EU5 Will Fail Without This

With EU4's final updates are coming, we clearly have things that are lacking which EU5 might just be able to fix.

Follow me on Twitch for map game streams !

If you read this far, subscribe for more Europa Universalis 4 and grand strategy videos :3

[AtreidesIV]

I think we barely realize how great (Victoria 4) Europa Univeralis 5 will be

[bandtown]

Have you looked at tinto talks? they have already addressed a load of this stuff.

[kindlytoxic]

the lucky nations mechanic is stupid, and you cant earn achievements if it's turned off. it conflicts with the point of the game being in an alternate universe.

[itriedtochangemynamebutitd]

I've seen you got multiple comments mentioning this already but I just want to reiterate that the Tinto Talks actually mention the transition of levies to a standing army as a focus for the game. And they will have dynamic regiment sizes. Each army regiment will increase in size, ending up at 3000 troops at the end of the game.

[DaHappyTaco]

Your voice is very pleasant to listen to

[toddhoward]

Bro has the best ASMR voice ever just casually.

[axo]

What i understood EU5 already addressed they want to fix this.

[damos]

This video would have been interesting last year… but after all the “Tinto talks” released, I wonder the value added of such video

[chucky]

the game is a game and it doesnt mean to be a historical simulator, or i should say it tried but failed miserably, esp after the dlc updates one abrogates the other in a hilarious way

[kyleawsum]

i hate the eurocentrism in the trade sometimes like one time i was was playing khmer and planning to do a lot of trade and all that and while i was facing difficulties i was still going at it. then i realised i could not steer any indonesian trade into my home node and dropped the save

[setoki]

Pretty sure, eu 5 will feel a lot more like imperator rome than eu 4

[BrutusAlbion]

More gameplay focused at keeping your empire together would be amazing. The art of statecraft is as much internal as it is external and the game is almost exclusively focused on externalities at this moment. Arguably, half the game should be focused on each element for a balanced and interesting gameplay in my opinion.

[arogonium]

EU5 would not so interesting(MP games), because people like wars in this games. Who would just peacefully developing your country, when you can go to war and moving your soldiers to victory. I’m hope game wouldn’t so boring(Vic 3, especially)

[stephen]

what is the UI and map mod for eu4 at 0:12?

[Buffalo_Soldier]

The people using "fun is more important than historical accuracy" as argument, should rethink if they have any argument before talking. They can not define what fun means for everyone. And for me fun means historical accuracy.

But for balance I think :


1) Make war of conquest CB crappy. Some random diplomat fabricating papers that claim some land shouldn't allow you to full-occupy their nation, demand money war reparation and 5 provinces. It should only allow 1 province at the time and no additional wargoals. But AI shouldn't be stubborn (how to resolve wars? see in 6) )

2) Refusing AI's surrender that wants to give whatever you claimed (for example - player doesn't want to sign peace yet, he wants to destroy AI and drive it to bankruptcy) - should cause immediate aggressive expansion. Unanswered call for peace means you are some terrible conqueror and nearby nations get fuming about it.

3) Bigger wars should only come from proper cbs (from mission tree, or crown unification, or religious war (you can only force religion), or in later game Imperialism, etc.


4) make units die a lot more from attrition (before WW1 wars were about attrition, not about battles and precisely THAT is why eu4 era was era of castles. Not only wars were about attrition, but breaching walls was harder. So it was attrition extended by huge amounts of months/years).

5) I think rising troops as in CK3 is just better. Also attrition can happen when on your lands. Just make some logistics system.

6) Then how to determine result of simple war of conquest? Simple :

You control wargoal for 4 months and there is no counterattack happening right now? No battle? No siege of that wargoal? You win. Defending AI doesn't have truce and can counter-attack immediately, unless you signed actual peace.
AI occupied your castle despite you being the one to declare war? unless you just now are sieging wargoal - You lose. Pay up to get your castle back. Or if they have claim on that castle, they can refuse to give it back (effectively gaining their own bit of aggressive expansion and growing after defensive war). And again - truce should be only if you both agreed on terms. They can decide to just take that castle weather you like it or not, but then there's no truce.

Both sides are tired of war and agree to white peace? - then it's white peace.


Make it so monthly attrition is like 2%-15% (depending on supply network, time of year, etc. right now they just most of the time get flat 1% .... Make sure the player KNOWS when the attrition hits ~4/5%/month with some eye catching indicator)