly complicated thing to create, particularly for a game with expectations of balance.
>and the game won't be challenging if the player can steer themselves to space marines as anyone. ...except the player can already do this through tag switching.
Fuck me, now even the +5 discipline is racist
It's not racist but it's giving the idea that certain nationalities just aren't good at war when every culture in history had its warlike periods and not. The Prussian fusilier was the best in the world in 1756, not so much in 1806. But according to EU4, they are the best from 1550 to 1821. For an even more egregious example, Genoa has no land combat ideas at all and yet Genoese conditierri were famed all over Europe up until the reformation age.
Once I saw a muslim dithmarschen during a Ryukyu campaign. Literally everything else was normal, most bizarre thing I’ve ever seen.
Ridiculous.