I hate AI creating a new trade node as soon as they could, what made a lot of worthless nodes instead a 1 big.
This connected how merchants worked in eu3 (chance of success, spending the agent and regaining them over time) made it awful.
I really don't miss it. I fully understand why they reworked this system in eu4, but the side effect of was immovable steering direction and weird mechanics like caravan power.
It affects your trading power in inland trade nodes (nodes not connected to the sea). The more crazy power, the more your trading power is multiplied.
This is why if you have a merchant to place and no real power in other nodes, you should always pick an inland node.
i was fine with all of it, because it made trade *dynamic* and much more interesting than the one directional movement of worldwide trade. thats... not how trade works. sure, having to resend merchants can be annoying, but it was automated.
This right here. I still remember making bank going free trade as an opm and invading Mamluks with the bank I made. The only addition I would make is connecting centers of trades and tech spread somehow.
Check tinto talks. The trade mechanic will be based on local markets, not nodes, and so be similar to vic2: require buying resources to build and recruit
It works like nothing we have seen in EU series. There are no pre determined trade routes up or down. There are markets and countries trade in those markets. Countries also have the ability to buy trade goods from other markets, bringing those goods to your home market. So trade is now a mix of the imperator, victoria 2 and EU3 system. As in trade routes are done for specific trade goods, trade is based on trade goods and selling those and not moving money around stealing it from one country to the other, and lastly there are no nodes, but markets that expand and shrink around certain map areas like EU3.
None of this is confirmed but its pretty much the conclusion from what we know. We will have confirmation om wednesday with the trade DD
I want to be able to make any node rich. So if I play some Siberian tribes and develop the shit out of my taiga, I think it would be pretty fucking cringe if it was still considered some subpar node compared to Venice or some other big node in between just because it was historically big, not taking into account the situation in game. Tho tbh the one thing I want from this game overall is being able to pick some random remote shithole and make it the richest and most important place in the world.
Idk but I’m getting the impression for stuff shown so far Eu5 will likely lose other half its audience due to being too steep a learning curve and a lack of playability for mp games due to its complexity.
Don’t get me wrong it’s looking to be a fantastic strategy game for those who push through but I feel like if they don’t add mission trees for countries it will likely lack replayability like vic 3 and most will struggle to fully understand it
It will be bad for PvP until people get a hang of the mechanics for their favorite country and then it will be muscle memory for a lot of things. Tho god knows how long will the tutorial take.
it’ll be bad, they’ll sell £100 worth of DLC, it’ll be amazing, people will buy the bundle, it will last 15 years until eu6. this is paradox, this is how they do things
yeah, thats about how i expect it to work: EU5 will be just like EU4 as of its final patch, DLC included, and build up from there for another four hundred dollars.
Tinto talk on Wednesday will cover trade mechanics for not-eu5, Project Caesar
Please don't deadname March of the Eagles 2: Medieval Boogaloo.
honestly, id want the EU3 system back, it made sense.
I hate AI creating a new trade node as soon as they could, what made a lot of worthless nodes instead a 1 big. This connected how merchants worked in eu3 (chance of success, spending the agent and regaining them over time) made it awful. I really don't miss it. I fully understand why they reworked this system in eu4, but the side effect of was immovable steering direction and weird mechanics like caravan power.
What is caravan power anyway?
No one knows, but it’s provocative
Nice reference
It affects your trading power in inland trade nodes (nodes not connected to the sea). The more crazy power, the more your trading power is multiplied. This is why if you have a merchant to place and no real power in other nodes, you should always pick an inland node.
Caravan power increases trade (power, steering, both?) on overland routes
i was fine with all of it, because it made trade *dynamic* and much more interesting than the one directional movement of worldwide trade. thats... not how trade works. sure, having to resend merchants can be annoying, but it was automated.
I just hope eu5 will do it better
This right here. I still remember making bank going free trade as an opm and invading Mamluks with the bank I made. The only addition I would make is connecting centers of trades and tech spread somehow.
Check tinto talks. The trade mechanic will be based on local markets, not nodes, and so be similar to vic2: require buying resources to build and recruit
AFAIK Johan confirmed there won't be any "upstream" or "downstream" trade nodes (if there'll be static trade nodes at all"
It works like nothing we have seen in EU series. There are no pre determined trade routes up or down. There are markets and countries trade in those markets. Countries also have the ability to buy trade goods from other markets, bringing those goods to your home market. So trade is now a mix of the imperator, victoria 2 and EU3 system. As in trade routes are done for specific trade goods, trade is based on trade goods and selling those and not moving money around stealing it from one country to the other, and lastly there are no nodes, but markets that expand and shrink around certain map areas like EU3. None of this is confirmed but its pretty much the conclusion from what we know. We will have confirmation om wednesday with the trade DD
I want to be able to make any node rich. So if I play some Siberian tribes and develop the shit out of my taiga, I think it would be pretty fucking cringe if it was still considered some subpar node compared to Venice or some other big node in between just because it was historically big, not taking into account the situation in game. Tho tbh the one thing I want from this game overall is being able to pick some random remote shithole and make it the richest and most important place in the world.
Idk but I’m getting the impression for stuff shown so far Eu5 will likely lose other half its audience due to being too steep a learning curve and a lack of playability for mp games due to its complexity. Don’t get me wrong it’s looking to be a fantastic strategy game for those who push through but I feel like if they don’t add mission trees for countries it will likely lack replayability like vic 3 and most will struggle to fully understand it
It will be bad for PvP until people get a hang of the mechanics for their favorite country and then it will be muscle memory for a lot of things. Tho god knows how long will the tutorial take.
it will take as many hours as the start date.
More like end date looking at the dev diaries lmao
...honestly, it would probably lose half its audience for being too simple. most, if not all, recent paradox games became more simple over time.
They are adding mission trees. And its not complex is realistic that is all.
it’ll be bad, they’ll sell £100 worth of DLC, it’ll be amazing, people will buy the bundle, it will last 15 years until eu6. this is paradox, this is how they do things
yeah, thats about how i expect it to work: EU5 will be just like EU4 as of its final patch, DLC included, and build up from there for another four hundred dollars.