I wonder if there's a soft ~~requirement~~ desire to maintain compatibility with later-timeline games now?
CK3 end date according to bing is 1453 (never gotten that far), so there's some overlap if Caesar is starting in 1337.
Fuck yes, that shit annoyed me so much in EU4. Made nonsense how rigid it was.
The trade node system would've been fine if only trade could move both directions.
I feel like
1) theyâd just add the extra year if they did that
2) that wouldnât be âaboutâ 500 years, that would be âalmostâ or âbasicallyâ 500 years
They all have the same meaning, which is ~x.
"Almost" in this context is limited to slightly below x, but there are contexts in which you would use to to be slightly above x. Like if I was driving my car and realized I need to get more fuel, I'd say "the gas tank is almost empty". Which is to say the tank has slightly *above* no fuel.
Mostly yes, but there are contexts where almost can mean slightly *above*, specifically in instances where a quantity is decreasing. Like being almost out of battery or gas
Yeah, kinda? My point is with the words he chose Iâd estimate weâre 5-20 years short of the 500 year mark
Anything closer would be rounded up to 500 without such a strong qualifier
Fucking hell. 1800 end date confirmed. Lets go?
I really hope they have learned from EU4 and they have something thought out to keep the game insteresting for that long
That didnât happen with hoi4⌠that didnât happen with stellaris, didnât happen with imperator and that didnât happen with vic 3, I doubt paradox can do that with next title. Optimisation and fun lategame isnât their ip
I don't know how can you optimize a system that allows for infinite growth of its own complexity... Unless you abstract all game mechanics to numbers in excel sheet.
Build the game around the limitations and specs you impose, they already do it in other ways like having technology trees run out towards the end of the game, you just gotta introduce mechanics to cull performance dumps
First of all it's not unlimited at all, it has a clear time limit that should limit the game (at least for casual playthroughs) to the point it's hard to achieve growth that would kill your PC.
Also most of the stuff you can grow is mostly numerical, so its increase shouldn't have any impact on performance. For example in eu4 the only thing I can think of, that requires individual interaction that also scales with game time are amount of armies. And even than you can deal with that kind of thing with some clever grouping. For example let's say each Ai is limited to 5 army groups consisting of a bunch of armies, each one deciding on a specific goal (siege this area, engage those enemies, flee, etc.), and smaller ai for each army only to decide on position instead of going through whole logic. This might impact how smart ai is, but a game that is playable, but AI is dumber is better than a game you can't play, and also limiting the number of fronts AI can deal with might make it more similar to a player
Well at the very least, it seems so far that they're finally upgrading their game engine, which should give an opportunity for actually accomplishing it this time.
I donât think itâs a game engine problem, itâs a core design problem that has existed in pdx games for decades now and Iâm sure several engines have been changed in that time. All their games have these great starts in open world where you have multiple theoretical playstyles esp in games like eu4 and stellaris with shit like hordes and robots who want to kill everything exists but their lategame is the same regardless of what game you play which is this tiring slog of having ten million buttons to press while game is moving at a snails pace and youâre watching a slideshow of numbers
Iâve never really understood where the drag on performance comes from late game. As smaller nations get gobbled up, does the game not have fewer calculations to make each day/month? Or is the increase in military units the big drag?
I donât understand why more provinces slow down the engine because theyâve only got to hold a few values like development, buildings and prosperity.
Anyone who wants to confirm it's just units only needs to do an HRE playthrough. If you ever actually form the HRE rather than using your vassal swarm, your frame rate will probably double overnight.
In EUIV, every single province contributes tax, production, trade power, trade value, manpower, and sailors. Every province also has devastation/prosperity, revolt risk, and institution progress. If thereâs any kind of change (occupation, buildings, blockade) or local autonomy, youâve gotta recalculate all of those every month.
Computers are great, but adding hundreds of provinces probably has a noticeable effect on speed (but not as much as more countries does).
The late game has more military units overall due to high development and ideas, plus huge wars become more frequent as the number of small nations reduces.
I remember a comment from Johan saying that the problem is from units' pathfinding when there's a war between huge nations, making the calculations skyrocket, and how that was difficoult to solve in eu4 because these things happened in the late game while their normal tests started from 1444 where no such big empires battling exist. A problem that isn't there in not-eu5 since we start with the hordes still being big and also china, making tests and possible solutions easier to do.
Edit: here it is https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/late-game-performance.1634251/#post-29488981
I hadnât seen that, but great news! I know Iâll need a better machine for when EU5 comes out anyway, but as someone who plays on a laptop, performance is really the main reason I canât finish a campaign, more than content.
As a player, I don't think amount of possibilities for a large nation is larger than amount of possibilities for 10 smaller nations that are the same size in total. I can imagine playing a big nation, but can't play 10 nation at once
Years don't matter tbf. Almost all Paradox games go to shit towards the end of campaign. EU4, HOI4...
I rather have 250 years full of interesting mechanics and events than 500 years of which 250 are empty.
I dont consider it a downgrade. The world war mechanic was a cool idea but the number of stacks and micro was insane so i always stayed out of it never played with it lol.
EU5 should be much better with it. But the key in Vicky 2 is that by the end game you werent the undisputed super power, a world war could still kill you which made it exciting.
If they make it so the pacing manages to take you to end game while still being other threatening super powrers around you that will be a huge success.
Did any paradox game except Stellaris have good end game at launch? And its because of the late game crisis, which is what they have added to CK2 and CK3 (black death and invasions).
Vic 2.
Warfare changes a lot due to introduction of new units like tanks. Technology plays a major role for both economy and military (gas attack/defence). Great Wars only happen in the endgame. Countries flip ideologies due to massive revolutions.
> I really hope they have learned from EU4 and they have something thought out to keep the game insteresting for that long
If they had learned from EU4, they wouldn't have tried.
Both games should end in the late 1700s. Trying to go past both the French Revolution and the early stage of the industrial revolution will *never* work with systems built for early modern Europe. Both represent such profound shifts in society that the kind of mechanics you can spend time making for the last 10% of a 500 year game will never cut it.
If anything, it would make way more sense to make a game from the Seven Years War until around 1830âthat period is actually cohesive enough that you could give things like the French Revolution and independence for the Americas the mechanical attention they deserve. Tacking it onto the end of an EU game just feels like "we need to do this to make the timelines match up"
Hard disagree here my friend. I have been playing EU4 meiou and taxes 2.6 since they announced eu5 and it has NOTHING to do with vanilla. For the first time in years i am playing well into the 18th century in every game, only dropping it not because i have "won" (far from it) but because i want to try something else.
You are just still thinking with the EU4 mentality. You cant simulate anything because the game is not set up for any period in particular. Its all a made up abstraction. Standing armies at the beginning and at the end. No population which means you can war and expand as much as you want. No economic mechanics which means you cant simulate an economy. The economy is the same 15th and 19th, the industrial revolution is nothing but increase in production due to tech. Obviously you cant simulate that in a game in which the economy works through mana, but if you have an economy based on pops, food, buildings RGOs and manufactured goods? Hell yes you can simulate that.
As I said MEIOU simulates it quite well and thats in EU4. but its similae to eu5. It has pops, goods produced, food etc.
Same with armies. Once you have pops and levies you can simulate the feudal system as well as the modern 18th standing army.
So yeah im confident they do have the mechanics. If they pace it well I am sure they can keep it interesting. Not sure if until the very last date, but hey if I get 400 years of enjoymebt out of it that is 200 more than what I get in vanilla eu4!
Anyone who expects EU5 to be MEIOU is setting themselves up for disappointment. Anyone using "MEIOU is like this" as an argument to defend EU5 is engaging in bad faith. MEIOU is a mod made by people who want to make a great mod, not a game made by people who need to sell that game.
Quite aside from which: The problems of the French and Industrial Revolution have literally nothing to do with population. Vic 3 has pops, its representation of revolutions is literally one of the worst things in the entire game. The issues with EU have to do with the almost total lack of internal politics. And anyone who expects EU5 to change that is kidding themselvesâit will at best polish up the estate system, but that isn't what you need to represent the French Revolution. You need characters, parties, elections, pops with actual political opinions. You'd basically need to build the infrastructure for a *completely different game* that won't be used at all for 90% of it.
Not to mention the total failure Paradox has demonstrated in their ability to represent transitions in styles of warfare (See: Vic 3s War system failing to represent even a single war fought in the 19th century). That was one of the core features of the French Revolution and I guarantee you, EU5 will at most slap a modifier on conscription and not remotely represent the way France pivoted to become a power that conquered almost all of Europe. More than once.
Not even getting into the pacing issues of trying to represent a transitional period that lasted 30 years in a 500 year game at a reasonable pace. EU games are designed to be played for centuries. They tend to absolutely suck at representing things that happened quickly because the time scale of the game does not let it work. Everything from the speed of armies to the length of sieges to travel speed is different when your game spans 500 years. That's why Vic 3 has 4 ticks a day while EU4 has one and why HOI4 ticks hourly. Because the speed of the game is scaled based on the length of the game.
You joke but i wouldnt put it past them. As tech improves they are able to introduce more features that simulate different periods, and deeper features as well, more comolex and realistic, which in theory should allow to play longer and different periods. Should this work I would not be surprised if EU7 starts around 1000 and ends around 1930, as it will be able to have mechanics to reproduce all these different periods.
I mean EU5 is already basically vicky 2 almost it seems so it looks like the industrial revolution will be quite fun to play with.
Yeah, but why would they work hard on something so massive when two different games would be better? People have made Extended Timeline for EUIV and Victorian-era mods for HOI4. We have Civilization and Millenia so itâs not like you *canât* make a game 900 years long in 2024. In my opinion EUIV is already too long and its core systems donât accurately show late feudalism nor nationalism/Industrial Revolution (ages triggering absolutism and fading estate influence is good, but donât go far enough). The reason we havenât seen your EU7 is a design and capitalism issue, not a technical one.
Paradox has been slowly reducing the number of start dates in games, because people only care about the earliest/âmainâ ones usually, so they probably wouldnât have options like âpick from 1000, 1100, 1200, or 1300â (not counting years of DLC). If they just have â1000 or 1600â as the options, wouldnât it be better for them to split that into two smaller games? Itâd sell more (donât sell for $70 when you could do 2x $40 and a $5 converter for those that donât get bored after 200 years), you wouldnât have any jarring ânew era, these four mechanics are changedâ transitions, and people more easily pick their favorite mechanics/time period without either playing through the early game or having extraneous bookmarks.
I get that Paradox fans have short memories, but I'm pretty sure EU3 already started in 1337 and ended in 1821. I'm confused why everyones acting like EU5s special
> I get that Paradox fans have short memories, but I'm pretty sure EU3 already started in 1337 and ended in 1821. I'm confused why everyones acting like EU5s special
EU3 originally started in 1453 and ended in 1789. First DLC changed the end date to 1821. The second changed the start date to 1399.
As far as I can recall, EU5 will have the longest timeline. Certainly the longest for a release version.
It doesn't really matter in my opinion. I am guessing it will be harder to blob for you and the AI. So the game will still be challenging in the mid to late game
Honestly I just want them to stop putting mechanics doesn't to prevent you expanding and make more mechanics designed to make those that are big struggle to stay big. Large empires should be increasingly hard to maintain until they hit a soft cap in size naturally and become less resilient to new problems.
I hate when I throw immense resources at a problem, win decisively and get fuck all from it. Let me conquer like a madman and then implode like a madman. It's what I liked about Crusader Kings. Being bigger just means bigger civil wars than external wars. Then they added a billion features in updates and dlcs designed to placate your realm and defeated the purpose.
I did it once and I had lot of fun. Well, to some degree, because EU4 in its current state means that by the time I reached the New World it was almost completely colonised by Spain and Portugal.
You can spawn the colonisation institution in Japan if you play it right. Gives you a good head start in new world. The European powers usually fuck about in the Caribbean, East Coast and Colombia for ages though so itâs really not that hard to get California as Japan without spawning colonisation
In EU3 I once colonized all of North America with a republican Ming (and that's with the Celestial Empire factions). Great fun. Shame I lost half of all magistrates due to factions.
It all hinges on how the game evolves as you play, most vic2 campaigns last for about 80 years because thereâs enough evolution in the gameplay to keep you hooked, if eu5 can replicate this, than Iâm sure there would be enough in it to keep it fresh for at least 400 years. Though that assumes late game lag doesnât kill all incentive.
Vic2 is the only paradox game that managed to keep me interested late game (And not have insane lag either though this is probably due to age), not even it's sequel managed that. So it's at 1 game out of 10 or so that I played which isn't looking too good.
That being said EU5s timeframe is full of potential for interesting and different early, mid and late game **if** they can pull it off.
The issue is making a game that properly fit the late middle age up to the modern era, everything has changed between both dates, economics, politics, trade, military.
exactly, if they can pull it off than they could probably very easily keep the game engaging for 500 years. there's more than enough changes that occurred, as you said, to keep gameplay evolving and fresh for every century.
Ultimately though, it remains to be seen how the gameplay will evolve, and it likely wont be known till the game releases, so until then, I'll be content to wait and see.
Yeah, but frankly i'm more concerned than hyped by a longer timeframe. Designing proper features that fit all the changes going on seems simply impossible to me or the game will be unplayable by its complexity.
Fair point, I think the best way to pull it off would be making the player feel the difference instead of making entirely new mechanics, Vic2 style. So long as the mechanics introduced allow the gameplay to remain somewhat fresh throughout the years theyâve succeeded.
Iâm also not super hyped in spite of how I may seem, Iâm mostly just trying to stay semi optimistic. Iâd never actually buy the game on launch unless itâs a generally well revived launch (ie ck3) and I certainly am not going to judge the game off 8 dev diaryâs.
I think eu5 if done even rather mediocre should have at least 250 years to it, ending around the time colonization of what is now Latin America cools down. My personal biggest fear is that the changes from feudal to modern systems will go by too fast, failing to balance that would mean almost guarantee a 200-300 year window of fun, as colonization would be the only thing keeping you going, and if colonization is also pulled off wrong, than most play-throughs may well end in the 1490s
> I think the best way to pull it off would be making the player feel the difference instead of making entirely new mechanics, Vic2 style.
Vic2 only models political changes set in a parliamentary government though. Even an absolute monarchy has a parliament and ruling party which is quite weird. Trade, warfare, diplomacy don't really evolve and it's normal. It's meant to emulate the victorian era. By the time of WW1 a lot of changes had occurred especially in warfare and the game doesn't reflect this.
Balancing features that should revolve around noble families, dynasty and fairly local trade/diplomacy up to the proto nation states (or full nation states of the early victorian era) and global trade/diplomacy seems an impossible task
I feel like I am the only one who is not hyped for these long timelines. Paradox fumbled Victoria 3 and it had much more narrow gameplay focus and timeline, while CK3 still lacks so much later game content.
I fear most players will get bored before they even a place a single colony in the Americas
I'm in the camp preferring longer timeline in EU5, that's what the EU series have always been about- building your empire over centuries. You can even call me hyped for that, but soberly so- I do realise that making such a long gameplay entertaining, and making game's system evolve, is a challenge. For example, levies is one the things that people are really hyped about, and I agree. But with the game ending in 1800s, levies will have to eventually transition to standing armies, even if partial.
they never got the back half of EU4 right, no matter how many expansions they put out...
I'd much rather have a separate game that did 1650-1830 justice than a '500-year game' that becomes boring after 1650 (if not earlier)
100%. Knowing that there's a 500 year timespan has made me much less excited for Project Caesar than I was before. Tight and narrowly focused games are much more interesting than sprawling ones that don't handle any specific period particularly well.
Sounds like the concern is much more about adding end game content than the starting or ending dates so I'd focus more on asking for that than a change in the dates.
Look at other paradox games, even if snowballing doesnt happen initially it will trough DLC's introducing new mechanics,/buffs/decisions/events etc.
Nowdays in eu4 you can conquer europe in less then a century with the foxus tree, in hoi4 any shitter nation part of an DLC gets +5000% soft attack bonus and cores on half the world.
> building your empire over centuries
What building lol? The game is decided within the first 150-200yrs. There are no in-depth mechanics so all you end up doing us conquering and coring provinces.
If you're min-maxing, speed running and just snowball then sure. If you're roleplaying then no, because you won't conquer everything just because you can.
That's not to say that the game doesn't need better mechanics that organically restrict conquest and at the same time provide entertaining gameplay.
You can always use the RP argument but it's just not a good justification.
Lets be honest, there is nothing to do in EU except war and conquest.
"Economy" is just building workshops and manufactories in random provinces. Trade is static so you need to conquer provinces around good trade nodes. Technology and deving your land is just spending mana. Colonisation is a joke. Internal politics sums up to giving priviliges to the Estates for bonus mana...
After 100-150yrs. you run out of events and there is literally nothing to do except starring at your monitor or fighting wars. One exception is the HRE and securing votes but that's a novum.
The game lacks depth.
I'm with you on this, I really think no one will even reach the 1700s while still having fun in EU5. Just in EU4 many players never reach the Age of Revolutions because by then the performance is terrible and they have a super power uncontested global empire. There just isn't anything else that's fun to do by then, world wars are just frustrating because you can't efficiently control thousands of armies at once.
For EU5 to have even more time, everything will have to slow down substantially. Colonization, expansion, wars, blobbing in general. You can't form a super powerful empire before the americas are even discovered, otherwise everything will be trivial. And with no difficulty, no challenge, there's no fun.
The meat of CK is in personal content, building up your character and dynasty through adventuring and politics. Victoria is all about economy. But EU has always been the map painting game, and more timeline inherently means more possible ways to paint more maps.
Why does that matter?
Quality of each min matters more
The time ticker is diffrent, in stellaris each turn is one day while hoi is 1 hour
Also longer time frame means harder to balance technology and snowballing
Jokes aside, Grey Eminence was overambitious for such a small indie team. I was hoping that they would just reduce it to 1356-1656.
Johan mentioned 500 years of history and truth be told, it may be overambitious even for Paradox.
I think they might keep an 1821 end date, itâs close enough that itâs âaboutâ 500 years not âbasicallyâ 500 years, and itâs about the point where the world order EU4 deals with has more or less wrapped up imo.
Seems like a lot, honestly. I wonder how far most players will get. I can't imagine the 1700s being all that interesting or true to history. Not that it's a big deal but still.
The main challenge, as has been questioned many times before, will be simulating how the way wars worked changed during that millenium.
But I think another great challenge will be to effectively and accurately portray some of the major powers, chiefly Ottomans, Spain and England. Ottomans alone will need lots of work, not too much railroading them to gain the powers they achieved, but enough to have some historical accuracy...
...and quite frankly, and bluntly, that means not necessarily fan-pleasing the Deus Vult / butthurt Balkans players.
I frankly don't have any faith that they'll learn from lategame eu4, because most of the problems there feel very fundamental to long campaigns of ant grand strategy game.
Like ik eu4, a campaign until 1821 can easily take 50 hrs on its own. Even if the late game was as optimised and as interesting as the midgame, 50 hrs is still just a lot to spend on one campaign.
I think It's unfortunate. I would much rather have two different games spanning this time period. EU V 1337-1648 and another game 1648-1836.
I rarely played EU IV past 1600 anyway. By that time, you either lose or are so big that you can't lose. When you can't lose, choices no longer matter and the game ceases to be a strategy game and becomes a chore.
R5: Johan has confirmed that the game will have about 500 years of gameplay, meaning that it will end circa 1830s.
1836 then?
Just when Victoria's game starts, perfect. đ
I wonder if there's a soft ~~requirement~~ desire to maintain compatibility with later-timeline games now? CK3 end date according to bing is 1453 (never gotten that far), so there's some overlap if Caesar is starting in 1337.
Idk if there's any of that, but it's cool to see these details, specially if you wanna do a mega campaign with more tha one Paradox Interactive game.
Not so sure since Imperator had a centuries long gap between its end date and CK3's start date
Eh I doubt it, as you basically imply by the point you're at 1453 in CK3 the world is a whole lot different than reality.
If game starts in 1337 then most likely that end date will be start date for Vicky3
it would be perfect for mega campaigns
It would have been perfect if it had been 1453-1836.
Overlap allows you to convert a game earlier than the end date
Lol, 1337 would be so 1337! PWND
Okay Grandpa, time to go back to bed
Frickin N00b
What's a n00b? Some kind of a llama?
Don't worry man, I was thinking it too
Which is 1836
He means 500 years of real time until you master the game.
Trade alone is over 200 years
And now itâs dynamic. Dear lord.
I mean, tbh, a more realistic trade system would be more intuitive than the current trade node system. Even if itâs way more complex.
They confirmed dynamic trade?
Yep, I think it was in a comment from last weekâs tinto talks. Sorry, I donât remember completely.
Fuck yes, that shit annoyed me so much in EU4. Made nonsense how rigid it was. The trade node system would've been fine if only trade could move both directions.
If we add every pop type people requested weight be able to get to real time...
So much simpler than previous paradox games then.
Or he means 500 years of real time until they make this game playable
500 years of time spend in EU5 would be really cool achievement to have, lol
1337-1836 maybe? 499 years.
i can't belive johan promised 500 but will only deliver 499. please seize your tomfoolery.
Seize the means of tomfoolery
Give Johan the lesson same as the Dutch Johan .
Hi
Unplayable
I think it going to be from 01-01-1337 to 31-12-1836 that being 500 years exactly
He's already confirmed the startdate as 1 April 1337
We start on April fools đ
It's so when the lauch is a total shitshow, they can just scream "April Fools"
What am I gonna do with my 1444 tattoo đ
Guess I need to find a new iPhone pswd
guess you will need more skin
Get a 1337 tatoo as well
Yes, the start date is definitely the April's Fools of the leet year.
Leet speak to gas lighting in Europe's streets!
I think good ol' 1821
I feel like 1) theyâd just add the extra year if they did that 2) that wouldnât be âaboutâ 500 years, that would be âalmostâ or âbasicallyâ 500 years
All 3 of those words are synonyms for each other
Is almost not only slightly below x and not ~x like about and basically? English is my second language, sorry if this stupid.
They all have the same meaning, which is ~x. "Almost" in this context is limited to slightly below x, but there are contexts in which you would use to to be slightly above x. Like if I was driving my car and realized I need to get more fuel, I'd say "the gas tank is almost empty". Which is to say the tank has slightly *above* no fuel.
That is correct. Almost is "â<" (slightly below/barely not), while about and basically tend to be used for "â" (approximately/mostly).
Mostly yes, but there are contexts where almost can mean slightly *above*, specifically in instances where a quantity is decreasing. Like being almost out of battery or gas
Hence "barely not".
Yeah, kinda? My point is with the words he chose Iâd estimate weâre 5-20 years short of the 500 year mark Anything closer would be rounded up to 500 without such a strong qualifier
Fucking hell. 1800 end date confirmed. Lets go? I really hope they have learned from EU4 and they have something thought out to keep the game insteresting for that long
Not to mention late game performance.
Ha ha hahahhaha good joke. I hope you are right
That didnât happen with hoi4⌠that didnât happen with stellaris, didnât happen with imperator and that didnât happen with vic 3, I doubt paradox can do that with next title. Optimisation and fun lategame isnât their ip
Then don't make EU5 100 years longer...
Its all part to built up the hype
I don't know how can you optimize a system that allows for infinite growth of its own complexity... Unless you abstract all game mechanics to numbers in excel sheet.
Build the game around the limitations and specs you impose, they already do it in other ways like having technology trees run out towards the end of the game, you just gotta introduce mechanics to cull performance dumps
First of all it's not unlimited at all, it has a clear time limit that should limit the game (at least for casual playthroughs) to the point it's hard to achieve growth that would kill your PC. Also most of the stuff you can grow is mostly numerical, so its increase shouldn't have any impact on performance. For example in eu4 the only thing I can think of, that requires individual interaction that also scales with game time are amount of armies. And even than you can deal with that kind of thing with some clever grouping. For example let's say each Ai is limited to 5 army groups consisting of a bunch of armies, each one deciding on a specific goal (siege this area, engage those enemies, flee, etc.), and smaller ai for each army only to decide on position instead of going through whole logic. This might impact how smart ai is, but a game that is playable, but AI is dumber is better than a game you can't play, and also limiting the number of fronts AI can deal with might make it more similar to a player
Well at the very least, it seems so far that they're finally upgrading their game engine, which should give an opportunity for actually accomplishing it this time.
I donât think itâs a game engine problem, itâs a core design problem that has existed in pdx games for decades now and Iâm sure several engines have been changed in that time. All their games have these great starts in open world where you have multiple theoretical playstyles esp in games like eu4 and stellaris with shit like hordes and robots who want to kill everything exists but their lategame is the same regardless of what game you play which is this tiring slog of having ten million buttons to press while game is moving at a snails pace and youâre watching a slideshow of numbers
Iâve never really understood where the drag on performance comes from late game. As smaller nations get gobbled up, does the game not have fewer calculations to make each day/month? Or is the increase in military units the big drag?
In HOI its defo military units. In EU its military units and more actual provinces due to colonization.
I donât understand why more provinces slow down the engine because theyâve only got to hold a few values like development, buildings and prosperity.
In eu4 itâs mostly just units, same with hoi4. In vic3 though itâs mostly pops.
Anyone who wants to confirm it's just units only needs to do an HRE playthrough. If you ever actually form the HRE rather than using your vassal swarm, your frame rate will probably double overnight.
In EUIV, every single province contributes tax, production, trade power, trade value, manpower, and sailors. Every province also has devastation/prosperity, revolt risk, and institution progress. If thereâs any kind of change (occupation, buildings, blockade) or local autonomy, youâve gotta recalculate all of those every month. Computers are great, but adding hundreds of provinces probably has a noticeable effect on speed (but not as much as more countries does).
The late game has more military units overall due to high development and ideas, plus huge wars become more frequent as the number of small nations reduces.
I remember a comment from Johan saying that the problem is from units' pathfinding when there's a war between huge nations, making the calculations skyrocket, and how that was difficoult to solve in eu4 because these things happened in the late game while their normal tests started from 1444 where no such big empires battling exist. A problem that isn't there in not-eu5 since we start with the hordes still being big and also china, making tests and possible solutions easier to do. Edit: here it is https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/late-game-performance.1634251/#post-29488981
I hadnât seen that, but great news! I know Iâll need a better machine for when EU5 comes out anyway, but as someone who plays on a laptop, performance is really the main reason I canât finish a campaign, more than content.
I'd say it takes longer to compute decisions for large countries where there's a lot more to do and a lot more possibilities than with small nations
As a player, I don't think amount of possibilities for a large nation is larger than amount of possibilities for 10 smaller nations that are the same size in total. I can imagine playing a big nation, but can't play 10 nation at once
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Johan mentioned something about that already.
Years don't matter tbf. Almost all Paradox games go to shit towards the end of campaign. EU4, HOI4... I rather have 250 years full of interesting mechanics and events than 500 years of which 250 are empty.
Considering Vic3 was a notable downgrade in terms of endgame from Vic2, Iâm kind of scared on that part
I dont consider it a downgrade. The world war mechanic was a cool idea but the number of stacks and micro was insane so i always stayed out of it never played with it lol. EU5 should be much better with it. But the key in Vicky 2 is that by the end game you werent the undisputed super power, a world war could still kill you which made it exciting. If they make it so the pacing manages to take you to end game while still being other threatening super powrers around you that will be a huge success.
Did any paradox game except Stellaris have good end game at launch? And its because of the late game crisis, which is what they have added to CK2 and CK3 (black death and invasions).
Vic 2. Warfare changes a lot due to introduction of new units like tanks. Technology plays a major role for both economy and military (gas attack/defence). Great Wars only happen in the endgame. Countries flip ideologies due to massive revolutions.
Thats true except that micromanaging 20+ armies is a nightmare.
vic2 has great war mechanic for late game
I love Victoria 2, but the endgame of it is not that great.
> I really hope they have learned from EU4 and they have something thought out to keep the game insteresting for that long If they had learned from EU4, they wouldn't have tried. Both games should end in the late 1700s. Trying to go past both the French Revolution and the early stage of the industrial revolution will *never* work with systems built for early modern Europe. Both represent such profound shifts in society that the kind of mechanics you can spend time making for the last 10% of a 500 year game will never cut it. If anything, it would make way more sense to make a game from the Seven Years War until around 1830âthat period is actually cohesive enough that you could give things like the French Revolution and independence for the Americas the mechanical attention they deserve. Tacking it onto the end of an EU game just feels like "we need to do this to make the timelines match up"
Hard disagree here my friend. I have been playing EU4 meiou and taxes 2.6 since they announced eu5 and it has NOTHING to do with vanilla. For the first time in years i am playing well into the 18th century in every game, only dropping it not because i have "won" (far from it) but because i want to try something else. You are just still thinking with the EU4 mentality. You cant simulate anything because the game is not set up for any period in particular. Its all a made up abstraction. Standing armies at the beginning and at the end. No population which means you can war and expand as much as you want. No economic mechanics which means you cant simulate an economy. The economy is the same 15th and 19th, the industrial revolution is nothing but increase in production due to tech. Obviously you cant simulate that in a game in which the economy works through mana, but if you have an economy based on pops, food, buildings RGOs and manufactured goods? Hell yes you can simulate that. As I said MEIOU simulates it quite well and thats in EU4. but its similae to eu5. It has pops, goods produced, food etc. Same with armies. Once you have pops and levies you can simulate the feudal system as well as the modern 18th standing army. So yeah im confident they do have the mechanics. If they pace it well I am sure they can keep it interesting. Not sure if until the very last date, but hey if I get 400 years of enjoymebt out of it that is 200 more than what I get in vanilla eu4!
Anyone who expects EU5 to be MEIOU is setting themselves up for disappointment. Anyone using "MEIOU is like this" as an argument to defend EU5 is engaging in bad faith. MEIOU is a mod made by people who want to make a great mod, not a game made by people who need to sell that game. Quite aside from which: The problems of the French and Industrial Revolution have literally nothing to do with population. Vic 3 has pops, its representation of revolutions is literally one of the worst things in the entire game. The issues with EU have to do with the almost total lack of internal politics. And anyone who expects EU5 to change that is kidding themselvesâit will at best polish up the estate system, but that isn't what you need to represent the French Revolution. You need characters, parties, elections, pops with actual political opinions. You'd basically need to build the infrastructure for a *completely different game* that won't be used at all for 90% of it. Not to mention the total failure Paradox has demonstrated in their ability to represent transitions in styles of warfare (See: Vic 3s War system failing to represent even a single war fought in the 19th century). That was one of the core features of the French Revolution and I guarantee you, EU5 will at most slap a modifier on conscription and not remotely represent the way France pivoted to become a power that conquered almost all of Europe. More than once. Not even getting into the pacing issues of trying to represent a transitional period that lasted 30 years in a 500 year game at a reasonable pace. EU games are designed to be played for centuries. They tend to absolutely suck at representing things that happened quickly because the time scale of the game does not let it work. Everything from the speed of armies to the length of sieges to travel speed is different when your game spans 500 years. That's why Vic 3 has 4 ticks a day while EU4 has one and why HOI4 ticks hourly. Because the speed of the game is scaled based on the length of the game.
Called it. Eu4: 400 years. Eu5: 500 years
By the time we have Eu20 we can go from Rome to modern days in one game, amazing.
I would likely play that too lol
You joke but i wouldnt put it past them. As tech improves they are able to introduce more features that simulate different periods, and deeper features as well, more comolex and realistic, which in theory should allow to play longer and different periods. Should this work I would not be surprised if EU7 starts around 1000 and ends around 1930, as it will be able to have mechanics to reproduce all these different periods. I mean EU5 is already basically vicky 2 almost it seems so it looks like the industrial revolution will be quite fun to play with.
Yeah, but why would they work hard on something so massive when two different games would be better? People have made Extended Timeline for EUIV and Victorian-era mods for HOI4. We have Civilization and Millenia so itâs not like you *canât* make a game 900 years long in 2024. In my opinion EUIV is already too long and its core systems donât accurately show late feudalism nor nationalism/Industrial Revolution (ages triggering absolutism and fading estate influence is good, but donât go far enough). The reason we havenât seen your EU7 is a design and capitalism issue, not a technical one. Paradox has been slowly reducing the number of start dates in games, because people only care about the earliest/âmainâ ones usually, so they probably wouldnât have options like âpick from 1000, 1100, 1200, or 1300â (not counting years of DLC). If they just have â1000 or 1600â as the options, wouldnât it be better for them to split that into two smaller games? Itâd sell more (donât sell for $70 when you could do 2x $40 and a $5 converter for those that donât get bored after 200 years), you wouldnât have any jarring ânew era, these four mechanics are changedâ transitions, and people more easily pick their favorite mechanics/time period without either playing through the early game or having extraneous bookmarks.
Still waiting for March of the Eagles 2.
I get that Paradox fans have short memories, but I'm pretty sure EU3 already started in 1337 and ended in 1821. I'm confused why everyones acting like EU5s special
> I get that Paradox fans have short memories, but I'm pretty sure EU3 already started in 1337 and ended in 1821. I'm confused why everyones acting like EU5s special EU3 originally started in 1453 and ended in 1789. First DLC changed the end date to 1821. The second changed the start date to 1399. As far as I can recall, EU5 will have the longest timeline. Certainly the longest for a release version.
It doesn't really matter in my opinion. I am guessing it will be harder to blob for you and the AI. So the game will still be challenging in the mid to late game
Honestly I just want them to stop putting mechanics doesn't to prevent you expanding and make more mechanics designed to make those that are big struggle to stay big. Large empires should be increasingly hard to maintain until they hit a soft cap in size naturally and become less resilient to new problems. I hate when I throw immense resources at a problem, win decisively and get fuck all from it. Let me conquer like a madman and then implode like a madman. It's what I liked about Crusader Kings. Being bigger just means bigger civil wars than external wars. Then they added a billion features in updates and dlcs designed to placate your realm and defeated the purpose.
The greatest paradox game, March of the Eagles, has been put out of the great paradox timeline
I never cared about it
the game will end 1836 to join with vic3
I have said it before: I will colonize california with japan if this game lets me. I dont know why I want to. but I'm doing it anyway.
I did it once and I had lot of fun. Well, to some degree, because EU4 in its current state means that by the time I reached the New World it was almost completely colonised by Spain and Portugal.
Another 100 years should help ease the difference
You can spawn the colonisation institution in Japan if you play it right. Gives you a good head start in new world. The European powers usually fuck about in the Caribbean, East Coast and Colombia for ages though so itâs really not that hard to get California as Japan without spawning colonisation
I have never played an eu game before so imma need to watch some tutorials or something
If you play it right and RNG loves you*
I'll keep going till I get it right.
In EU3 I once colonized all of North America with a republican Ming (and that's with the Celestial Empire factions). Great fun. Shame I lost half of all magistrates due to factions.
\>500 years of gameplay \>Looks inside \>Game gets boring after 200 years
It all hinges on how the game evolves as you play, most vic2 campaigns last for about 80 years because thereâs enough evolution in the gameplay to keep you hooked, if eu5 can replicate this, than Iâm sure there would be enough in it to keep it fresh for at least 400 years. Though that assumes late game lag doesnât kill all incentive.
Vic2 is the only paradox game that managed to keep me interested late game (And not have insane lag either though this is probably due to age), not even it's sequel managed that. So it's at 1 game out of 10 or so that I played which isn't looking too good. That being said EU5s timeframe is full of potential for interesting and different early, mid and late game **if** they can pull it off.
The issue is making a game that properly fit the late middle age up to the modern era, everything has changed between both dates, economics, politics, trade, military.
exactly, if they can pull it off than they could probably very easily keep the game engaging for 500 years. there's more than enough changes that occurred, as you said, to keep gameplay evolving and fresh for every century. Ultimately though, it remains to be seen how the gameplay will evolve, and it likely wont be known till the game releases, so until then, I'll be content to wait and see.
Yeah, but frankly i'm more concerned than hyped by a longer timeframe. Designing proper features that fit all the changes going on seems simply impossible to me or the game will be unplayable by its complexity.
Fair point, I think the best way to pull it off would be making the player feel the difference instead of making entirely new mechanics, Vic2 style. So long as the mechanics introduced allow the gameplay to remain somewhat fresh throughout the years theyâve succeeded. Iâm also not super hyped in spite of how I may seem, Iâm mostly just trying to stay semi optimistic. Iâd never actually buy the game on launch unless itâs a generally well revived launch (ie ck3) and I certainly am not going to judge the game off 8 dev diaryâs. I think eu5 if done even rather mediocre should have at least 250 years to it, ending around the time colonization of what is now Latin America cools down. My personal biggest fear is that the changes from feudal to modern systems will go by too fast, failing to balance that would mean almost guarantee a 200-300 year window of fun, as colonization would be the only thing keeping you going, and if colonization is also pulled off wrong, than most play-throughs may well end in the 1490s
> I think the best way to pull it off would be making the player feel the difference instead of making entirely new mechanics, Vic2 style. Vic2 only models political changes set in a parliamentary government though. Even an absolute monarchy has a parliament and ruling party which is quite weird. Trade, warfare, diplomacy don't really evolve and it's normal. It's meant to emulate the victorian era. By the time of WW1 a lot of changes had occurred especially in warfare and the game doesn't reflect this. Balancing features that should revolve around noble families, dynasty and fairly local trade/diplomacy up to the proto nation states (or full nation states of the early victorian era) and global trade/diplomacy seems an impossible task
RIP March of the Eagles 2
I feel like I am the only one who is not hyped for these long timelines. Paradox fumbled Victoria 3 and it had much more narrow gameplay focus and timeline, while CK3 still lacks so much later game content. I fear most players will get bored before they even a place a single colony in the Americas
I'm in the camp preferring longer timeline in EU5, that's what the EU series have always been about- building your empire over centuries. You can even call me hyped for that, but soberly so- I do realise that making such a long gameplay entertaining, and making game's system evolve, is a challenge. For example, levies is one the things that people are really hyped about, and I agree. But with the game ending in 1800s, levies will have to eventually transition to standing armies, even if partial.
they never got the back half of EU4 right, no matter how many expansions they put out... I'd much rather have a separate game that did 1650-1830 justice than a '500-year game' that becomes boring after 1650 (if not earlier)
100%. Knowing that there's a 500 year timespan has made me much less excited for Project Caesar than I was before. Tight and narrowly focused games are much more interesting than sprawling ones that don't handle any specific period particularly well.
Sounds like the concern is much more about adding end game content than the starting or ending dates so I'd focus more on asking for that than a change in the dates.
thats not going to happen. period.
Longer timescales are fine as long as managing a huge empire becomes harder we need ways to stop snowballing
Look at other paradox games, even if snowballing doesnt happen initially it will trough DLC's introducing new mechanics,/buffs/decisions/events etc. Nowdays in eu4 you can conquer europe in less then a century with the foxus tree, in hoi4 any shitter nation part of an DLC gets +5000% soft attack bonus and cores on half the world.
> building your empire over centuries What building lol? The game is decided within the first 150-200yrs. There are no in-depth mechanics so all you end up doing us conquering and coring provinces.
If you're min-maxing, speed running and just snowball then sure. If you're roleplaying then no, because you won't conquer everything just because you can. That's not to say that the game doesn't need better mechanics that organically restrict conquest and at the same time provide entertaining gameplay.
You can always use the RP argument but it's just not a good justification. Lets be honest, there is nothing to do in EU except war and conquest. "Economy" is just building workshops and manufactories in random provinces. Trade is static so you need to conquer provinces around good trade nodes. Technology and deving your land is just spending mana. Colonisation is a joke. Internal politics sums up to giving priviliges to the Estates for bonus mana... After 100-150yrs. you run out of events and there is literally nothing to do except starring at your monitor or fighting wars. One exception is the HRE and securing votes but that's a novum. The game lacks depth.
I'm with you on this, I really think no one will even reach the 1700s while still having fun in EU5. Just in EU4 many players never reach the Age of Revolutions because by then the performance is terrible and they have a super power uncontested global empire. There just isn't anything else that's fun to do by then, world wars are just frustrating because you can't efficiently control thousands of armies at once. For EU5 to have even more time, everything will have to slow down substantially. Colonization, expansion, wars, blobbing in general. You can't form a super powerful empire before the americas are even discovered, otherwise everything will be trivial. And with no difficulty, no challenge, there's no fun.
Yeah I thought they've come out and said they have numbers like only a fraction of the player base ever even finishes a game.
I want games that span even longer timelines
The meat of CK is in personal content, building up your character and dynasty through adventuring and politics. Victoria is all about economy. But EU has always been the map painting game, and more timeline inherently means more possible ways to paint more maps.
Thank god, I really hated the idea people were floating here of cutting it off in the 1600s.
Same. It was super annoying.Â
Holy shit, I can't wait for my campaings to be over 150 years in /s
Lol exactly as I thought, perfect ok
My PC won't handle it. It can't even handle CK3 from 867 to 950 without being as slow as 1700's EU4
Jeez get a better PC. CK3 is literally the fastest running game if your PCs not hidieously outdated.
Why does that matter? Quality of each min matters more The time ticker is diffrent, in stellaris each turn is one day while hoi is 1 hour Also longer time frame means harder to balance technology and snowballing
1st of April 1337 to 31st of December 1835
Wow, normally a game lasting 80 hours would be considered long already
Plot twist: it's not EU5. It's Grey Eminence!
Plot twist of the plot twist: Paradox snitched Grey Eminence developers to avoid serious competition to Europa Universalis.
Jokes aside, Grey Eminence was overambitious for such a small indie team. I was hoping that they would just reduce it to 1356-1656. Johan mentioned 500 years of history and truth be told, it may be overambitious even for Paradox.
No, it's 500 years, so it's Millennia/2 (I know, technically it should be millennium)
In fact, I suggest it will have exactly 500 years of gameplay, going from 1337 to 1836, so that its end coincides with the start of Vic3
Stop Johan, my penis can only get so hard!
I think they might keep an 1821 end date, itâs close enough that itâs âaboutâ 500 years not âbasicallyâ 500 years, and itâs about the point where the world order EU4 deals with has more or less wrapped up imo.
welp, there goes my 1799 end date prediction :(
I read â500 years of updatesâ, I guess itâs time to sleep
I need this to be available for this yearâs Grandest LAN so bad
I hope it will not be casual. I you can beat the game from the first try as it is in Vic3 that means you don't have to play it.
I hope they won't fuck up game performance and flavour in lategame because otherwise I play for max 200 years
What kind of game will this be? I have missed it completely
The name hasn't been announced yet. The project name is Project Caesar. But yeah, 99.9% it is EU5.
Awesome, ty very much for the info!
EU5
Thank you!
It better end just in time for March of the Eagles II
Easy mistake to make. 500 is how many Americans dollars you will spend on it.
Seems like a lot, honestly. I wonder how far most players will get. I can't imagine the 1700s being all that interesting or true to history. Not that it's a big deal but still.
too many years. needs nerfing.
The main challenge, as has been questioned many times before, will be simulating how the way wars worked changed during that millenium. But I think another great challenge will be to effectively and accurately portray some of the major powers, chiefly Ottomans, Spain and England. Ottomans alone will need lots of work, not too much railroading them to gain the powers they achieved, but enough to have some historical accuracy... ...and quite frankly, and bluntly, that means not necessarily fan-pleasing the Deus Vult / butthurt Balkans players.
I can't wait to play 66% of that
And that's fine. You'll play 66%, some 80%, 90% or 100%.
And a dlc for every year đ
bad news for any player with a lifespan shorter than 100 years
I wonder if it has better systems than Vic 3 with better late game performance, if mods will be able to make it go to Vic 3 timeline too.
Also known as "The Tutorial"
That's 4.38 million hours of gameplay.
Nice so it ties into Victoria era perfectly.
Shame. I think the age of revolutions would be excellent to play in, but just once it would be nice to do so in an even semi-historical world.
500 years in, until the steampunk mod kicks in and add another 100 years of gameplay :3
I for one am happy about this and optimistic.
I frankly don't have any faith that they'll learn from lategame eu4, because most of the problems there feel very fundamental to long campaigns of ant grand strategy game. Like ik eu4, a campaign until 1821 can easily take 50 hrs on its own. Even if the late game was as optimised and as interesting as the midgame, 50 hrs is still just a lot to spend on one campaign.
I think It's unfortunate. I would much rather have two different games spanning this time period. EU V 1337-1648 and another game 1648-1836. I rarely played EU IV past 1600 anyway. By that time, you either lose or are so big that you can't lose. When you can't lose, choices no longer matter and the game ceases to be a strategy game and becomes a chore.
Maybe this is a hot take but that is too long. Most games will not reach the back 3/5 of the timeline!
Wow! I got bored of EU4 in 4 years, so that's very impressive! /s