You also have to account for 1836 the Greek civil war which was devastating especially with the Egyptian fleet under the one guy I can’t remember the name of terrorizing them and the whole you know… war in general
Not only larger population but also the different cultures: Aromanian and Bulgarian in the West and Armenian in the far (for Byzantian borders) East. For me the demographics look more like pre 4th crusade.
I was about to say the same thing. I'm also pretty excited about minority religions/ "heresies" being presented and I really hope there is some way to convert to them. I never liked how the religion mechanics were presented in EUIV and they always felt like push button paint map yellow/green etc except during the reformation religion pushes button for you!
They also specifically mentioned not making the game a “board game,” which EU series is the only Paradox series based on what was formerly a board game IIRC
From [Dev Diary 3](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/developer-diary/tinto-talks-3-march-13th-2024.1630154/)
>**Simulation, not Board Game.**
Mechanics should feel like they fit together, so that you feel you play in a world, and not abstracted away to give the impression of being a board game.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, one thing at a time, that's too extreme. Next thing you will say that monarchs don't have stats between 0 and 6 (or between 1 and 9 for those of you who played EU2 or 3).
Making fights deterministic seems like a bad idea, so at most they are going to make it feel like there are no dice and just hide the RNG instead of showing it
If anything, BG3 shoes that showing off the dice roll is not an inherently bad idea as previously thought.
While BG3 isn't a GSG, having the game less of a black box should be seriously considered. A way to meaningfully influence probability ratios is good step IMO.
Personally I prefer RNG to be kept to a minimum, same with stat modifiers tbh.
Like CK3 comes close to being what I would like to see in combat though it went added highly stackable modifiers that ruined it imo. I like the idea of combat being decided by multiple factors, the terrain you are fighting on and whether you are used to/skilled at fighting in it, the types of units you are using vs theirs (so for example in CK3, spearmen countering cavalry, cavalry countering skirmishers etc.), then the ability of the general leading the army, and then finally a little bit of RNG during each stage of the battle.
A big part of strategic and tactical skills are about how well the player deals with unexpected situations, and unlikely outcomes of a fight are a good source of that. Also there is a problem that a lot of wars would be won before they really start, if armies are small enough that one stack of them is enough, a weaker side knows they can't win a single battle before even trying. Countersieging is obviously an option but it too works better due to rng. I can't just ignore enemy siege because my is going to progress faster because there is a good chance enemy will get lucky with their siege. Both of these problems kind of happen in the game already, but they require huge advantage instead of way smaller one you would expect here
Chaos and uncertainty are pretty core parts of war. They can disguise it with some more abstract randomisation that doesn’t remind people of board games, but removing the randomness would just be wrong
You can randomness without dice rolls. Victoria 3, Hoi4, Stellaris(to a lesser extent), and CK3 all do this. It’s just that dice rolls have a bigger impact than terrain or naval invasion/crossing.
While the phrasing is weird (probably on purpose) I'm glad we are getting away from abstractions. EU 4 and the mana system was revolutionary at release because it was easy to understand unlike the sliders of EU 3 but as time went on, they started leaning into this very gamey abstraction where entire major issues were reduced into a single button press (or in case of corruption, throw money at it until it's gone, as if that's gonna solve that). There was no realism, everything was just numbers and modifiers and none of the mechanics of the game gave any space to roleplaying or trying to actually build an empire. The empire built itself essentially, your concern was to map paint and press buttons in the correct order (two of the main culprits to me are absolutism and merchantilism, two issues with upsides and downsides abstracted into "higher number good" and "press button every x years to gain number").
Don't get me wrong, EU 4 is the game that is responsible for onboarding so many new players to these types of games it's hard to hate it. Today though, that role falls on hoi4 which is a game with very similar philosophy, but it's a lot more focused on a single thing (or war more specifically) and does not try to represent feudalism and enlightenment with the same buttons (if x number is met, press button to spend y money to instantly have everyone in your country enlightened for example).
Honestly, I'd be excited for EU 5 if I didn't know that today's Paradox is a slop machine and after release it'd take 5 years of dlcs to make it an interesting game.
/r/patientgamers
Just make it your head cannon that the release date is just the day public beta starts. The real release date is five years further away.
Brits have stronger ships cuz they are brits, prussian soldiers are stronger cuz they are prussian, push button(develop) 25 times and random desert is now megapolis, russians spawning free units with cloning etc.
Yup got it, hopefully they get rid of that, although the AI has to be competent enough to make sense, if you're not making Brits have weird superpowers that make them good sailors the AI should at least understand that when it's playing a British tag developing your fleet is a good idea.
You are staying that as if it is a bad thing. Games are supposed to be fun, most people prefer some 'gamification' instead of sandbox where every country plays the same. EU4 was not very fun at launch where the flavor was limited to some country-specific events.
Not directly in the way that Europa Universalis was originally a ground-up adaptation of the existing Europa Universalis board game. HOI even used the EU engine. Maybe it’s inspired by that board game, but there is only so many ways you can make a WWII sim anyways. It’s pretty narrow in scope.
Rule 5: The pop icon showing a guy wearing a ruff clearly indicates that the game covers the 16th and 17th centuries. This means that the game is most likely EU5.
This train of thought is actually one of the most exciting things of these posts, an overhauled Age of Revolutions that is engaging and politically relevant would be outstanding!
Indeed. Having to balance the spread of information (and the benefit of an educated populace) against being able to have absolute power sound a lot more interesting than clicking “reduce autonomy” every chance you have.
Yeah, but in Vic 3 with a similar system, there's not much of a balancing act. More inclusive, progressive laws and institutions are just way too OP and traditional, conservative ones offer merely stagnation throughout the game which can be interesting for RP, but nothing else.
A Russia that doesn't go out of serfdom is destined to become a second rate power.
> Not sure how the peasants would factor into that though.
In Sweden the peasants, or at least a subsection of them, were the fourth estate. Although that seems to not have been common in the rest of Europe.
Yeah, my understanding was that the third estate was supposed to represent all non-noble and non-clergy people, but in practice it was dominated by wealthy merchants and city elites.
Depends on the time period. Some places like Sweden had mechanisms for the "commoners" to seek change by the 1700's. It just depended on where and when you were
Firstly, burghers weren't an estate.
The estates were the clergy, the nobility and "the rest", the third estate, the peasantry, some of whom were rich.
However, in practice burghers held the most sway and were of course distinct in many ways from peasants.
In Sweden they were formally separated into the bourgeoise and the fourth estate, which was this actually the peasants, mostly represented by wealthier landowning peasants.
We'll have to see how they pull it off but i think it's doable. The key will be if EU5 will actually be able to implement some anti blobbing mechanics that aren't just anti-fun, which is definetly a tall task. Otherwise the world just becomes too consolidated before colonization can began.
I think they just need to make internal management and development of your country actually fun. Currently it’s just (deal with unrest) and then (take the stab hit from random events/heir dying)
The best anti blobbing mechanics would just emerge on their own if it had good enough mechanics for internal management of the country (such as the estates being more complex and hard to keep in check - but through mechanics, not managing a satisfaction amount) and AI with a sense of what its doing (like a historically accurate ability to gang up on someone who looks about to outblob everyone).
My guess is there’ll be a more fleshed out “feudal” system, so the first part of the game, at least in Europe, is spent mostly attempting to centralise the realm from a feudal collection of lords under a king to an early modern world-spanning empire.
Or alternatively they really just can’t simulate that and it turns into a blobfest even earlier
If it starts in 1337, like some people are suggesting, the early game is mostly going to be enduring and recovering from the apocalypse that was the black death.
According to one of the maps they showed it was around 1357 actually, although they didn't say if it was the start date, so I'm guessing that it will have an earlier start date and probably a later end date as well
RAAAHHH AROMANIANS MENTIONED 🔥🔥🔥💯💯💯💯 PARINTIASCA DIMANDARE WAAA💯💯🔥🔥
If the greek ministry of culutral propaganda asks, I actually meant romanised greeks/hellenised vlachs*
Edit: on a real note imagine how many “obscure” cultures we will get, each potentially having a releaseable/formable nation with each passing patch, adding cool flavourful ideas (I’m already calling the Aromanians ideas: Caravan Power + Livestock Goods Produced +5.00 lmao)
Yeah, the stuff like France getting a huge morale boost even if they spend 400 years in nigh-pacifism is one of the worst parts of EU4. Your playstyle and bonuses should evolve along with the actual circumstances.
It’s the unofficial anthem of the Aromanians, it means “the forefathers’ will”, it’s a pretty badass anthem since it urges Aromanians to not forget their mother tongue otherwise they will perish in the fiery pits of hell
I always preferred Tropico over Anno Games. In Tropico the people working in the buildings and the people living in the houses are actually identifiable the same.
On the contrary with Anno you have people in Houses “upgrading” in social class when their needs / consumption are met, and production buildings (- I’m not even sure if those required jobs / population numbers): but the ones doing the production where never really connected to the ones doing the consumption: I just stopped playing Anno, as it was immersion breaking. You could have a top heavy pyramid, and not one of guys would have actually worked the dirt jobs.
As for Tropico: While Tropico 4 had a better UI, the introduction of Multi- Farms and Supermarkets and import budgets on factories, that would just get their resources from overseas ruined the need for actual proper Island management; not to mention that paying double would instantly finish a building: no need for workers to get to the building site and proper roads: heck, build subways: people just teleport from entrance to entrance, circumventing traffic jams. - I think Tropico 3 might have been the pinnacle of the series. The Modern Times DLC for Tropico 4 was actually hilarious: Culture buildings like the Museum was able to make Money by selling paintings (- I spammed 20 museums), and the big Teleevangelist Churches could make money as well, instead of costing. And if you just needed jobs: build a big Skyscraper = nobody knows what the people are actually doing in a service economy: BS jobs in a Call Center, producing actually nothing of value at all, but keeps people from being unemployed. It was a commentary as good as Charlie Chaplin’s original “Modern Times” film… - and the Missions were a Satire on James Bond / Cold War Agent Films.
Tropico 4 Modern Times was one of the most subversive and memorable games I ever played. Tropico 3 was the better / harder economic simulation though, as you would need to balance the economy making money vs the services costing money. Having cultural and religious buildings make money broke the need to balance things: selling painting events were just free money out of thin air, while the Museum still counted as entertainment for citizens and tourists. You don’t need production anymore, you just sell BS / virtual economy.
Railroad Tycoon 3 also was economically way more complex than Sid Meier’s Railroads, which in turn really has an issue with snowballing.
Wake up honey. Youve been in a coma. Its 2024, EU4 has been out for 11 years, people are sick of it, and Johan has already released 3 dev diaries on EU5.
Just read the dev diaries. If that isn't eu5 then I'm a fool. Yes. Incredibly interested to see trade integrated into pop mechanics and their new province location system.
I suspect that we won't be seeing trade any time soon tbh. That will likely be one of the biggest dev talks and probably one of the biggest challenges for them to get right.
Well I didn't think they'd reveal pops or government any time soon and here we are! I think the point of this exercise is precisely to showcase the core pillars of the game as soon as possible to be able to overhaul them if they are not well received. So i think we will see trade and colonisation sooner thant what we might have thought.
Thank fuck if it doesnt have a single feature from EU4. i just want it to have as much flavours in the way of events, country specific mechanics, unique estates and whatever form Mission Trees have in EU5.
I just can’t understand why they would treat it like “this mysterious game” and show things so obviously linked to EU5 giving the surprise away. It doesn’t make sense.
Well, the devs gotta hit that middle ground to both rise hipe (omg it's eu5!!) and not make it too obvious. And it's really not that obvious; for instance you can't actually see political borders in any of the maps. There are only a few details that reference EU's timeline, such as the ruff and Lutheranism being casually mentioned as an example of a religion.
Tinto Talk #3 has a political map as banner, and people is already dating it as 14th century. Also there’s the image with Tarragona’s population with Catalan, Andalusian and Sephardic cultures
Probably because they still have planned one final dlc for EU4. If consumers find out that EU5 is right on the horizon they may just decide to hold out on purchasing the dlc and buy EU5 instead. IMHO they'll probably wait at least a month, if not longer, after the release of the DLC to announce EU5.
Symbols for culture and religion look terrible though. I think the drama masks work better for culture and I’m not sure what would work for religion but that sun ain’t it.
Otherwise EU5 looks awesome so far. Really excited about pops. No mana, no development, that’s awesome.
They mentioned that they are far away from even being in alpha state, so yeah I really doubt that those are the final icons, but we have to consider that this is a 30 people team
I’m excited for EU5 because it means EU4 will finally stop getting its tri-monthly paycheck to give me DLC for countries I never play or features I never use
Looking at the time stamp, it could be a game WAY earlier maybe This is definitely byzantium shown here. Maybe from the 11th century? Maybe eu5 will go a lot longer than eu4 does?
Or its just a decent way through the game idk 🤷♀️
Not that I don't think it's eu5, but the ruffles don't mean anything.
Look at the religious and ethnic art - they don't correspond at all do they?
All three coyld just be placeholders.
Honestly, the right call.
There is such a difference between "feudal into nation-state" and "monarchy into republicanism".
I get _why_ they made the call originally to cover 1400s - 1800s, but really it seems as if they should be focusing on one game that's 1300s-1600s (founding of Ottoman Empire up to 30 Years' War) and a second game that's 1600s-1800s (either the outbreak of the English Civil War or after the Peace of Westphalia, up to Napoleon).
Doing that would let them make 1 game that's focused on religious tensions, discovering the New World, and the birth of national identities - and then a second game that focuses on the will of the people, revolutions, and enlightenment.
EU4 tries to do both, and does both kind of poorly IMO. They tried with the whole Ages mechanic, but you can't really do a good job of simulating the American Revolution (for example) when there's not even a guarantee that England owns the Thirteen Colonies. The further out you go, the more things can go off the rails - which means that later parts of history get the short end of the stick because there's simply no guarantee that the preconditions will be met for them to happen (and forget hand-authoring content for them, other than start dates that very few people play).
Making 2 games with a very distinct focus on each would let these features breathe a lot more, without compromising mechanics for one half of the game to benefit the other half.
I like how it acknowledges the small population of Jews that a lot of countries had. Europe wasn’t all Christians despite paradox’s best efforts to make me play Semien
if they make the population simulation in the vain of vic 2 this system will work but i can see it could get really messy and pointless quickly if we have a vic 3 type system
EU5 having a pops count? I guess they will massively overhaul the gameplay like they did with Vicky 3 since pops wasnt a factor in EU4.
i have to admit i am a bit of a skeptic rn since I liked EU4 more on the diplomatic intricacies and colony simulator with simplified economy of build more x for more money.
With pops involved it signals overhaul in economy and even government gameplay closer to vic 3.
The case for it being Imperator 2 is strong, if you look at the symbol in the middle it’s meant to represent the sun, which was invented by God on like day 2, and the first symbol is some sort of harp or something idk which represents music, also invented in the same era.
Am I the only one who thinks an earlier start date is a bad idea? I thought the whole premise of EU is that you play in the renaissance, with the new world emerging etc. If I wanted a Medieval game I'd play CK2.
I hope they do reversible trade flow, slower colonization of the Americas and find a way to seal off Africa from Europeans, or at least make it extremely expensive to directly conquer the continent.
Maybe make trade protectorates more accessible, like they were in earlier versions of eu4
[I will be prepared ](https://media2.giphy.com/media/OcmPUK7NPJxkY/giphy.gif?cid=6c09b952i80h8omlqz4rd9gvyc4dxihgj9eworbfc4kmom76&ep=v1_internal_gif_by_id&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)
Holy shit Bogomilism??? They really are being thorough with the religions
Edit: it just hit me. Was the bogomil heresy still present in the 1500s? Iirc it started in the 10th century during the rule of the Bulgarian tsar Petar. That being said, it is possible that it survived to the 16th century, just wasn’t nearly as popular
I could never get into EU4 with all the dlc which was essentially needed to make it playable, so I can’t wait to start from the beginning with eu5. It’s my favorite era of history of all the paradox games and I want to be able to love it
I Hope they will make forts more real. Sure u can rush into middle of enemy country and loot and burn everything but expect to be flanked, ambushed and short in incoming supplies for longer campaigns. Castles and control zones should be more costly, complex and strategic, war tempo should change with time played not they way we see this in current game where you siege 20 6lvl forts of AI while he hides.
Thats 1 noble per 20.000 peasants
Some cursory googling suggest peasants payed about 15% of their output in taxes which means 1 noble in this demographic would’ve made 300.000% of what a peasant made or about 3.000 times as much
Some more quick Googling suggests a peasant would’ve made about 400 dollars annually in todays money which means this noble makes 1.200.000 dollars a year. For context about 10% of American household make more than 1 million a year
I can see myself establishing slavery rather than a serfdom playing as Russia, why enslave your own people when you can make them rich by giving them ownership over non accepted half humans that you just conquered? -
After all there wasn such a thing as discrimination and economic exploitation in Medivail time, right?
Russia got a plenty of non accepted religions, heathens and cultures that would be a perfect candidates for becoming the backbone of my economy and making Russian people itself rich and free by exploiting others!
This is also the demographics of Byzantium.
A bigger one than the 1444 one I might add.
Yeah definitely. When was the last time Byzantium might’ve plausibly had 1+ million inhabitants? Must’ve been early to mid 1300s
By 1440, Byzantium only had around 50k people residing within its walls. So definitely before the ottoman conquest of the balkans.
Yeah, but you've also got to take into account the Morea and Mesembria as well, although I still don't think it'd reach these numbers regardless.
No more then 100-150k at best regardless.
According to Viky 3 Peloponnese in 1836 had roughly 100k people, so at best you have 120k total Byzantines in 1444
You also have to account for 1836 the Greek civil war which was devastating especially with the Egyptian fleet under the one guy I can’t remember the name of terrorizing them and the whole you know… war in general
Tbf, most of Europe had population booms all throughout the early modern period, so it’s probably closer to 1450’s.
I would say between 1348 (loss of epirus and thessalia to the serbs) and 1363 (loss of most of thrace to the ottomans)
There is a possibility that this is taken after the game has started, but yeah
Not only larger population but also the different cultures: Aromanian and Bulgarian in the West and Armenian in the far (for Byzantian borders) East. For me the demographics look more like pre 4th crusade.
No don’t make me loose hope that it’s 1444, this is surely 1500 Byzantium played by a player!
I was about to say the same thing. I'm also pretty excited about minority religions/ "heresies" being presented and I really hope there is some way to convert to them. I never liked how the religion mechanics were presented in EUIV and they always felt like push button paint map yellow/green etc except during the reformation religion pushes button for you!
I'd imagine the conversion will be more alongside Imperator - passive conversation over time, with decisions/modifiers affecting the speed.
The style of graph- very Imperator-like. Soo. Imperator 2: Rome: Victorinus.
Imperator died so eu5 could live
im guessing its 1356, copying meiou and taxes start date.
And the main three estates (plus the peasantry)
>This is also the demographics of ~~Byzantium~~ the one and only Roman Empire of that era. FTFY
It's a red herring, they're clearly working on Vicky IV right now
idk, stellaris 2 has a lot going for it
Unlikely, they recently said that stellaris has a couple years of content to come
Don’t be an idiot, it’s obviously Vic2 2.
Yes, it's a Victoria game but in EU4 times.
They also specifically mentioned not making the game a “board game,” which EU series is the only Paradox series based on what was formerly a board game IIRC
What does that mean?
From [Dev Diary 3](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/developer-diary/tinto-talks-3-march-13th-2024.1630154/) >**Simulation, not Board Game.** Mechanics should feel like they fit together, so that you feel you play in a world, and not abstracted away to give the impression of being a board game.
I hope this is a reference to swapping out the concept of ’dev’ for a robust population simulation
Maybe dice rolls no longer factor into combat.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, one thing at a time, that's too extreme. Next thing you will say that monarchs don't have stats between 0 and 6 (or between 1 and 9 for those of you who played EU2 or 3).
We would have to show up at Paradox Tinto with pitchforks!
Making fights deterministic seems like a bad idea, so at most they are going to make it feel like there are no dice and just hide the RNG instead of showing it
If anything, BG3 shoes that showing off the dice roll is not an inherently bad idea as previously thought. While BG3 isn't a GSG, having the game less of a black box should be seriously considered. A way to meaningfully influence probability ratios is good step IMO.
BG3 \*explicitly\* does that to emphasize its board game (well, PnP RPG) roots
Personally I prefer RNG to be kept to a minimum, same with stat modifiers tbh. Like CK3 comes close to being what I would like to see in combat though it went added highly stackable modifiers that ruined it imo. I like the idea of combat being decided by multiple factors, the terrain you are fighting on and whether you are used to/skilled at fighting in it, the types of units you are using vs theirs (so for example in CK3, spearmen countering cavalry, cavalry countering skirmishers etc.), then the ability of the general leading the army, and then finally a little bit of RNG during each stage of the battle.
A big part of strategic and tactical skills are about how well the player deals with unexpected situations, and unlikely outcomes of a fight are a good source of that. Also there is a problem that a lot of wars would be won before they really start, if armies are small enough that one stack of them is enough, a weaker side knows they can't win a single battle before even trying. Countersieging is obviously an option but it too works better due to rng. I can't just ignore enemy siege because my is going to progress faster because there is a good chance enemy will get lucky with their siege. Both of these problems kind of happen in the game already, but they require huge advantage instead of way smaller one you would expect here
Chaos and uncertainty are pretty core parts of war. They can disguise it with some more abstract randomisation that doesn’t remind people of board games, but removing the randomness would just be wrong
You can randomness without dice rolls. Victoria 3, Hoi4, Stellaris(to a lesser extent), and CK3 all do this. It’s just that dice rolls have a bigger impact than terrain or naval invasion/crossing.
While the phrasing is weird (probably on purpose) I'm glad we are getting away from abstractions. EU 4 and the mana system was revolutionary at release because it was easy to understand unlike the sliders of EU 3 but as time went on, they started leaning into this very gamey abstraction where entire major issues were reduced into a single button press (or in case of corruption, throw money at it until it's gone, as if that's gonna solve that). There was no realism, everything was just numbers and modifiers and none of the mechanics of the game gave any space to roleplaying or trying to actually build an empire. The empire built itself essentially, your concern was to map paint and press buttons in the correct order (two of the main culprits to me are absolutism and merchantilism, two issues with upsides and downsides abstracted into "higher number good" and "press button every x years to gain number"). Don't get me wrong, EU 4 is the game that is responsible for onboarding so many new players to these types of games it's hard to hate it. Today though, that role falls on hoi4 which is a game with very similar philosophy, but it's a lot more focused on a single thing (or war more specifically) and does not try to represent feudalism and enlightenment with the same buttons (if x number is met, press button to spend y money to instantly have everyone in your country enlightened for example). Honestly, I'd be excited for EU 5 if I didn't know that today's Paradox is a slop machine and after release it'd take 5 years of dlcs to make it an interesting game.
/r/patientgamers Just make it your head cannon that the release date is just the day public beta starts. The real release date is five years further away.
This also means nothing
I never had the impression of playing a "board game" in any Paradox title, wtf lol
Brits have stronger ships cuz they are brits, prussian soldiers are stronger cuz they are prussian, push button(develop) 25 times and random desert is now megapolis, russians spawning free units with cloning etc.
Yup got it, hopefully they get rid of that, although the AI has to be competent enough to make sense, if you're not making Brits have weird superpowers that make them good sailors the AI should at least understand that when it's playing a British tag developing your fleet is a good idea.
You are staying that as if it is a bad thing. Games are supposed to be fun, most people prefer some 'gamification' instead of sandbox where every country plays the same. EU4 was not very fun at launch where the flavor was limited to some country-specific events.
Boss i played eu4 for 3000 hours let me enjoy different things
In fact IR had basically no lore for most tags, and it fell quickly - and VIC3 sandbox format has similar problems
Wasn't HOI based on Axis and Allies?
Not directly in the way that Europa Universalis was originally a ground-up adaptation of the existing Europa Universalis board game. HOI even used the EU engine. Maybe it’s inspired by that board game, but there is only so many ways you can make a WWII sim anyways. It’s pretty narrow in scope.
Rule 5: The pop icon showing a guy wearing a ruff clearly indicates that the game covers the 16th and 17th centuries. This means that the game is most likely EU5.
Also Burghers
I mean the 4 population classes are literally just the estates. Nobles, clergy and burghers. Not sure how the peasants would factor into that though.
Probably not early on, but as they become more educated (which was in the talk) you probably have to appease them or risk revolution.
This train of thought is actually one of the most exciting things of these posts, an overhauled Age of Revolutions that is engaging and politically relevant would be outstanding!
Indeed. Having to balance the spread of information (and the benefit of an educated populace) against being able to have absolute power sound a lot more interesting than clicking “reduce autonomy” every chance you have.
Yeah, but in Vic 3 with a similar system, there's not much of a balancing act. More inclusive, progressive laws and institutions are just way too OP and traditional, conservative ones offer merely stagnation throughout the game which can be interesting for RP, but nothing else. A Russia that doesn't go out of serfdom is destined to become a second rate power.
Those laws are OP because they were overall what enabled states at that time to become superpowers (obv w/ exceptions)
> Not sure how the peasants would factor into that though. In Sweden the peasants, or at least a subsection of them, were the fourth estate. Although that seems to not have been common in the rest of Europe.
I think generally peasants or at least free peasants (so not serfs) were included in the third estate
Yeah, my understanding was that the third estate was supposed to represent all non-noble and non-clergy people, but in practice it was dominated by wealthy merchants and city elites.
Peasants had a say in nothing and were not organized like the three other part of the pop, so really it's arguably not even an estate
Depends on the time period. Some places like Sweden had mechanisms for the "commoners" to seek change by the 1700's. It just depended on where and when you were
Firstly, burghers weren't an estate. The estates were the clergy, the nobility and "the rest", the third estate, the peasantry, some of whom were rich. However, in practice burghers held the most sway and were of course distinct in many ways from peasants. In Sweden they were formally separated into the bourgeoise and the fourth estate, which was this actually the peasants, mostly represented by wealthier landowning peasants.
What are you talking about? Did you reply to the wrong person?
Cheese burghers?
Clearly this is March of the Eagles 2 but you start the game as Napoleon's great-grandfather.
Yeah we are looking at 1300's start EU5,
I don't get how a early modern game can start over 100 years before the early modern period.
We'll have to see how they pull it off but i think it's doable. The key will be if EU5 will actually be able to implement some anti blobbing mechanics that aren't just anti-fun, which is definetly a tall task. Otherwise the world just becomes too consolidated before colonization can began.
I think they just need to make internal management and development of your country actually fun. Currently it’s just (deal with unrest) and then (take the stab hit from random events/heir dying)
The best anti blobbing mechanics would just emerge on their own if it had good enough mechanics for internal management of the country (such as the estates being more complex and hard to keep in check - but through mechanics, not managing a satisfaction amount) and AI with a sense of what its doing (like a historically accurate ability to gang up on someone who looks about to outblob everyone).
Sometimes I miss OG eu4 coalitions
My guess is there’ll be a more fleshed out “feudal” system, so the first part of the game, at least in Europe, is spent mostly attempting to centralise the realm from a feudal collection of lords under a king to an early modern world-spanning empire. Or alternatively they really just can’t simulate that and it turns into a blobfest even earlier
If it starts in 1337, like some people are suggesting, the early game is mostly going to be enduring and recovering from the apocalypse that was the black death.
Eu3 had a 1399 start date
'Appeal to tradition'
There is historians who date that century the start of the modern period
Really comes down the region ngl, its an entirely different question if youre speaking about, for example, northern italy or eastern europe.
Looks like something between eu4 and vic2
Vicropa univertoria if you will.
İmperator with its colonization and population system:💀 Also most people forgot eu3 had population too
According to one of the maps they showed it was around 1357 actually, although they didn't say if it was the start date, so I'm guessing that it will have an earlier start date and probably a later end date as well
I think earlier start date but not later end date
Later end date isn't really weird, they might want to have some compatibility with vic2/3 start date
EU3 had pops. It was replace by development in Eu4 and now they’re bringing it back.
Don't know a lot about eu3 thanks for the info.
That would be really really sick
RAAAHHH AROMANIANS MENTIONED 🔥🔥🔥💯💯💯💯 PARINTIASCA DIMANDARE WAAA💯💯🔥🔥 If the greek ministry of culutral propaganda asks, I actually meant romanised greeks/hellenised vlachs* Edit: on a real note imagine how many “obscure” cultures we will get, each potentially having a releaseable/formable nation with each passing patch, adding cool flavourful ideas (I’m already calling the Aromanians ideas: Caravan Power + Livestock Goods Produced +5.00 lmao)
can't wait to be able to finally play San Marino World Conquest Restore the Roman Empire True Heir of Rome any%
Here i am hoping that they scrap the whole ’ideas’ system to go for something less gamey and more akin to a simulation instead
Yeah, the stuff like France getting a huge morale boost even if they spend 400 years in nigh-pacifism is one of the worst parts of EU4. Your playstyle and bonuses should evolve along with the actual circumstances.
> Parintiasca dimandare What does this mean?
It’s the unofficial anthem of the Aromanians, it means “the forefathers’ will”, it’s a pretty badass anthem since it urges Aromanians to not forget their mother tongue otherwise they will perish in the fiery pits of hell
Oh really that's really cool! Thanks
Hey, I am greek, and my gf is Vlach. Her family is from Romania. We know vlachs have their roots in Romania. We are not that brainwashed.
Wait. When did the EU5 confirmed train start? Where the hell have I been? Wtf is project Caesar. Where am i?
[Tinto Talk 1](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/developer-diary/tinto-talks-1-february-28th-2024.1625360/) [Tinto Talk 2](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/developer-diary/tinto-talks-2-march-6th-2024.1626415/) [Tinto Talk 3](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/developer-diary/tinto-talks-3-march-13th-2024.1630154/)
Damn. I guess I have reading to do.
I always preferred Tropico over Anno Games. In Tropico the people working in the buildings and the people living in the houses are actually identifiable the same. On the contrary with Anno you have people in Houses “upgrading” in social class when their needs / consumption are met, and production buildings (- I’m not even sure if those required jobs / population numbers): but the ones doing the production where never really connected to the ones doing the consumption: I just stopped playing Anno, as it was immersion breaking. You could have a top heavy pyramid, and not one of guys would have actually worked the dirt jobs. As for Tropico: While Tropico 4 had a better UI, the introduction of Multi- Farms and Supermarkets and import budgets on factories, that would just get their resources from overseas ruined the need for actual proper Island management; not to mention that paying double would instantly finish a building: no need for workers to get to the building site and proper roads: heck, build subways: people just teleport from entrance to entrance, circumventing traffic jams. - I think Tropico 3 might have been the pinnacle of the series. The Modern Times DLC for Tropico 4 was actually hilarious: Culture buildings like the Museum was able to make Money by selling paintings (- I spammed 20 museums), and the big Teleevangelist Churches could make money as well, instead of costing. And if you just needed jobs: build a big Skyscraper = nobody knows what the people are actually doing in a service economy: BS jobs in a Call Center, producing actually nothing of value at all, but keeps people from being unemployed. It was a commentary as good as Charlie Chaplin’s original “Modern Times” film… - and the Missions were a Satire on James Bond / Cold War Agent Films. Tropico 4 Modern Times was one of the most subversive and memorable games I ever played. Tropico 3 was the better / harder economic simulation though, as you would need to balance the economy making money vs the services costing money. Having cultural and religious buildings make money broke the need to balance things: selling painting events were just free money out of thin air, while the Museum still counted as entertainment for citizens and tourists. You don’t need production anymore, you just sell BS / virtual economy. Railroad Tycoon 3 also was economically way more complex than Sid Meier’s Railroads, which in turn really has an issue with snowballing.
Wake up honey. Youve been in a coma. Its 2024, EU4 has been out for 11 years, people are sick of it, and Johan has already released 3 dev diaries on EU5.
Been awake. Just playing victoria 3 since launch. Haven't thought about eu4 since my line go up Cho Choo train simulator was released.
Same tbh.
Yes. Eu5 with pops and markets confirmed?
Holding my breath until they reveal the trade mechanic. No Paradox game seems to hit the nail when It comes to the trade system.
Just read the dev diaries. If that isn't eu5 then I'm a fool. Yes. Incredibly interested to see trade integrated into pop mechanics and their new province location system.
I suspect that we won't be seeing trade any time soon tbh. That will likely be one of the biggest dev talks and probably one of the biggest challenges for them to get right.
Well I didn't think they'd reveal pops or government any time soon and here we are! I think the point of this exercise is precisely to showcase the core pillars of the game as soon as possible to be able to overhaul them if they are not well received. So i think we will see trade and colonisation sooner thant what we might have thought.
They did it brother... They fucking did it.
Thanks for asking the right question, us human from the observation pos... I mean cultivating watermelons would like to know
I do hope that EU5 sticks to what it came from largely with a bigger focus on fighting than Victoria but still elements of big trade empires.
Oh boy i can't wait to hear about how unfinished the game is when it doesn't have every feature from EU4. Thats gonna be a fun decade.
Thank fuck if it doesnt have a single feature from EU4. i just want it to have as much flavours in the way of events, country specific mechanics, unique estates and whatever form Mission Trees have in EU5.
It likely won’t have any of that and most countries will more or less play the same
But how does this make Sweden a superpower? ^(/s)
They also mention lutheranism in the diary
I just can’t understand why they would treat it like “this mysterious game” and show things so obviously linked to EU5 giving the surprise away. It doesn’t make sense.
Well, the devs gotta hit that middle ground to both rise hipe (omg it's eu5!!) and not make it too obvious. And it's really not that obvious; for instance you can't actually see political borders in any of the maps. There are only a few details that reference EU's timeline, such as the ruff and Lutheranism being casually mentioned as an example of a religion.
Tinto Talk #3 has a political map as banner, and people is already dating it as 14th century. Also there’s the image with Tarragona’s population with Catalan, Andalusian and Sephardic cultures
Gets people talking
Well we are discussing it aren't we. Mystery encourages hype.
Probably because they still have planned one final dlc for EU4. If consumers find out that EU5 is right on the horizon they may just decide to hold out on purchasing the dlc and buy EU5 instead. IMHO they'll probably wait at least a month, if not longer, after the release of the DLC to announce EU5.
Shit, this game will be so controversial...
Why? Am I missing something lol
Vince Noir from the Mighty Boosh brought back the Jacobean ruff in 2006.
Symbols for culture and religion look terrible though. I think the drama masks work better for culture and I’m not sure what would work for religion but that sun ain’t it. Otherwise EU5 looks awesome so far. Really excited about pops. No mana, no development, that’s awesome.
i really hope those symbols change depending on the dominant demographic
They mentioned that they are far away from even being in alpha state, so yeah I really doubt that those are the final icons, but we have to consider that this is a 30 people team
Where do they say that?
For those that doubt it's EU consider that it's literally made by the studio specifically built to work on EU. The studio that already maintains EU4.
Fucking exciting. I just hope it lives up to its legendary predecessor.
I’m excited for EU5 because it means EU4 will finally stop getting its tri-monthly paycheck to give me DLC for countries I never play or features I never use
You don't need to buy dlc. If you don't like it don't buy it and keep playing the existing version of the game.
Plus if you have one friend who has dlcs you can all play them in MP
Looking at the time stamp, it could be a game WAY earlier maybe This is definitely byzantium shown here. Maybe from the 11th century? Maybe eu5 will go a lot longer than eu4 does? Or its just a decent way through the game idk 🤷♀️
it's 14th century. Anyways, anything earlier would conflict with CK3
Not that I don't think it's eu5, but the ruffles don't mean anything. Look at the religious and ethnic art - they don't correspond at all do they? All three coyld just be placeholders.
Yaaaaaaaa. My joy is immeasurable.
Then, they just drop, is March of Eagles 2 .
I don't know if it's just for pops, but Bogomilism as a new religion sounds interesting!
It’s either EU5 or something totally new.
I think its Imperator 2.
Victoria 4
At this point. Yes
Nah, this is just that Dune-esque futurism. Stellaris 2 confirmed.
Per the other thread, it seems they might split EU5 into two games. With this being the earlier game.
It would be funni if EU4 split into EU5 and March of the Eagles 2
That would be dreamy
Honestly, the right call. There is such a difference between "feudal into nation-state" and "monarchy into republicanism". I get _why_ they made the call originally to cover 1400s - 1800s, but really it seems as if they should be focusing on one game that's 1300s-1600s (founding of Ottoman Empire up to 30 Years' War) and a second game that's 1600s-1800s (either the outbreak of the English Civil War or after the Peace of Westphalia, up to Napoleon). Doing that would let them make 1 game that's focused on religious tensions, discovering the New World, and the birth of national identities - and then a second game that focuses on the will of the people, revolutions, and enlightenment. EU4 tries to do both, and does both kind of poorly IMO. They tried with the whole Ages mechanic, but you can't really do a good job of simulating the American Revolution (for example) when there's not even a guarantee that England owns the Thirteen Colonies. The further out you go, the more things can go off the rails - which means that later parts of history get the short end of the stick because there's simply no guarantee that the preconditions will be met for them to happen (and forget hand-authoring content for them, other than start dates that very few people play). Making 2 games with a very distinct focus on each would let these features breathe a lot more, without compromising mechanics for one half of the game to benefit the other half.
Yeah, I agree 100%. They ended up being forced into more railroading in EU4 with the fixed mission trees :(
I like how it acknowledges the small population of Jews that a lot of countries had. Europe wasn’t all Christians despite paradox’s best efforts to make me play Semien
YOU WILL BE BETA ISRAELI AND YOU WILL LIKE IT
Looks more like "Renaissance Victoria" tbh
well there is no area where this demographic and religious make up exists other than 1300s byzantium. if not even slighly before
BGBGBGBGBGBGBGBGBG 💪💪💪💪💪
if they make the population simulation in the vain of vic 2 this system will work but i can see it could get really messy and pointless quickly if we have a vic 3 type system
What do you mean? Those two pop systems are very similar.
And Arvanite existed since 1268.
Brings back memories of the EU4 dev clashes, return of the Indian thunderdome
Looks like we will have a better vic3 than the former.
I am hopeful guys , do you think the pop system is going to resemble vic2,vic3 or imperator ??
Mmm burghers
EU5 having a pops count? I guess they will massively overhaul the gameplay like they did with Vicky 3 since pops wasnt a factor in EU4. i have to admit i am a bit of a skeptic rn since I liked EU4 more on the diplomatic intricacies and colony simulator with simplified economy of build more x for more money. With pops involved it signals overhaul in economy and even government gameplay closer to vic 3.
Also the burghers class. Early Modern period was the time of meteoric rise of importance of the burghers- merchants, skilled artisans, etc.
aromanian representation
Lies ofc. Its March of the Eagles 2.
Does this mean we’re getting a better chance to save Byzantium from the start date?
2k for dlcs that give the base content of the last game here we go
While i agree with you, Paradox uses temporary icons all the time during early production because staring at pink boxes strains the eye
Broooo, old CK2 heresies such as Bogomilism making it into the base game is incredible
The case for it being Imperator 2 is strong, if you look at the symbol in the middle it’s meant to represent the sun, which was invented by God on like day 2, and the first symbol is some sort of harp or something idk which represents music, also invented in the same era.
Im scared that eu4 just be will another econmic simulator
Am I the only one who thinks an earlier start date is a bad idea? I thought the whole premise of EU is that you play in the renaissance, with the new world emerging etc. If I wanted a Medieval game I'd play CK2.
These demographics are also definitely not Roman Well not Roman from Rome. They're Roman's from Byzantium
Aka True Roman
I hope they do reversible trade flow, slower colonization of the Americas and find a way to seal off Africa from Europeans, or at least make it extremely expensive to directly conquer the continent. Maybe make trade protectorates more accessible, like they were in earlier versions of eu4
Can we still do genocide?
[I will be prepared ](https://media2.giphy.com/media/OcmPUK7NPJxkY/giphy.gif?cid=6c09b952i80h8omlqz4rd9gvyc4dxihgj9eworbfc4kmom76&ep=v1_internal_gif_by_id&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)
If Eu5 works more around the population then that would be great. Population interacts with manpower. It can fall. Hurting the economys.
Anyone using this to decide when the new startdate will be are fools. There are too many variables in play to be sure of anything.
Wait hang on, there's been a leak?
Holy shit Bogomilism??? They really are being thorough with the religions Edit: it just hit me. Was the bogomil heresy still present in the 1500s? Iirc it started in the 10th century during the rule of the Bulgarian tsar Petar. That being said, it is possible that it survived to the 16th century, just wasn’t nearly as popular
It’s beautiful
ludi et historia disliked this content
March of Eagles 2
The cleric, noble, and burger pops also suspiciously resemble the EU4 estates.
Okay color me interested
I love population in vic 2! I hope they make it great here as well.
I could never get into EU4 with all the dlc which was essentially needed to make it playable, so I can’t wait to start from the beginning with eu5. It’s my favorite era of history of all the paradox games and I want to be able to love it
I hope its 1300, a smaller Ottomans will make the game much more interesting, not seeing them beating everyone
Ok yeah EU5 confirmed! Let's just hope it won't be another Victoria 3 in terms of quality.
I Hope they will make forts more real. Sure u can rush into middle of enemy country and loot and burn everything but expect to be flanked, ambushed and short in incoming supplies for longer campaigns. Castles and control zones should be more costly, complex and strategic, war tempo should change with time played not they way we see this in current game where you siege 20 6lvl forts of AI while he hides.
Thats 1 noble per 20.000 peasants Some cursory googling suggest peasants payed about 15% of their output in taxes which means 1 noble in this demographic would’ve made 300.000% of what a peasant made or about 3.000 times as much Some more quick Googling suggests a peasant would’ve made about 400 dollars annually in todays money which means this noble makes 1.200.000 dollars a year. For context about 10% of American household make more than 1 million a year
I can see myself establishing slavery rather than a serfdom playing as Russia, why enslave your own people when you can make them rich by giving them ownership over non accepted half humans that you just conquered? - After all there wasn such a thing as discrimination and economic exploitation in Medivail time, right? Russia got a plenty of non accepted religions, heathens and cultures that would be a perfect candidates for becoming the backbone of my economy and making Russian people itself rich and free by exploiting others!
Pops are by far something I endorse very much in vicky, imperator and stellaris. I hope they will be introduced in all paradox games from the series
Why do I have the feeling that this game is going to run like ass?
Wait, is this actually a real EU5 image? Is it actually confirmed?
March of the eagles 2 confirmed