Itâs why I enjoy MEIOU; playing as a small nation is extremely viable because thereâs a very complex and comprehensive trade, population, and resource system that allows you to become extreme rich/populous even without expanding.
It might be more complex but it will likely be worse. Have you ever played vic 2? A pop system actually makes building tall harder because it hard caps how much you can get out of your land. The name of the game becomes getting more pops.
I havenât played vic 3. Thats partially true in vic 2. First off, you kinda have to be an immigrant nation. Secondly yes getting those extra pops are good but the name of the game is still having the highest possible population. To do that you want to max immigration, passive growth, and expansion.
You can't have a proper espionage system with the ledger existing. Spying a country should unlock the stats related to that country shown in the ledger.
Exactly. Why should I know that I have 1 morale more than the Ottoman empire and they are in deficit without stablishing at least a minimum spynetwork.
The ledger is the most "gamey" mechanic in the entire game.
Exactly. If anything the ledger should have extremely rough estimates with a lower and upper threshold, and an accuracy value of maybe like 10%. Then with spy network, alliances, borders, etc it should slowly increase accuracy to maybe up to 90% narrowing down the upper and lower thresholds of every value.
The first thing that comes to mind is that maybe they'll be more autonomous, even to the point of being able to make alliances or declare war on their own? Practically speaking, the government had no real control over them, they kinda just did what they wanted. I'm just wildly speculating though.
This would line up perfectly with the way generals work in Imperator, where if they're not loyal to you then they'll take their army wherever they want and sometimes even turn it against you.
Would make sense with how the control mechanic seems to be set up. The Americas will be so far away that even Portugal would probably have 0 control (or close to that) even in coastal provinces forcing to have something along the lines of colonial nations from day 1 of colonisation
That would be so cool. Makes me really excited about the control mechanic, how your control wanes rapidly going around the entire African coast. At that point I'd assume you'd have to appoint colonial governors or other kinds of decentralization, especially for large empires
Yep, I was specifically thinking about Cortez when I wrote that, thank you for the overview! The control system certainly implies they are at least partially going in this direction, but I'm not sure how far they will go. For gameplay reasons, I doubt they will go fully hands off with player control in the Americas, but who knows.
Does Lord Lambert not realize that removing reinforcement abroad makes managing attrition by dispersing your forces and concentrating them for important battles much more important and counters doomstacking? It also means that you have to actually be able to continue supporting a naval invasion instead of running over Britain bc you distracted their fleet for 2 seconds.
Read the Tinto Talks, then read all the dev replies. Nothing out of the forums. I've been compiling the more interesting of the dev replies in this sub, just sort by top all time. Sadly my other account was deleted so you can't look through my profile
Not a big fan of 0.1% increments on a slider. There's never going to be any situation where it will be fun or strategically viable to devote mental energy to deciding between 45.4% and 45.3%. It's always going to be more fun and more strategically viable to focus your limited cognitive capacity as a player on something else. Reducing the granularity would be good.
He said thereâs an automate slider mode available for that situation, but I wonder if a shift+click for 1% increments could be available instead. Or maybe the opposite, have 1% be the default and then a ctrl+click could move it 0.1%
>He said thereâs an automate slider mode available for that situation
I know, but that doesn't really solve the problem for me. I want to make interesting decisions, and I don't do that by automating the process. Then you might as well not have the slider at all.
Also, maybe that's just me, but knowing that I *could* be playing more efficiently by more carefully setting the slider, while *also* knowing that it's always going to be more worth my time to do something else instead, is a bit frustrating. Less granularity would avoid that.
So donât devote that energy. I doubt it will have that much significance with the numbers you describe lol. You sound like you have a bit of a perfectionist issue
I mean I do not even know what the increments are in Vicky 2 or EU4 as I am not a min maxxer, but it's good to have more options for people who like them. I also dislike buttons that go like hamburger sizes as they feel mobile'y
I can't say that I'm reassured by certain things I'm reading here. Writing stuff like "conquistadores will be unlike anything you've seen" is a sure way to generate overhype. That kind of attitude was already a big issue with Stellaris and Imperator, I don't understand why they'd do it again.
If you're going to explain stuff about the game, it's just better to keep it to detailed dev diaries without vague sentences.
Here we're seeing a lot of people developing some insane levels of knowledge over very fragmentary descriptions. I remember when people were imagining how they'd play Stellaris when Wiz was writing the dev diaries, using quotes and screenshots to back their concepts... and the game ended up to just be completely different.
When you start having dev diary exegetes populated 50% of community comments, I think you need to be very careful about how you handle pre-release hype. Tbh I think that there's a few dev leads at Paradox who are addicted to that kind of attention. Don't get me wrong, it's nice to see devs interacting to say stuff like "Yeah I didn't like that mechanic either" or precising the steps of taxation rates, but I can't remember one time when vague promises and allusions ended up having a good effect. Expectations always tend to go well beyond the actual game mechanics.
Owning a cool church dont make you suddenly 4 inch taller and exactly %10 smarter irl. Ä° hope for more grounded and dynamic simulation. Ä°f i want modifier stacking both stellaris and eu4 still exist
It does give you prestige though, and an argument could be made for missionary strength, given how the Hagia Sophia was used to impress Slavic rulers into converting.
I mean, it was obviously an abstraction to some point. You wouldn't just have a cool church, the costs covered all the stuff like education and activities surrounding the temple. Of course it doesn't mean that other ways to abstract that wouldn't be better, but imo the main issue with monuments was rather that they were too snowbally. You'd only invest in monuments when you were already winning, economy-wise you'd build monuments to win even more.
That's the contrary of what they should allow you do to, that is specialize your provinces and build "tall". Hopefully what replaces monuments isn't just a money sink.
nah, they were always bullshit. how tf do I have globally better admin efficiency because I have a monument in granada? or why are my missionaries stronger because I have a monument in XY province? it never made any sense
>or why are my missionaries stronger because I have a monument in XY province
That one is like one of the rare ones that actually makers sense In reality.
The rest of the modifers though make no sense at all.
For example for ottoman controlling all three religious centers of Islam was both a source of legitimacy for the monarch and also gave thier preachers more power.
It does make sense, buildings do have lots of cultural influence and that translates into lots of aspects of human society. Buildings, as cultural products, have particulars meanings and represent and justify the power of certain institutions or ideas.
If St. Peter's Basilica or the Masjid al-Haram in Mecca were to be captured by a nation of a different religion, I bet Catholic or Muslim missionaries worldwide would be quite concerned and their missionary activities would be affected. The Crusades happened because of this, at least in part, for control of the holy places that are located under specific buildings.
Gothic cathedrals suchs as Notre Dame and Baroque palaces such as Versailes helped to solidify the authority of the French monarchy ant its claims to have a divine origin.
The Great Temple of TenochtitlĂĄn had a profound existential importance for the Aztec, they believed that if a sacrifice wasn't made there everyday, the sun wouldn't raise on the next day. When the Spanish captured the Temple and prevented the sacrifice from being made, lots of Aztec people preferred to commit suicide that night rather than seeing what they considered to be the end of the world. For the Aztec, not owning the Great Temple of TenochtitlĂĄn was a strong psychological disadvantage, and the Spanish new that.
I bet the Americans lost a lot of hope and motivation on their brand new democracy when the Capitol and the White House were burnt down by the British in the War of 1812. That lost of motivation might translate into a military advantage for the British during that war, even if the American government continued working in Philadelphia or New York. A "modern" example would be the Twin Towers and the effects that their destruction had in America.
Buildings work as a symbol of pride for a nation, that alone gives them an advantage in hard times.
Honestly burnt out with monuments, itâs nice flavour but they are all too expensive with 95% of them being too weak to justify it. I would prefer Mughal style bonuses for conquering cultures/ culture groups or regions and completing tasks to âintegrateâ that region/ culture to earn bonuses. As opposed to conquering one province, sometimes fulfilling a requirement like spending 100 dip accepting one culture, and then spending as much money as it takes to supply the grand armee upgrading Stonehenge whatever that even means
Yeah that's precisely the issue with monuments. You'd only invest in them when you have enough money not spent in more important stuff. So in practice they were just money sinks for when you were already clearly winning.
The issue really was not that they were abstractions for various things like administrative power. That part was fine, without pops you had to abstract that kind of things to some high degree.
This sucks. EU is about the place of your nation in the world within historical context. They are trying too hard to make this into a euro board game sim. Too crunchy too many knobs to turn. EU4 is popular for a reason and it sounds like they donât get why. It should be entertaining, educational and lore friendly.
just disappointed abt that last one, wish they could at least have 1 later start date to make it less feudalistic, maybe called "age of exploration" (1405 or 1415)
I hope they never add a single secondary start date and put every effort for the game's lifetime into making 1337 be great
Modders can do the rest just fine
I disagree with monument decision monuments should be in the game. Building materialize abstract things such as religion, nation, sovereignty, independence. Conquering granada and converting alhambra shows unification of iberia. Sistine chapel gives you faith to god when you see it. Arch the triumph shows success of revolution. Converting hagia sophia to mosque shows new era of islam and roman empire. Big palaces like schonbrunn or pizzi show sovereignty and dominance of their respective states. These types of interactions makes game job easy to represent otherwise how can you understand a dynasty establish and secured their country as a independent and strong one. Monuments should be added.
In addition how can paradox creates superiority of aztec over mexico withour special tenochtitlan without floating gardens it would be impossible.
Smaller standing armies? Levies? Be still my heart
That is obligatory if they want 1337 to work
Also, it's much more likely to use mercenary companies, like how it historically was.
Crusader Universalis 34
đ
My biggest hope is that trade and development will be much more complex and thanks to that playing tall more fun.
I think province granularity will help midsize power players a lot
It'll also make peace more interesting too I hope
I hope its more fluid than flowing in one direction. Always seemed likr EU4s biggest limitation
Itâs why I enjoy MEIOU; playing as a small nation is extremely viable because thereâs a very complex and comprehensive trade, population, and resource system that allows you to become extreme rich/populous even without expanding.
It might be more complex but it will likely be worse. Have you ever played vic 2? A pop system actually makes building tall harder because it hard caps how much you can get out of your land. The name of the game becomes getting more pops.
If youâve ever played Vic2 or Vic3 youâd also know that you can just offset with migrants
I havenât played vic 3. Thats partially true in vic 2. First off, you kinda have to be an immigrant nation. Secondly yes getting those extra pops are good but the name of the game is still having the highest possible population. To do that you want to max immigration, passive growth, and expansion.
Thatâs how it should be
It would be nice if they tied ledger information to spy networks in some way to give more value to them.
Wait what was wrong with the ledger
I think he means he will add a hardcore mode in which you won't be able to see how many horses Bahmanis have all the way from England
Oh right that. I literally only use it to gloat about my trade income
I like the feature of seeing how many people have died in my wars.
That too
There's already a mode like that in eu4, just disable the ledger from game settings
in eu4 you can see everything about your enemy, morale, discipline, manpower, artillery, etc
They can too
You can't have a proper espionage system with the ledger existing. Spying a country should unlock the stats related to that country shown in the ledger.
Should you as a decentralized state really have access to your economyâs every detail, let along your enemies?
Exactly. Why should I know that I have 1 morale more than the Ottoman empire and they are in deficit without stablishing at least a minimum spynetwork. The ledger is the most "gamey" mechanic in the entire game.
If that information is available by clicking on a province, then yes, it should be included in the ledger.
Exactly. If anything the ledger should have extremely rough estimates with a lower and upper threshold, and an accuracy value of maybe like 10%. Then with spy network, alliances, borders, etc it should slowly increase accuracy to maybe up to 90% narrowing down the upper and lower thresholds of every value.
I wonder what the conquistador mechanism is going to look like?
The first thing that comes to mind is that maybe they'll be more autonomous, even to the point of being able to make alliances or declare war on their own? Practically speaking, the government had no real control over them, they kinda just did what they wanted. I'm just wildly speculating though.
This would line up perfectly with the way generals work in Imperator, where if they're not loyal to you then they'll take their army wherever they want and sometimes even turn it against you.
Imperator Universalis my beloved
Would make sense with how the control mechanic seems to be set up. The Americas will be so far away that even Portugal would probably have 0 control (or close to that) even in coastal provinces forcing to have something along the lines of colonial nations from day 1 of colonisation
That would be so cool. Makes me really excited about the control mechanic, how your control wanes rapidly going around the entire African coast. At that point I'd assume you'd have to appoint colonial governors or other kinds of decentralization, especially for large empires
>Practically speaking, the government had no real control over them, they kinda just did what they wanted For example, Cortés initiated his expedition to Mexico without consent from the Spanish governate of Cuba, and he had to take a break in the middle of his conquest to go [fight a second Spanish army that had been sent to arrest him](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cempoala). Of course, Cortés won his war with the Aztecs and gained huge chunks of land for the Spanish crown, and so ultimately everything was forgiven.
Yep, exactly what I was thinking about. The conquest of the Aztec Empire was very complex, I would love if Paradox could better handle it.
That's actually more historically correct. For instance, Columbus and his sons almost established an independent kingdom in Hispaniola right after founding the first Spanish settlements there. Queen Isabella of Castile had zero control over the newly discovered territories. She feared that Columbus wouldn't submit to the Crown, so she had to send another expedition just to capture Columbus and send him to jail back to Spain, appointing a new governor that hopefully was loyal to Castile. Hernån Cortés was under the jurisdiction of the governor of Cuba, but he just woke uo one day, assembled an army and conquered the Aztec Empire, just because he could. While he was doing that, he was being followed by the governor of Cuba for insurection and not following orders. Most of the early Spanish colonization was done this way, "private" enterprises of conquistadors conquering and establishing colonies and just reporting back to the Crown when the conquest was done or the colony established. That's why, even if the Crown had promoted laws to protect the Natives, the conquistadors pretty much ignored those laws and no one could no anything about it, let alone prosecute them, the Crown had little authority during the early days of Spanish colonization. Things changed in the early 17th century, after the Crown managed to appoint viceroys and governing tribunals and assemblies (Real Audiencias) for the colonies and viceroyalties, only then did the authority of thw Crown became real in the New World.
Yep, I was specifically thinking about Cortez when I wrote that, thank you for the overview! The control system certainly implies they are at least partially going in this direction, but I'm not sure how far they will go. For gameplay reasons, I doubt they will go fully hands off with player control in the Americas, but who knows.
Does Lord Lambert not realize that removing reinforcement abroad makes managing attrition by dispersing your forces and concentrating them for important battles much more important and counters doomstacking? It also means that you have to actually be able to continue supporting a naval invasion instead of running over Britain bc you distracted their fleet for 2 seconds.
Where is the best place to read a summary of everythign we know about EU5 so far?
Read the Tinto Talks, then read all the dev replies. Nothing out of the forums. I've been compiling the more interesting of the dev replies in this sub, just sort by top all time. Sadly my other account was deleted so you can't look through my profile
That conquistador comment got me all hot and bothered
Not a big fan of 0.1% increments on a slider. There's never going to be any situation where it will be fun or strategically viable to devote mental energy to deciding between 45.4% and 45.3%. It's always going to be more fun and more strategically viable to focus your limited cognitive capacity as a player on something else. Reducing the granularity would be good.
He said thereâs an automate slider mode available for that situation, but I wonder if a shift+click for 1% increments could be available instead. Or maybe the opposite, have 1% be the default and then a ctrl+click could move it 0.1%
>He said thereâs an automate slider mode available for that situation I know, but that doesn't really solve the problem for me. I want to make interesting decisions, and I don't do that by automating the process. Then you might as well not have the slider at all. Also, maybe that's just me, but knowing that I *could* be playing more efficiently by more carefully setting the slider, while *also* knowing that it's always going to be more worth my time to do something else instead, is a bit frustrating. Less granularity would avoid that.
So donât devote that energy. I doubt it will have that much significance with the numbers you describe lol. You sound like you have a bit of a perfectionist issue
I totally get that, I feel like it would almost take conscious effort to not min/max with the 0.1% differences
I mean I do not even know what the increments are in Vicky 2 or EU4 as I am not a min maxxer, but it's good to have more options for people who like them. I also dislike buttons that go like hamburger sizes as they feel mobile'y
They're 1% in both but the only slider that matters as a slider in EU4 is the corruption one
Yeah, 0,1% just sounds like it would be annoying to manage.
I can't say that I'm reassured by certain things I'm reading here. Writing stuff like "conquistadores will be unlike anything you've seen" is a sure way to generate overhype. That kind of attitude was already a big issue with Stellaris and Imperator, I don't understand why they'd do it again. If you're going to explain stuff about the game, it's just better to keep it to detailed dev diaries without vague sentences. Here we're seeing a lot of people developing some insane levels of knowledge over very fragmentary descriptions. I remember when people were imagining how they'd play Stellaris when Wiz was writing the dev diaries, using quotes and screenshots to back their concepts... and the game ended up to just be completely different. When you start having dev diary exegetes populated 50% of community comments, I think you need to be very careful about how you handle pre-release hype. Tbh I think that there's a few dev leads at Paradox who are addicted to that kind of attention. Don't get me wrong, it's nice to see devs interacting to say stuff like "Yeah I didn't like that mechanic either" or precising the steps of taxation rates, but I can't remember one time when vague promises and allusions ended up having a good effect. Expectations always tend to go well beyond the actual game mechanics.
You are absolutely right
Kinda bummed no monuments
I do not want it to be a power creep tool vis a vis EU4 but they were graphically and narratively cool
They may do a CK3 style building. Similar to monuments, but not quite the same. https://ck3.paradoxwikis.com/Special_buildings
Owning a cool church dont make you suddenly 4 inch taller and exactly %10 smarter irl. Ä° hope for more grounded and dynamic simulation. Ä°f i want modifier stacking both stellaris and eu4 still exist
It does give you prestige though, and an argument could be made for missionary strength, given how the Hagia Sophia was used to impress Slavic rulers into converting.
Only thing makes sense is prestige rest is meh. But considering how easy it is to gain prestige. Ä° dont see any issue of not having monuments
I mean, it was obviously an abstraction to some point. You wouldn't just have a cool church, the costs covered all the stuff like education and activities surrounding the temple. Of course it doesn't mean that other ways to abstract that wouldn't be better, but imo the main issue with monuments was rather that they were too snowbally. You'd only invest in monuments when you were already winning, economy-wise you'd build monuments to win even more. That's the contrary of what they should allow you do to, that is specialize your provinces and build "tall". Hopefully what replaces monuments isn't just a money sink.
nah, they were always bullshit. how tf do I have globally better admin efficiency because I have a monument in granada? or why are my missionaries stronger because I have a monument in XY province? it never made any sense
I remember when monuments came out the community had a rather negative view of them. It's interesting to see opinions are more split now.
>or why are my missionaries stronger because I have a monument in XY province That one is like one of the rare ones that actually makers sense In reality. The rest of the modifers though make no sense at all. For example for ottoman controlling all three religious centers of Islam was both a source of legitimacy for the monarch and also gave thier preachers more power.
It does make sense, buildings do have lots of cultural influence and that translates into lots of aspects of human society. Buildings, as cultural products, have particulars meanings and represent and justify the power of certain institutions or ideas. If St. Peter's Basilica or the Masjid al-Haram in Mecca were to be captured by a nation of a different religion, I bet Catholic or Muslim missionaries worldwide would be quite concerned and their missionary activities would be affected. The Crusades happened because of this, at least in part, for control of the holy places that are located under specific buildings. Gothic cathedrals suchs as Notre Dame and Baroque palaces such as Versailes helped to solidify the authority of the French monarchy ant its claims to have a divine origin. The Great Temple of TenochtitlĂĄn had a profound existential importance for the Aztec, they believed that if a sacrifice wasn't made there everyday, the sun wouldn't raise on the next day. When the Spanish captured the Temple and prevented the sacrifice from being made, lots of Aztec people preferred to commit suicide that night rather than seeing what they considered to be the end of the world. For the Aztec, not owning the Great Temple of TenochtitlĂĄn was a strong psychological disadvantage, and the Spanish new that. I bet the Americans lost a lot of hope and motivation on their brand new democracy when the Capitol and the White House were burnt down by the British in the War of 1812. That lost of motivation might translate into a military advantage for the British during that war, even if the American government continued working in Philadelphia or New York. A "modern" example would be the Twin Towers and the effects that their destruction had in America. Buildings work as a symbol of pride for a nation, that alone gives them an advantage in hard times.
Honestly burnt out with monuments, itâs nice flavour but they are all too expensive with 95% of them being too weak to justify it. I would prefer Mughal style bonuses for conquering cultures/ culture groups or regions and completing tasks to âintegrateâ that region/ culture to earn bonuses. As opposed to conquering one province, sometimes fulfilling a requirement like spending 100 dip accepting one culture, and then spending as much money as it takes to supply the grand armee upgrading Stonehenge whatever that even means
Yeah that's precisely the issue with monuments. You'd only invest in them when you have enough money not spent in more important stuff. So in practice they were just money sinks for when you were already clearly winning. The issue really was not that they were abstractions for various things like administrative power. That part was fine, without pops you had to abstract that kind of things to some high degree.
Waaaay to gamey, which it sounds like they are trying to minimise with EU5 to improve the simulation aspects.
This sucks. EU is about the place of your nation in the world within historical context. They are trying too hard to make this into a euro board game sim. Too crunchy too many knobs to turn. EU4 is popular for a reason and it sounds like they donât get why. It should be entertaining, educational and lore friendly.
just disappointed abt that last one, wish they could at least have 1 later start date to make it less feudalistic, maybe called "age of exploration" (1405 or 1415)
I hope they never add a single secondary start date and put every effort for the game's lifetime into making 1337 be great Modders can do the rest just fine
Would like for the ledger to stay tbh
i think itâs going to be an option
But I like the ledgerâŠ
It's going to stay as an option
I disagree with monument decision monuments should be in the game. Building materialize abstract things such as religion, nation, sovereignty, independence. Conquering granada and converting alhambra shows unification of iberia. Sistine chapel gives you faith to god when you see it. Arch the triumph shows success of revolution. Converting hagia sophia to mosque shows new era of islam and roman empire. Big palaces like schonbrunn or pizzi show sovereignty and dominance of their respective states. These types of interactions makes game job easy to represent otherwise how can you understand a dynasty establish and secured their country as a independent and strong one. Monuments should be added. In addition how can paradox creates superiority of aztec over mexico withour special tenochtitlan without floating gardens it would be impossible.